Generic "will".

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

JuanTwoThree
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Spain

Post by JuanTwoThree » Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:11 pm

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" ).

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:44 pm

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

JuanTwoThree
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Spain

Post by JuanTwoThree » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:22 pm

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?"?

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:24 am

Whoa! That's a mighty tome! 267 pages!

I found the bit on do-support slides 37-45 to make it easier for everyone else.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:09 am

JuanTwoThree wrote: It's interesting that the tag after an imperative "will you?" best translates as "veux-tu?" in French and "quieres?" in Spanish

"Open the door, will you?"?
Doesn't that translate to ", puedes"?

JuanTwoThree
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Spain

Post by JuanTwoThree » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:47 am

Well, "best translates" was perhaps a bit strong :oops:

"can translate" is a bit more modest. Better stick to English.


PS Here's a "need without to" that's neither negative nor a question:

"I've eaten more than I need have"

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:52 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote:Well, "best translates" was perhaps a bit strong :oops:

"can translate" is a bit more modest. Better stick to English.


PS Here's a "need without to" that's neither negative nor a question:

"I've eaten more than I need have"
Sounds like my mother. She'd use the contracted form though.

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:13 pm

Would you classify "Leave" as boulomaic modality?

Post Reply