let go of

[Stephen Jones]

A modal auxiliary needs to pass at least two tests.
It must be useable with all four forms of the infinitive ('do', 'be doing', 'have done' and 'have been doing') and it cannot be used with any other auxiliary.

Let fails both tests.

[JuanTwoThree]

Yes, though everybody has been careful to avoid the term "auxiliary".

The following is for some of the tens of people who seem to look at these postings. You can't all be ill-groomed rodents checking up on the edits. It might be helpful and I like holding forth.

It seems that at one extreme there is a long checklist of how full verbs (non defective verbs) behave: if you saw in a text "I'm fliffing" "to fliff" "fliffed" "Do you fliff?" "I didn't fliff" "I fliff smoking" "I fliff to go tomorrow" "I like fliffing" "It fliffs" and "I can't fliff" then you'd have to conclude that "fliff" is a common-or-garden verb.

At the other end of the scale are the nine modal auxiliaries(/iary verbs) (can could will would shall should may might must), which satisfy none of the above formal definitions of "verbs" . In some languages they'd all be "verbs", in others some would be "verbs" and others tenses, if they existed at all.

Moving across from modal auxiliaries to full verbs our first stop is "ought to": a normal modal auxiliary in form except for that "to" there. Right at the other end and 99.99% "full" is "help" where the subsequent "to" may be omitted. At points between are "used not to" "needn't" "daren't" "let" "make" "verbs of perception" etc , all based on their not being comfortably in one category or other, some or all of the time, in terms purely of their form.

Quite another thing, or not, is the relative modality in meaning of those verbs which are neither in the inner circle (CCWWSSMMM) nor are always full.

The most elegant and extremely satisfying discovery would be that there were a direct relationship between their modality in form and their degree of modality.

Andrew seems to be suggesting that there is more modality in "I saw him take the money" than "I saw him taking the money".

Two cases:

"When we're in Shropshire we really should/ought to visit Aunt Agatha" . If the second is less subjective and even means that we more probably are going to then could it be that "ought to" has left the modal camp in more ways than one? to=less modal=to (chicken=egg=chicken)

More solid ground: "You don't need to do your homework" is less modal in every way than "You needn't do your homework" . It's more objective, less the authority of the speaker.

BTW I haven't given up on "do" being a semi-modal. Its three forms apart, auxiliary do satisfies a surprising number of the criteria for being a modal verb!

[Stephen Jones]

As far as I am concerned we call modals those auxiliaries that I referred to above.

The other verbs are different only in whether they take 'to' or not, and to talk about degrees of modality is confusing the issue.

[Andrew Patterson]

As far as I am concerned we call modals those auxiliaries that I referred to above.

The other verbs are different only in whether they take 'to' or not, and to talk about degrees of modality is confusing the issue.

I agree, if I understand you correctly. Traditionally, we talk about modals carrying modality, and the catenatives carrying mood. Now if somebody can come up with a nice definition of exactly how mood differs from modality, I will accept that these are two different concepts. Both have the first verb overlaying its meaning on the rest of the sentence. (My alternative definition is that a verb does its action to another verb.)

Furthermore, we find that some catenatives have direct modal equivelents, in my opinion we have different syntax, but mood and modality are exactly the same thing.

Now in answer to Juan's statement that:

The most elegant and extremely satisfying discovery would be that there were a direct relationship between their modality in form and their degree of modality.

That is exactly what you do find, and you only have to read the links off my Venn diagram to see that I have already described many of them.

It is no accident that I have a yin yang symbol in the centre of the diagram, the meanings of the verbs followed by gerunds correspond quite closely to the yin principle (their greater similarity to nouns notwithstanding), and verbs followed by to+infinitive correspond quite closely to the yang principle.

Verbs followed by the object, to+infinitive are especially deontic in meaning which schouldn't be surprising as when something needs to be done, someone or thing has to do it.

Then we find that verb+object+prep+gerund often involve some sort of restraint. eg keep someone from finishing. Verbs followed by "the" and a gerund always have a meaning to do with responsibility, eg you look after the skiing and I'll take care of the snowboarding.

At the moment we give lists and lists to learn, for the most part, however, students could tell the difference between gerunds and infinitives by thinking about how purposeful the action is:
Purposeful - followed by "to"+infinitive, not purposeful - followed by a gerund.

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/YinYang.html

[JuanTwoThree]

I would also agree with you Stephen if there were some haphazard collection of full verbs that dropped the "to" after them or didn't need "don't", or both.

But when the verbs are "let" (giving permission), "make" (referring to obligation ), "needn't" (absence of obligation or necessity) and "daren't" ( a mixture of mustn't shouldn't and won't) then there's more going on here than "The other verbs are different only in whether they take 'to' or not" .

[Andrew Patterson]

then there's more going on here than "The other verbs are different only in whether they take 'to' or not" .

...But the question is, just what is going on? I've had a bit of a think about your statement on graduation of modality, and it could be right, I still maintain, however, that mood and modality are still the same thing but it seems to be verbs followed by gerunds that have reduced mood/modality. I think this is because there is a noun-like quality to the gerund and, the meaning of the verb often indicates that we are somewhat half-hearted about doing the activity and it is the reduced mood/modality that indicates this half-heartedness. However, I note that deontic mood/modality seems more common than the other types. I think that what might be going on here, is that without to the overlay of meaning is somehow more direct, we are in a sense by-passing the indirectness of purpose which is indicated by "to".

Above all else, however, there is certainly nothing haphazard about these verb patterns. We just need to determine what each pattern signifies.

[Andrew Patterson]

then there's more going on here than "The other verbs are different only in whether they take 'to' or not" .

...But the question is, just what is going on? I've had a bit of a think about your statement on graduation of modality, and it could be right, I still maintain, however, that mood and modality are still the same thing but it seems to be verbs followed by gerunds that have reduced mood/modality. I think this is because there is a noun-like quality to the gerund and, the meaning of the verb often indicates that we are somewhat half-hearted about doing the activity and it is the reduced mood/modality that indicates this half-heartedness.

I note that deontic mood/modality seems more common than the other types. I think that what might be going on with the modals and what I like to call the transitive modals (let, make and help, when they are followed by the object and bare infinitive), is that without "to" the overlay of meaning is somehow more direct, we are in a sense by-passing the indirectness of purpose which is indicated by "to". I've already talked about how this works with the verbs of passive perception - powerlessness or willful inaction. I can't decide if these are transitive modals too, though I think they might be.

Above all else, however, there is certainly nothing haphazard about these verb patterns. We just need to determine what each pattern signifies.