Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[shuntang]

I reproduce Metals first post here to compare the order that Lewis used:

Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.

Paraphrased.

Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...

How cleverly the grammar writer defends himself!! I had had enough with such fireworks.
If you say it is assertion, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'I assert'."
If you say it is not an assertion, but only a possibility, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'it is possible'."
If you say it is remote, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'remotely'"
If you say it is not remote, he will say, "Yes, I agree. So I have put brackets on "remotely"". Actually, it is not really remote.

Whatever you say, Lewis cannot be wrong. But what have readers really got? Your own idea. Every time you have an idea, you will find Lewis has backed you up. You will find the grammar writer always agree with your supposition, in a remote way -- well, sometimes even in remote proximity.

[shuntang]

The reasoning of the future tense -- 2

Above, I have suggested modal auxiliaries are future tense: "She will be in the office now" has to be realized behind the present time, so it is in the future tense.

Now, of course, the inevitable question is, when we use modal auxiliaries to refer to the past, are they future tense too?
Ex: Yesterday he would have seen us printing this copy.

Perhaps to your surprise, I assume yes, though possibilities referring to the past have to be indicated in the perfective. Actually, no matter whether the possibility is referring to the future or to the past, it is still a present possibility. That is to say, you make the guess at the present, not in the past, nor in the future. This is the correct analysis of a possibility.
Take the example above, it is not a yesterday's guess; rather, it is a present guess to yesterday's action. This present guess to the past is much the same as a guess to the future: "She ought to go to school tomorrow". The realization of them is in the future. What I mean is, if we now start to look into or follow the case of possibility, we know the fact only in the future. For the time being, it is only a possibility. And because actions in modal auxiliaries are neither past nor present actions, and that their realizations are in the future, we had better call them future tense.

Claiming modal auxiliaries are not tense, does no one good. The notion of future is worldwide and even youngsters are well aware of it. In English, should it be expressed by modal auxiliaries, I can't see why we cannot call them future tense. This is my humble opinion.

------------------------------
The further proof is, even with specific past time adverbials like Yesterday or Last Week, we may still use present forms of modal auxiliaries to say it:
Ex: Yesterday he may have seen us printing this.
Ex: You may have tuned in NCPR yesterday.....
Ex: Some of you will have heard this yesterday, but I want to summarize briefly.....
Ex: In a formal sense, Tony Blair may have reported to parliament yesterday on last week's Brussels summit on the European constitution. Monday, January 10, 2005 7:18:50 AM
These examples shout loudly that the possibilities, even with Yesterday or Last Week, are not past. Then they support my assumptions that suppositions to the past are merely present ones. And the rest is easier to repeat: if the speaker wants to know the fact, s/he has to wait for the future. Then every modal auxiliary verb is pointing to the future.

Personally, I don't think these examples are typos. And readers in other forums didn't raise doubts about them.

It has been long noticed by grammarians that present-form auxiliaries express a greater possibility than the past forms. If, as above, modal auxiliaries can be used to say a present doubt to the past, it is logical we may also use present forms. Nevertheless, comparatively, past forms are much more frequent.

In the past when there was no internet, I still noticed that, in storybooks where we use past tenses only, writers sometimes use present-form auxiliaries. It was a big puzzle to me. I assumed this usage is known to many English native speakers. I collected many examples for study. Now with internet, it is easy for me to find a large number of such examples, instantly.

[LarryLatham]

All I can say, Shun, is that your "logic" is only logical to you.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

All I can say, Shun, is that your "logic" is only logical to you.

Larry Latham

If anyone has another reasoning, I would like to hear it.

[metal56]

But surely the core meaning ought to be a hard core, not a stretchy thingumibob. (if you'll excuse my expert linguistic terminology!)

The fact is, "ability" (or capability) is included under "possibility", and not v.v.

Yes and No.

On ability:
If yesterday you claimed "I can drink two bottles of wine", today you may use Simple Past of Can to say the ability:
Ex: Yesterday I could drink two bottles of wine.

On possibility:
However, if yesterday you guess "It can rain soon", today you cannot use its Simple Past tense:
Ex: ?Yesterday it could rain.
Ex: Yesterday it rained.

Why? It is because possibility is a future tense and cannot be used to tell the past.

<On ability:
If yesterday you claimed "I can drink two bottles of wine", today you may use Simple Past of Can to say the ability:
Ex: Yesterday I could drink two bottles of wine. >

We normally use "able to", and not "could" in such a sitaution.

However, if yesterday you guess "It can rain soon",

That is not an English sentence.

[metal56]

I reproduce Metals first post here to compare the order that Lewis used:

Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.

Paraphrased.

Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...

How cleverly the grammar writer defends himself!! I had had enough with such fireworks.
If you say it is assertion, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'I assert'."
If you say it is not an assertion, but only a possibility, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'it is possible'."
If you say it is remote, he will say, "Yes, I agree. That is why I say 'remotely'"
If you say it is not remote, he will say, "Yes, I agree. So I have put brackets on "remotely"". Actually, it is not really remote.

Whatever you say, Lewis cannot be wrong. But what have readers really got? Your own idea. Every time you have an idea, you will find Lewis has backed you up. You will find the grammar writer always agree with your supposition, in a remote way -- well, sometimes even in remote proximity.

So, you answered the thread question. Thanks for your opinion.

[metal56]

All I can say, Shun, is that your "logic" is only logical to you.

Larry Latham

If anyone has another reasoning, I would like to hear it.

You hear many things, but listen to few.

[shuntang]

Hi Metal,

In another forum I have seen someone in another name asking the same as your thread "Immediacy" here. If the person were you, we have been seeing each other lately.

You hear many things, but listen to few.

Aren't we all?

For decades, I have posted to many publication companies and websites, reminding them there are no books or web pages talking about the Past Family (pattern of "in the past xx years"). I suggested they shall write something about them.

Recently, in another name, I asked them again, but there are still no such books or web pages (except in my own posts ).

-----------------
By the way, please look at the logic in your comment. One can hear many things, but cannot make many choices at the same time. He could only take one choice -- in your terms, listen to one thing. If I listen to many and follow many, I have simply listened to no one. But I don't think you can follow my point.

I still remember our previous discussions. You switched from Aspect Theory to Immediacy/Distance, and this may be the reason why you accused me of listening to few. However, when I pointed out the switch, you said you didn't. Then you still didn't listen to many, after all.

Actually, we all can only hear many things, but listen to few. To do otherwise is abnormal.

[metal56]

Hi Metal,



-----------------
By the way, please look at the logic in your comment. One can hear many things, but cannot make many choices at the same time. He could only take one choice -- in your terms, listen to one thing. If I listen to many and follow many, I have simply listened to no one. But I don't think you can follow my point.

quote]

I don't follow most of what you.

Try "I hear you, but I'm not listening. I'm only listening to myself." That is how I picture you.

[shuntang]

However, if yesterday you guess "It can rain soon",

That is not an English sentence.

I have explained to many correspondents: Because I claim we can only explain tenses in a group of sentences, rather than on one-sentence basis, I will use very short sentences to stand for long ones:
Ex: He telephoned them. Mary had been here. She was coming back.
However, some people would take my short examples as not English. I have to beg them to pardon me.

I use "It can rain soon" to stand for a supposition using Can: "It can rain.....". But can Can express possibility? This is the point. Nevertheless, I didn't know "It can rain soon", though awkward, is an ungrammatical sentence, in your recognition.

-----------------------------

[Shun wrote:]
<On ability:
If yesterday you claimed "I can drink two bottles of wine", today you may use Simple Past of Can to say the ability:
Ex: Yesterday I could drink two bottles of wine. >

We normally use "able to", and not "could" in such a sitaution.

I am sorry I didn't remind you that we were talking about the use of Can/Could. Normally, we don't use any modal verb at all:
Ex: Yesterday I drank two bottles of wine.

Thank you for your comments.

[shuntang]

Hi Metal,

-----------------
By the way, please look at the logic in your comment. One can hear many things, but cannot make many choices at the same time. He could only take one choice -- in your terms, listen to one thing. If I listen to many and follow many, I have simply listened to no one. But I don't think you can follow my point.

I don't follow most of what you.
Try "I hear you, but I'm not listening. I'm only listening to myself." That is how I picture you.

Aren't we all?

[shuntang]

I don't follow most of what you.
Try "I hear you, but I'm not listening. I'm only listening to myself." That is how I picture you.

Claiming you didn't understand me at all is your usual way of arguing. But if you don't follow me most of what I have said, how then do you know I didn't listen to you at all? How can you put any judgment on what you don't understand?

A judge says to a man in court, "I don't understand most of what you said, so you are guilty of charge." The man begs the judge to have logic on him.

[fluffyhamster]

Claiming you didn't understand me at all is your usual way of arguing.

It isn't arguing, it is just stating an "unfortunate" fact. A decent argument might start if only you could a) express yourself better and b) had something to say that was convincing. Strange phrasing + wierd, murky, very probably misguided thinking = recipe for 'Huh? '.

But if you don't follow me most of what I have said, how then do you know I didn't listen to you at all?

If you could bring yourself to take note of half of what people are telling you (the good half), it'd be problem solved, and nobody would have problems following you (if you still felt like posting about genuinely interesting or contentious points of grammar). You seem to have things ass-about-t*t here.

How can you put any judgment on what you don't understand?

See reply to first quoted section, above.

A judge says to a man in court, "I don't understand most of what you said, so you are guilty of charge." The man begs the judge to have logic on him.

I don't quite understand what 'have logic on sb' means - it isn't a phrase in English as far as I am aware (let's hope metal doesn't contradict me on this).

[shuntang]

Hi, the one who told me never to come back.

How are you?

[lolwhites]

Oh.

You again.

Back to dazzle us with more of your "proofs", taking up valuable web space with incoherent babble which makes no sense to anyone but you while showing no real interest in the arguments of anyone else except to shoot them down.

You clearly have nothing new to say so until you do, stop wasting everyone's time.