Thread: auxiliary
View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-Apr-2008, 22:15
iconoclast iconoclast is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: uk
Location: mexico
First Language: english
Posts: 32
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
iconoclast is on a distinguished road
Default Re: auxiliary

From a formal point of view, the true "defective" modals are 'can-could, may-might, must, ought, shall-should, will-would'. All of these may "take" all and any of the possible infinitives of a verb, i.e. active: base/simple, continuous, perfect simple, perfect continuous; passive: base/simple, perfect. Although 'need' and 'dare' are commonly thrown in with the "traditional" modals, not only may they occur as main verbs, but they suffer from certain restrictions.

'Need' is normally used interrogatively or negatively, but not affirmatively (except in a clause subordinated to some kind of negative, e.g. 'I don't see why he need bother', 'I doubt that he need apply''). Also, 'need' rarely (if ever?) takes a continuous infinitive, while 'dare' only takes the base/simple infinitive. Should we call them "partial" modals?

Structures like 'be (about) to, be going to, be able to, have to, be allowed to', etc., are often called "semi-modals" in EFL/ESL, as they complement and contrast in meaning/use/function with the traditional modals, and, as Dr Ibrahim rightly points out, some of them fill in for tense and infinitive forms that the traditional modals don't possess.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iconoclast For This Useful Post:
archidelly (11-May-2008), kirimaru (12-Apr-2008)