Modal agony

[metal56]

Steve's friend at university: Stevie must attend the lecture on Gramsci.
Steve's professor: Stephen must attend the lecture on Gramsci.

Is "must" deontic in both those sentences?

Can be epistemic in both cases, though contextually less likely in the second case.

Can be, yes.

[Andrew Patterson]

Andrew, please confirm: is it suppletive or supplicative? You used both terms in your posts here.

Juan, All the catenatives carry modality. And the different syntactic forms express different modalities. Hence our discussion of bouletic (supplicative) modality.

1. verbs with suppletive action (often called boulomaic modality, don't ask me why it isn't called "suppletive modality", linguists just like to complicate things at times): Beg, Expect, Need and Want; and
2. verbs expressing

It would appear I'm confusing myself by posting late at night on a subject that I haven't looked at in over a year.

Metal, you are aproaching this from a completely different angle to what I have been by looking at bouletic modality as it affects "must" and "have to". I, on the other hand was looking only at the core meaning of the set of verbs that can be followed by both the object, to+infinitive, and to+infinitive namely:
a) Beg, Expect, Need and Want, and
b) would like, would love, would hate and would prefer.
c) have and leave

I found a core meaning of lacking something here and looked around for an adjective that meant this. At least for group a), the word that seemed to fit the idea best was "suppletive" which the SOED defines as "having the attribute of supply deficiencies."

At some point, I got mixed up with the word "supplicative" which the SOED does not define. Dictionary.com does list it as "petitioning humbly; supplicatory."

Naturally, I went back to the SOED to look up supplicatory. It defines it as Expressing, consisting of or containing supplication.

So I looked up supplication in the SOED and it was defined as " the action or act of supplicating; humble or ernest entreaty."

So I looked up supplicate in the SOED which was defined as "beg or entreat humbly, to present a humble petition."

Suppletive, supply, etc and supplicate, supplicative appear to come from different but similar looking latin words supplere "to supply," and supplico "kneel, bow down, request", from sub- "lower" + plico "fold". From these definitions, it would seem that these words were not originally related though some of these verbs express both ideas. With the inclusion of "beg" and the US use of "ask" perhaps one should call it:

Suppletive-supplicative modality.

I'm not even sure if it is bouletic modality, in fact, I think it isn't.

[metal56]

Suppletive-supplicative modality.

I'm not even sure if it is bouletic modality, in fact, I think it isn't.

Maybe we again need a good definition of bouletic/boulemaic modality.

[Andrew Patterson]

Suppletive-supplicative modality.

I'm not even sure if it is bouletic modality, in fact, I think it isn't.

Maybe we again need a good definition of bouletic/boulemaic modality.

From A BRIEF GLOSSARY OF MODALITY
boulomaic modality: can be paraphrased as it is hoped/desired/feared/regretted that…Rescher (1968: 24-6) includes want under boulomaic modality (see also Simpson 1993: 47-8 ). Perkins (1983: 11) classes boulomaic modality as a type of dynamic modality because of the 'disposition' meaning. It could also be said that the disposition comes from the desire of a human source so is similar to deontic volitive modalities where a subject aspires to influence the world. It ranges from not-wanting through not-opposing to wanting. (Palmer (1986: 12) suggests that 'bouletic' would be etymologically preferable.)

I think I saw "want" and jumped on the word boulomaic (which is an alternative for bouletic or is it?) To me "want" in its usual modern use implies a need - suppletive modality (no begging here so not supplicative) and a wish to satisfy that need - bouletic modality. "In want of" which is the implies just a need to me. This is of course the old meaning of "want".

Can you come up with a good definition of bouletic modality?
What about the modalities that I have been calling suppletive and supplicative?
Do you know if there is an accepted term for what I'm talking about?
Is it even modality?

[metal56]

If you wanted to express outside/external/societal obligation, below, which sentence in each pair would you choose?

Pair 1.

a. My children must eat an apple after their meals.

b. My children have to eat an apple after their meals.

…………

Pair 2.

a. At the moment, my children must eat an apple after their meals.

b. My children are having to eat an apple after their meals.

[Andrew Patterson]

If you wanted to express outside/external/societal obligation, below, which sentence in each pair would you choose?

Pair 1.
a. My children must eat an apple after their meals.
b. My children have to eat an apple after their meals.
…………
Pair 2.
a. At the moment, my children must eat an apple after their meals.
b. My children are having to eat an apple after their meals.

I think I can see where you are coming from here by writing, "outside/external/societal". This is not a simple matter of internal vs external. There are "spheres of influence" A parent saying 1a or 2a is probably referring to the internal sphere of influence that is their family.

1b or 2b suggest a force outside the family such as their doctor.
Pair 1 just seems more perminent, notwithstanding that they are children and the situation will not be completely perminent.

[What about supletive/suplicative ideas? from my last post? Is it time to split the thread?]

[metal56]

What do you think? Is it the mother or the kids who are under obligation here?

"My kids just have to eat their cereals with chocolate milk. At first, I refused to let them, but in the end I caved in."

[metal56]

[What about supletive/suplicative ideas? from my last post? Is it time to split the thread?]

Thanks for the thoughts on the "kids and apples". I agree with your reading.

It could be time to split the thread, yes.

[Andrew Patterson]

What do you think? Is it the mother or the kids who are under obligation here?

"My kids just have to eat their cereals with chocolate milk. At first, I refused to let them, but in the end I caved in."

It's not so much an obligation but a compulsion. "Just" often changes the meaning before "have to" in this way. She indicates her powerlessness against their pester power in the second sentence.

Did you write this because you see supletive/suplicative modality here?

[metal56]

It's not so much an obligation but a compulsion. "Just" often changes the meaning before "have to" in this way. She indicates her powerlessness against their pester power in the second sentence.

Is "have to" external there? If so, external to who/m or what?

[Andrew Patterson]

It's the internal reaction of the children individually and collectively to the external stimulus of chocolate milk which they find irresistable. Therefore, it isn't a one or other case.

[metal56]

I'm in need of qualified comment. Many AE speakers on a multitude of forums keep saying that the explanation below is incorrect for AE:

may and might. It may rain. It might rain. What’s the difference? Just as could is the past tense of can, might is the past tense of may: We thought we might win the tournament. But might can also be used as a substitute for may to show diminished possibility. Thus, saying We might go to the movies means that the likelihood of going is somewhat less than if you say We may go to the movies. When used to express permission, might has a higher degree of politeness than may. Thus, Might I express my opinion conveys less insistence than May I express my opinion.

AHD


Is that true? Is there no difference between might and may for possibility in AE?

......................

In BE, such an exchange is possible:

Son: Mum, you know Dad and you said I may be allowed to go to the Shaz' party this weekend? Well, I was thinking I could stay over and then you wouldn't have to...

Mum: Wait a sec. We said we MIGHT let you go.

[Andrew Patterson]

There is prescriptivist grammar and there is descriptivist grammar but this is not the whole story. There is also what I like to call grammar-knowlegable grammar and grammar-ignorant grammar.

"Grammar-ignorant" sounds perjorative but it need not be wholly so. The study of grammar brings into sharp relief what we already vaguely know. It also deliniates and limits use. If we do not explicitly know the grammar, it is reasonable to suppose that ideas expressed will not be in sharp relief and I think this is the case with "may" and "might". I did not seriously study English grammar until my late twenties. As a perfectly fluent native speaker, I regarded "may" and "might" as more or less interchangeable. As soon as you use even a descriptivist framework, you have to acknowlege that "might" is indeed the past/remote form of "may" (there can be no doubt about this) and that will immediately put two words in sharp relief which until now were not.

These words are undoubtably more similar to each other than the other proximal-remote pairs. I would say that grammar ignorance may even be a force in language development. Grammar on the periphery will generally be unknown to most speakers of a language.

One example, ancient Germanic languages had what are known as "causatives" Finnish makes great use of these. In ancient Germanic languages, causatives were formed by a vowel change. This still survives in a few words in English though few people know it: "to sit" and "to set" are examples. With the vowel change "set" means "cause to sit". This is still one of its meanings. Other fossilised causatives in English include "to rise" and "to raise", and "to fall" and "to fell". Now you know that, you may look at these words in another way. Likewise, the subject and object pronouns could be regarded as the last vestage of the case system in English.