Modal or anomalous verbs?

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:13 pm

This is just a matter of terminology: What do you think it is more appropriate, to call verbs like may,might,can,could. 'modal verbs' or 'anomalous verbs'?

José

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:54 pm

Call them modals. Nearly everybody else does.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:30 pm

Yep! I agree here too.

But I would suggest you call them modal auxiliaries, because they are not a kind of verb, despite their appearance in the verb phrase. They don't behave like verbs and they don't lend meaning to the sentence in the same way that verbs do.

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:48 pm

Larry, sth I'd like to know. You say that the modals are not verbs, do you think that the other auxiliaries are verbs?

"Be" is always problematic even when acting as a "main verb" (note the inverted commas) as it relates its compliment back to its subject so "the blue car" and "the car is blue" don't have a significant difference in meaning. I don't see an awful lot of action going on here.

What about "be" when it forms continous tenses, and "have" when it forms perfect tenses? They are auxiliaries, certainly, because they have an auxiliary function, but are they verbs?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:56 am

Yes, I think you have a point there, Andy. There can be some confusion with these words. At least, students often have trouble with them.

(Be) and (have) certainly can operate as verbs, and when they do, they have all of the characteristics of verbs. Their features are not different from those of such verbs as walk, jump, look, kick. But sometimes (be) and (have) do not act as verbs, but rather as auxiliaries. When that is the case (and you can tell when they are auxiliaries by their position in the verb phrase) they abandon their verb-like features and acquire new ones suitable to their new role as auxiliaries. Same words, different positions, different roles, different rules.

I believe the answer to your question is when they are verbs they are verbs; when they are auxiliaries they are not verbs.

But all this is pretty elementary, Andy. I have the sensation that you really are asking me something else, which I don't quite detect. Or that you're getting ready to drop a bomb on me.

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:29 am

Yes, it's elementary, but some people think that auxiliaries are verbs and others think they are not.

Bomb? Only this. Are the catenatives auxiliaries when acting as catenatives. Are they verbs when they are acting as catenatives?

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:38 am

Hello people

Isn't it only a matter of meaning? That is, verbs like be,have can bear full meaning, depending on their usage and yet bear empty meaning, when they need other verbs "to help" them have any significance? And aren't verbs like can,could,may,might also empty in meaning? Auxiliaries aren't only verbs that need other verbs to have any significance?

José

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:42 pm

Andy...I know you are the catenative expert on this forum, but I know nothing about them. I'm afraid I haven't the expertise to answer your question.

Jose...you're right to say that it's a matter of meaning, which is to say that meaning plays a large role in English verb forms and structures with and without auxiliary helpers (or "operators", as Stephen suggests below

). But it's wrong, I believe, to suggest that auxiliaries are empty of meaning. After all, there is a great difference between she can run, and she must run, or she will run or she might run or she has run, or she is running. Since the only change in all of these is in the auxiliary used, it cannot be that there is no meaning in auxiliaries.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:09 pm

if you want to be both confusing and trendy al the same time (which is what Applied Linguistics is all about) call the auxiliaries "operators", and say the concept has been in existence since Anglo-Saxon times.

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:58 am

Jose...you're right to say that it's a matter of meaning, which is to say that meaning plays a large role in English verb forms and structures with and without auxiliary helpers (or "operators", as Stephen...). But it's wrong, I believe, to suggest that auxiliaries are empty of meaning. After all, there is a great difference between she can run, and she must run, or she will run or she might run or she has run, or she is running. Since the only change in all of these is in the auxiliary used, it cannot be that there is no meaning in auxiliaries.

Hmm, maybe dependable would be the appropriate word, if I may say so, for [/i] must,can,will,might[/í] do not pursue any meaning alone and yet they do a lot of and fundamental difference within a sentence and verbs like run, fly,go can function without auxiliaries.

Operators...well, at least I could be a très chic teacher by using such term and yet would have to get prepared to draw further explanations than that they've been around since the Anglo-Saxon times

José [/quote]