Generic "will".

[metal56]

"Modal certainty" next.

I can hardly wait. Sounds like an oxymoron to me!!!

Larry Latham

Really? Then I suppose categorical certainty doesn't.

[LarryLatham]

Well, I don't really quite know what it means. (I'm sure you'll be able to tell me). But it sounds more plausible to me than 'modal certainty'.

I am eager to be your student! But expect challenges.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Well, I don't really quite know what it means. (I'm sure you'll be able to tell me). But it sounds more plausible to me than 'modal certainty'.

I am eager to be your student! But expect challenges.

Larry Latham

I consider you as an equal, and not a student.

Did you Google "modal certainty"?

And do you agree with this?

Modality refers to the intermediate choices between yes and no (Halliday, 1985: 86)1

If you have time:

"Certainty is an epistemic quality or, as philosophers are used to say, an
epistemic modality."

http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Ph ... pohn24.pdf

[LarryLatham]

I consider you as an equal, and not a student.

I am genuinely flattered that you would think so, M56, as I know you have an advanced degree in linguistics. I, on the other hand, have no formal education or training in linguistics. So I am certainly in a position to be your student, and eager to absorb whatever I can learn from you.

On the other hand, I have done some reading and some thinking in this area, as you know. And I am given to strong opinions. However, I hasten to add that I hope I am open to good arguments which may refute my opinions. I am not a Shun!

Did you Google "modal certainty"?

I did just now, and looked through the first page of returns. I found two kinds of websites: (1) those with nonsense, and (2) those which suggested that a user can indicate the degree of certainty of his judgments by selection of particular modal auxiliaries.

I wouldn't disagree that a user can do this. However, I don't think this equates to "modal certainty". It is a great oversimplification, and misleading as well. What it does mean, to me, is that modality (all modality, not only modal auxiliaries) is a tool which users can employ in part to express certain kinds of judgments about non-factual aspects of events. Speakers will be more certain about some of these judgments than of others, and will select different modal auxiliaries, perhaps, to express that. This is not all of what modality is about, however. It is always about speaker opinion, though, and not about fact, even when he might say, "As a matter of fact, ...", because we listeners understand that he is delivering an opinion. "As a matter of fact, ..." in uses like this is language intended to help manage the conversational flow, and does not express generally accepted fact (perhaps what you might be referring to when you say catagorical fact).

And do you agree with this?

Modality refers to the intermediate choices between yes and no (Halliday, 1985: 86)1

Nope! My admiration for Professor Halliday aside, I believe this statement is a gross distortion of the value of modality in English, at least if anyone is trying to apply it to modal auxiliaries. I suspect even Halliday would not try that. Intermediate choices between yes and no are pretty much covered by "maybe" and its synonyms.

If you have time:

"Certainty is an epistemic quality or, as philosophers are used to say, an
epistemic modality."

I have no idea what this means, M56. Have mercy on an old man. My mind just dosen't easily wrap around big ideas and big words. I'm a simple soul, just trying to figure things out, while at the same time keeping my feet on the ground.

Don't dispair. I will try hard to see things your way.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

[quote="LarryLatham"

I am genuinely flattered that you would think so, M56, as I know you have an advanced degree in linguistics

.

It's yellowing in a drawer somewhere.

I, on the other hand, have no formal education or training in linguistics. So I am certainly in a position to be your student, and eager to absorb whatever I can learn from you.

You do quite well all by yourself, Larry. Equals, or nothing.

On the other hand, I have done some reading and some thinking in this area, as you know. And I am given to strong opinions

.

You? Naaa! Youse a lamb.

However, I hasten to add that I hope I am open to good arguments which may refute my opinions. I am not a Shun!

Far from.

Did you Google "modal certainty"?

I did just now, and looked through the first page of returns. I found two kinds of websites: (1) those with nonsense, and (2) those which suggested that a user can indicate the degree of certainty of his judgments by selection of particular modal auxiliaries.

I wouldn't disagree that a user can do this. However, I don't think this equates to "modal certainty". It is a great oversimplification, and misleading as well.

Ah well... I'm all alone in this.

It is always about speaker opinion, though, and not about fact, even when he might say, "As a matter of fact, ...", because we listeners understand that he is delivering an opinion. "As a matter of fact, ..." in uses like this is language intended to help manage the conversational flow, and does not express generally accepted fact (perhaps what you might be referring to when you say catagorical fact).

Yes, but you picked a discourse marker there. What about "it is a fact that..."?

Modality refers to the intermediate choices between yes and no (Halliday, 1985: 86)1

I suspect even Halliday would not try that. Intermediate choices between yes and no are pretty much covered by "maybe" and its synonyms.

Is there a great difference in function between the full-modals, the semi-modals and modal expressions?

The non-modal proposition would be:

He is coming tomorrow. (YES)

He is not coming tomorrow. (NO)

While the modalised example could be any one of these intermediate utterances:

Abe: Is he coming for sure tomorrow?

Marge: He may/might/could/should/will/probably will/must be coming tomorrow. (Neither YES or NO)

Abe: Well is he coming for sure or not?

Marge: Hm???

"Certainty is an epistemic quality or, as philosophers are used to say, an
epistemic modality."

I have no idea what this means, M56. Have mercy on an old man.

I be forty and nine years myself, sir.

My mind just dosen't easily wrap around big ideas and big words. I'm a simple soul, just trying to figure things out, while at the same time keeping my feet on the ground.

I'll keep it in mind.

Don't dispair. I will try hard to see things your way.

Please don't try so hard. Where's the fun in seeing things the same way?



Larry Latham[/quote]

[LarryLatham]

Where's the fun in seeing things the same way?

Ah yes, how right you are there. Pretty much of a yawn if we all gush over how much we agree. Disagreement between mutually respecting points-of-view is oh-so-much more interesting.

I earlier said:

I wouldn't disagree that a user can do this. However, I don't think this equates to "modal certainty". It is a great oversimplification, and misleading as well.

And you replied:

Ah well... I'm all alone in this.

Oh I don't think so. I believe there are many who quite agree with you and do not with me. And too, I'm beginning to wonder if I have misinterpreted the sense of "modal certainty" that you mean to convey, the more I look this over. Some of the modal auxiliaries have a 'remote' sense when compared with others. "Might", for example, is more remote than "may", but conveys generally the same core meaning. Same is true of "could" when compared to "can", and "would" compared to "will". Because of this feature, it is reasonable to say that one can select 'remote' variations within the group of modal auxiliaries as a whole in order to suggest that one's judgment about the link between the present state of affairs and another state, about which you are talking, is more tenuous, (or less certain) than it might be. Is this what you mean by "modal certainty"? If so, then I will assert that all of that is a long way from "factual".

The non-modal proposition would be:

He is coming tomorrow. (YES)

He is not coming tomorrow. (NO)

Hmmm. But I object to your labeling as (YES) the proposition "He is coming tomorrow". I would label it (IS). "He is not coming tomorrow" would be (IS NOT). These are significantly different from (YES) and (NO), the way I see them. But I still would not agree that modality refers to intermediate choices between (IS) and (IS NOT). I really do not understand at all what Halliday was driving at with his statement.

I be forty and nine years myself, sir.

Ouch!! Watch out for that next birthday! I'm looking towards 66, youngster. I was already a young man when you were still wearing nappies (isn't that the British term for them?). I guess that means I have no good excuses for my ignorance. I'm old enough to know better!

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Modality refers to the intermediate choices between yes and no (Halliday, 1985: 86)1

Hope you don't mind if I come in here, mere whippersnapper though I am compared to both of you.

I agree with you both that as a generalised definition of modality this is way off the mark, but it might still serve as a definition of something. At first, I thought it might define epistemic modality but then I realised that it wouldn't include the deductive mode of epistemic modality. The more I think about it the less this seems to have in common with simple belief. Not sure about speculation, though.

[LarryLatham]

Andy, you've more than earned an unconditional welcome into pretty much any discussion at Dave's, I should think. At any rate, you're welcome here. So are any others who can illuminate this black hole.

But I must admit, you're over my head with your post. I've never understood the distinctions between "epistemic modality" and other kinds, nor, truth be told, the necessity or even desirability for making them. Perhaps there is valid academic interest in catagorizing different types of modality, but as a poor ex-teacher, I am mostly baffled by all that. I'm just looking to make modality, a messy area to begin with, somewhat understandable to ESL/EFL students. That's not easy to do, but is, I believe, a laudable goal.

Agree?

Larry Latham

[metal56]

I'm just looking to make modality, a messy area to begin with, somewhat understandable to ESL/EFL students. That's not easy to do, but is, I believe, a laudable goal.

I first read that as "a laughable goal".

Hee! Hee! Just teasin'.

[metal56]

Where's the fun in seeing things the same way?

Ah yes, how right you are there. Pretty much of a yawn if we all gush over how much we agree. Disagreement between mutually respecting points-of-view is oh-so-much more interesting.

I earlier said:

I wouldn't disagree that a user can do this. However, I don't think this equates to "modal certainty". It is a great oversimplification, and misleading as well.

And you replied:

Ah well... I'm all alone in this.

Oh I don't think so. I believe there are many who quite agree with you and do not with me. And too, I'm beginning to wonder if I have misinterpreted the sense of "modal certainty" that you mean to convey, the more I look this over. Some of the modal auxiliaries have a 'remote' sense when compared with others. "Might", for example, is more remote than "may", but conveys generally the same core meaning. Same is true of "could" when compared to "can", and "would" compared to "will". Because of this feature, it is reasonable to say that one can select 'remote' variations within the group of modal auxiliaries as a whole in order to suggest that one's judgment about the link between the present state of affairs and another state, about which you are talking, is more tenuous, (or less certain) than it might be. Is this what you mean by "modal certainty"? If so, then I will assert that all of that is a long way from "factual".

The non-modal proposition would be:

He is coming tomorrow. (YES)

He is not coming tomorrow. (NO)

Hmmm. But I object to your labeling as (YES) the proposition "He is coming tomorrow". I would label it (IS). "He is not coming tomorrow" would be (IS NOT). These are significantly different from (YES) and (NO), the way I see them. But I still would not agree that modality refers to intermediate choices between (IS) and (IS NOT). I really do not understand at all what Halliday was driving at with his statement.

I be forty and nine years myself, sir.

Ouch!! Watch out for that next birthday! I'm looking towards 66, youngster. I was already a young man when you were still wearing nappies (isn't that the British term for them?). I guess that means I have no good excuses for my ignorance. I'm old enough to know better!

Larry Latham

Some of the modal auxiliaries have a 'remote' sense when compared with others. "Might", for example, is more remote than "may", but conveys generally the same core meaning. Same is true of "could" when compared to "can", and "would" compared to "will". Because of this feature, it is reasonable to say that one can select 'remote' variations within the group of modal auxiliaries as a whole in order to suggest that one's judgment about the link between the present state of affairs and another state, about which you are talking, is more tenuous, (or less certain) than it might be. Is this what you mean by "modal certainty"?

I think so.

If so, then I will assert that all of that is a long way from "factual".

I see a cline from absolute categorical fact to absolute uncertainty, but then, I love clines.

The absolute categorical fact end of the cline would show the speaker/s as having visible, demonstrable or, logical proof that something was a fact, while the other end of the cline would show the speaker/s having no visible, demonstrable, or logical proof regarding the factuality of a proposition.

[metal56]

Where's the fun in seeing things the same way?

Ah yes, how right you are there. Pretty much of a yawn if we all gush over how much we agree. Disagreement between mutually respecting points-of-view is oh-so-much more interesting.

I earlier said:

I wouldn't disagree that a user can do this. However, I don't think this equates to "modal certainty". It is a great oversimplification, and misleading as well.

And you replied:

Ah well... I'm all alone in this.

Oh I don't think so. I believe there are many who quite agree with you and do not with me. And too, I'm beginning to wonder if I have misinterpreted the sense of "modal certainty" that you mean to convey, the more I look this over. Some of the modal auxiliaries have a 'remote' sense when compared with others. "Might", for example, is more remote than "may", but conveys generally the same core meaning. Same is true of "could" when compared to "can", and "would" compared to "will". Because of this feature, it is reasonable to say that one can select 'remote' variations within the group of modal auxiliaries as a whole in order to suggest that one's judgment about the link between the present state of affairs and another state, about which you are talking, is more tenuous, (or less certain) than it might be. Is this what you mean by "modal certainty"? If so, then I will assert that all of that is a long way from "factual".

The non-modal proposition would be:

He is coming tomorrow. (YES)

He is not coming tomorrow. (NO)

Hmmm. But I object to your labeling as (YES) the proposition "He is coming tomorrow". I would label it (IS). "He is not coming tomorrow" would be (IS NOT). These are significantly different from (YES) and (NO), the way I see them. But I still would not agree that modality refers to intermediate choices between (IS) and (IS NOT). I really do not understand at all what Halliday was driving at with his statement.

I be forty and nine years myself, sir.

Ouch!! Watch out for that next birthday! I'm looking towards 66, youngster. I was already a young man when you were still wearing nappies (isn't that the British term for them?). I guess that means I have no good excuses for my ignorance. I'm old enough to know better!

Larry Latham

Some of the modal auxiliaries have a 'remote' sense when compared with others. "Might", for example, is more remote than "may", but conveys generally the same core meaning. Same is true of "could" when compared to "can", and "would" compared to "will". Because of this feature, it is reasonable to say that one can select 'remote' variations within the group of modal auxiliaries as a whole in order to suggest that one's judgment about the link between the present state of affairs and another state, about which you are talking, is more tenuous, (or less certain) than it might be. Is this what you mean by "modal certainty"?

I think so.

If so, then I will assert that all of that is a long way from "factual".

I see a cline from absolute categorical fact to absolute uncertainty, but then, I love clines.

The absolute categorical fact end of the cline would show the speaker/s as having visible, demonstrable or, logical proof that something was a fact, while the other end of the cline would show the speaker/s having no visible, demonstrable, or logical proof regarding the factuality of a proposition.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

I see a cline from absolute categorical fact to absolute uncertainty, but then, I love clines.

The absolute categorical fact end of the cline would show the speaker/s as having visible, demonstrable or, logical proof that something was a fact, while the other end of the cline would show the speaker/s having no visible, demonstrable, or logical proof regarding the factuality of a proposition.

What's the difference between a continuum and a cline, Metal? I've noticed continuums in modals and it was the basis of my thread "Natural order of the modals." I'm not trying to be funny here, I've just never heard the word "cline" outside biology.

[metal56]

Metal wrote:

I see a cline from absolute categorical fact to absolute uncertainty, but then, I love clines.

The absolute categorical fact end of the cline would show the speaker/s as having visible, demonstrable or, logical proof that something was a fact, while the other end of the cline would show the speaker/s having no visible, demonstrable, or logical proof regarding the factuality of a proposition.

What's the difference between a continuum and a cline, Metal? I've noticed continuums in modals and it was the basis of my thread "Natural order of the modals." I'm not trying to be funny here, I've just never heard the word "cline" outside biology.

It did indeed originate inside biology. Now it is used in linguistics circles in a similar way, i.e. a gradual change in a character or feature across the distributional range.

E.G.

Individual Tatar linguistic performance is set against a purist backdrop, with explicit ideals of "pure" and "literary" Tatar. "Pure" Tatar is "de Russified" Tatar, and found at one extreme of a cline of language mixing.

[Andrew Patterson]

OK, but you still haven't explained the DIFFERENCE between a continuum and a cline.

[metal56]

OK, but you still haven't explained the DIFFERENCE between a continuum and a cline.

No need to shout, ANDY. You asked two questions and I had time for one.

First, tell me what YOU mean by a continuum.