Generic "will".
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
It annoys me greatly when sloppy books bung in "have to" and "defective" is to misunderstand the business completely, but "ought to" is only stopped from being modal no. 10 by that pesky "to", which anyway may have as much to do with the sound of it as with "ought to" being "less modal" than "should" (When we're in Eastbourne we ought to visit my aunt" sounds more like "and we're going to" than "should visit" ).
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I've found that thread to do with do-support that I was thinking about. It turns out you started the thread:
"It appears not to have Do Support"
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=3329
It's well worth revisiting anyway.
I thought it might be nice to draw up a list of verbs that don't require do-support:
ain't
be
have
do
can
could
may
might
will
would
shall
should
ought
ought better
had better
must
need
dare
would rather
would sooner
would prefer
appear
ask
believe
expect
?fancy
hope
prefer
reckon
seem
suggest
suppose
think
"It appears not to have Do Support"
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=3329
It's well worth revisiting anyway.
I thought it might be nice to draw up a list of verbs that don't require do-support:
ain't
be
have
do
can
could
may
might
will
would
shall
should
ought
ought better
had better
must
need
dare
would rather
would sooner
would prefer
appear
ask
believe
expect
?fancy
hope
prefer
reckon
seem
suggest
suppose
think
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
http://www.uniovi.es/SEDERI/Sederi08.pdf
has something on the rise of do support: what it suggests is that those verbs that resisted the rise of do-support worked something like auxiliary verbs.
There are others like "fancy" and "ask" , Andrew, which though archaic seem familiar. Probably because of the Bible and Shakespeare, both predating ( compulsory) do-support but obviously prolonging its non- use when they were consciously or unconsciously used: "I care not if----" and "Let him not......"
Why do you say that "do" doesn't require do-support?
Back to "will" . Earlier on there was a mention of lexical will muddying the waters a bit. It's interesting that the tag after an imperative "will you?" best translates as "veux-tu?" in French and "quieres?" in Spanish (both "+want you?" ). Just how modal and how lexical is the will of
"Open the door, will you?"?
has something on the rise of do support: what it suggests is that those verbs that resisted the rise of do-support worked something like auxiliary verbs.
There are others like "fancy" and "ask" , Andrew, which though archaic seem familiar. Probably because of the Bible and Shakespeare, both predating ( compulsory) do-support but obviously prolonging its non- use when they were consciously or unconsciously used: "I care not if----" and "Let him not......"
Why do you say that "do" doesn't require do-support?
Back to "will" . Earlier on there was a mention of lexical will muddying the waters a bit. It's interesting that the tag after an imperative "will you?" best translates as "veux-tu?" in French and "quieres?" in Spanish (both "+want you?" ). Just how modal and how lexical is the will of
"Open the door, will you?"?
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact: