Suppletive & supplicative modality

[metal56]

Yup, usually, though "wants" meaning "lacks" is a bit archaic it can be completely unanthropomorphic (for "want" of a better word) and it's nobody's judgement, neither the speaker's nor the town's. It just means "hasn't got" as a matter of fact.

For me, "he lacks (the experience) living in a place where things are difficult. That would teach him not to be so..." is the same as "he wants to live in a place where things are different. That'll teach him not to be so...".

So, as I said:

My boss wants to spend a few days down here. He's coming next week. (No modality, unless you consider "boulemic modality".)

My boss wants to spend a few days down here and then he'd soon lose his arrogant approach. (Modality. Opinion. Judgement)

In both, I see "lack". The former is the lexical use of "want" and the latter the modal use.

[Andrew Patterson]

Yup, usually, though "wants" meaning "lacks" is a bit archaic it can be completely unanthropomorphic (for "want" of a better word) and it's nobody's judgement, neither the speaker's nor the town's. It just means "hasn't got" as a matter of fact.

"Want" meaning "lack" is not archaic. ALL wants imply lacks. Its just that in the modern sense, something else is implied - the emotional state arising from that lack. Do you think that either of these ideas - lack or the emotional state arising from that lack is modal? "Need" can imply lack and need is a semi-modal. Nothing necessarily follows from that fact and this could be falacious thinking but could you consider the question.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

In both, I see "lack". The former is the lexical use of "want" and the latter the modal use.

I agree with your analysis but note that it implies that the same idea can be both lexical in meaning and modal. No wonder it's difficult to separate the two. Is the difference a bit like Shrodinger's cat do you think having the potential to be either lexical or modal until actually used?

[Andrew Patterson]

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't titled this thread as I did.

I think the best adjectives for these different types of modality (if they are all modality) would be:

Suppletive - needs, lacks
Penurative - needs, lacks with the added emotional state deriving from those lacks (I don't think it is possible to have that emotional state without either a lack or a perceived lack.) Penury implies extreme poverty and there does not need to be anything extreme about this.
Entreatative - entreating to get what you want. (Solicitive was too wide an idea.)

The first word already exists, the other two are neogolisms based on existing words.

[metal56]

Metal wrote:

In both, I see "lack". The former is the lexical use of "want" and the latter the modal use.

I agree with your analysis but note that it implies that the same idea can be both lexical in meaning and modal. No wonder it's difficult to separate the two. Is the difference a bit like Shrodinger's cat do you think having the potential to be either lexical or modal until actually used?

Just like the word "blue", and many others.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

In both, I see "lack". The former is the lexical use of "want" and the latter the modal use.

I agree with your analysis but note that it implies that the same idea can be both lexical in meaning and modal. No wonder it's difficult to separate the two. Is the difference a bit like Shrodinger's cat do you think having the potential to be either lexical or modal until actually used?

Just like the word "blue", and many others.

No, not quite like it. There isn't a lot of subtlty when we use the word "blue" as a colour, or to indicate depression or pornography. These uses are either metaphorical or different meanings.

What you said about "want" is far more fundamental. The semantic content is identical yet, if what you said is right, one use is modal, the other is not.

[metal56]

This might be worth a read:

While all future expression is in part modal, the lexical future, comprised of semantically future verbs such as want to, hope to, and have to (Bardovi-Harlig, 2004, in press; Moses, 2002), is often overtly modal.

http://www.lingref.com/cpp/gasla/7/paper1151.pdf

[Andrew Patterson]

Nice one.

The author cites several "pathways":
desire>willingness>intention>prediction
obligation>intention>future
Attempt>intention>future
Ability> root possibility>intention>future.

I have not seen "pathway" used like this before but it is clear that they are talking about the same sort of idea that I was when I talked about the set of verbs followed by (object)+to+inf where the object is optional as having a continuum of meaning from needing to wanting to entreating. What they don't discuss is what modalities are involved.

I think we really do need to invent new modalities for the pathway "need>want>entreat."

[metal56]

I have not seen "pathway" used like this before but it is clear that they are talking about the same sort of idea that I was when I talked about the set of verbs followed by (object)+to+inf where the object is optional as having a continuum of meaning from needing to wanting to entreating. quote]

Yes, I noticed that.

[Andrew Patterson]

There are other "pathways" as well as other areas of semantic similarity . For instance, among the verbs followed by compulsory obj+to+inf we have:


Ask>invite>persuade>convince
Or
Ask>urge>tell>order>force
Maybe
Tell>declare

"circle", "walk around" and "run around" though not pathways are ares of semantic similarity.