Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[shuntang]

Dear Lolwhites,

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.

If I clearly have nothing new, how can I make no sense to anyone?
If I clearly have nothing new, then what I have said is old stuff well known to you. And then how can what you know make no sense to anyone?

Indeed, I defend the old belief that English has future tense. Even this is a guilt? If you won and proved that there is no future tense, is this an achievement?

[fluffyhamster]

I'll answer for lol, to help share the time it takes to care for your special needs, shun.

There really isn't any contradiction in saying 'This looks like the same old sh*t shun was writing before - I couldn't make sense of it then, and still can't. So, nothing's changed, nothing's new.'

There is nothing to be gained, learnt or understood from your writing - it appears to be the scribbling of a madman; and even if someone were to spend years analyzing it all, the conclusion would very likely still be the same.

[metal56]

Thank you for your comments.

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.

It is not the length of the sentence that is a problem, but the use of "can" with "soon" in the context of weather.

[metal56]

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.

Sorry, you're wrong again. we can use the modal expression "able to" there, but we do not use "could".

Are you listening?


Yesterday, I was a able to drink two whole pints, even after eating three pizzas.

[shuntang]

Sorry, you're wrong again. we can use the modal expression "able to" there, but we do not use "could".

Are you listening?


Yesterday, I was a able to drink two whole pints, even after eating three pizzas.

You are wrong. Two auxiliaries, Would and Could, in their so-called basic semantic meanings can refer to the past.

I am afraid no one could help you now.

[shuntang]

There really isn't any contradiction in saying 'This looks like the same old sh*t shun was writing before - I couldn't make sense of it then, and still can't. So, nothing's changed, nothing's new.'

I wonder why this is allowed in a discussion forum these days, if there is really a moderator.

Metal56 and I had a long discussion before. At the end, he said he didn't understand me at all from the beginning. I thought it strange: if you could not understand me at all, how can we maintain such a long discussion? Then someone jumped in, with a lot of dirty language, and told me not to come back again. And he said sorry to Metal56, because the language had contaminated the thread. Metal56 posted it is alright. I then left. I have come back because I think now there is a moderator. As I admitted, I am not embarrassed for myself. It worries me when I know there are ladies around here.

[LarryLatham]

[quote="Shuntang, in reply to Metal56, who told him "It can rain soon" is not an English sentence,"]Nevertheless, I didn't know "It can rain soon", though awkward, is an ungrammatical sentence, in your recognition.[/quote]
Shun.... M56 told you this is not an English sentence not because it is ungrammatical, which it is, strictly speaking from a technical point-of-view, even, as you admit, it is decidedly awkward. He told you it is not an English sentence because no English speaker who knew what they were doing would ever utter it. M56, and I, and every other native speaker out there who might, for whatever odd reason might be reading this twisted conversation, simply cannot figure out what that sentence could possibly mean. It just does not compute in the brain. It leaves us breathless in confusion about the possibilities, given what we do understand about the grammar, and the array of imaginable interpretations for the words used in its construction. It is among the millions of "possible" English constructions that follow the "rules" of grammar as put forth in textbooks and coursebooks, which simply do not exist in the entire corpus of English language use, because they just do not make any kind of sense at all.

You have every right to believe that English has a future tense, if you want to. But you have most definitely not proved it...you have not gone anywhere near a proof. You are among a diminishing set of "rule" appliers who insist on insisting that it must be true because it's there in the (old and very much outdated) books. An extremely small minority of linguists will agree with you, as by far the majority of them do not believe as you do.

It's all right for you to come here and say that you believe in future tense. It is not OK for you to type out some long issue of gobbaldygook, and then claim you have proved your case. No one here is buying that cr*p. It is certainly not a way to make friends around here, as you can plainly see, whether you're English, Dutch, French, Spanish, or Chinese (or whatever else). If you don't get some academic manners, your ideas will continue to be rejected out-of-hand. No one will take you seriously.

Larry Latham

[Lorikeet]

There really isn't any contradiction in saying 'This looks like the same old sh*t shun was writing before - I couldn't make sense of it then, and still can't. So, nothing's changed, nothing's new.'

I wonder why this is allowed in a discussion forum these days, if there is really a moderator.

... I have come back because I think now there is a moderator. As I admitted, I am not embarrassed for myself. It worries me when I know there are ladies around here.

I'm not sure how much of this is tongue-in-cheek Shun, but Dave asked me to moderate the forums recently. I imagine it's because I've been catching the inevitable advertisements for over a year, and I guess he decided I might as well delete them right away instead of sending him e-mails. While technically as moderator I have the power to delete or edit posts, I don't intend to use that power lightly. I don't see anything in the postings so far that indicate anything further is required. I don't intend to "moderate" by editing or removing posts that pertain to appropriate subject matter. If you wish to resume posting here, that's your right and privilege; do it because it's interesting and you like it, not because you think a moderator is going to interfere. And yeah, I suppose some might call me a lady .

--Lorikeet

[shuntang]

It's all right for you to come here and say that you believe in future tense. It is not OK for you to type out some long issue of gobbaldygook, and then claim you have proved your case. No one here is buying that cr*p.
Larry Latham

I have proven the case as much as you have proven there is no English tense. No one has to buy anything from others. If 'prove' is not the suitable word, we may talk about it. Please look around here, however, is it the main point they are talking about?

[shuntang]

I have checked the relation between Could and Yesterday, and there is even an exercise about grammars in the following address:

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/exercises/can.htm

Really, Could (without the perfective) can stay with past time adverbials. More precisely, expressing ability, it can be used to express a past action.

[LarryLatham]

I have proven the case as much as you have proven there is no English tense.

Now please look carefully. No one around here, least of all me, has said that there is no English tense. I have said there is no English future tense, which is quite a different claim.

One of your problems, here, Shungtang, is that you consistently misquote your adversaries, and then argue against your own misquotes. It's one (of many) of the reasons why we all are so frustrated with you.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

I have proven the case as much as you have proven there is no English tense.

Now please look carefully. No one around here, least of all me, has said that there is no English tense. I have said there is no English future tense, which is quite a different claim.

One of your problems, here, Shungtang, is that you consistently misquote your adversaries, and then argue against your own misquotes. It's one (of many) of the reasons why we all are so frustrated with you.

Larry Latham

How dare you! It is not even a quote. I make a typo and you make a war of it.

[LarryLatham]

Enough! I do not care to delve further into this lightweight pissing contest.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Enough! I do not care to delve further into this lightweight pissing contest.

Larry Latham

Typo!! Heavyweight!!

[shuntang]

[quote=" As for "It can rain soon", LarryLatham"]
Shun.... M56 told you this is not an English sentence not because it is ungrammatical, which it is, strictly speaking from a technical point-of-view, even, as you admit, it is decidedly awkward. He told you it is not an English sentence because no English speaker who knew what they were doing would ever utter it.
[/quote]
This is the second time I am aware you are calling the authority of English native speakers for help. In the past, the calling has been very useful and people using it can win and finish a lot of discussions. But now with internet, the calling helps less and less. If you search exact match for "it can rain", you will have a lot of examples:
Ex: It can rain at a few minutes notice;
Ex: It can rain/shower all over the year.
Ex: in the morning it is sunny, in the afternoon it gets a bit cloudy and in late afternoon or at night, it can rain a bit.
Ex: It can rain any month throughout the year.

So, only "It can rain soon" is not an English sentence?