"I was going to" in other words

[velimir]

Hello Mr.Pedantic,

I don't have a full grasp of bigger differences between various usages of modals so I'm not bothering myself with nuances . But I feel that the same ( or virtually the same) form of modals can lead the listener in totaly different course of thinking than what the speaker really wanted to communicate.It seems to me that no other segment of the English language can do that to such an extent and in such a large number of situations. I mean,roughlly speaking, all mistakes in speech will impede proper understanding but inappropriate usage of modals will sometimes make the listener understand the whole meaning wrong.

All the best and thanks

[velimir]

I hope that it would not be considered a disregard of the forum rules if I've told a joke about misunderstanding in communication in English between an Englishman and a (let say here) non-native speaker. Here it goes :

An Englishman and a non-Englishman shipwrecked off a deserted island. When they managed to get ashore , the Englishman says to the other :

Our boat is sinking,save our supplies !

The non-Englishman: You want supplies ?
The Englishman: Yes , yes

The non-Englishman leaves. Hours has passed and he is not coming back, and the Englishman goes to look out for him.Suddenly the non-Englishman springs out of bushes shouting : Suppliesss!! (meaning surprise).

This joke is actual these days around here and it makes me laugh again and again.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

Hello RK,

Not so much "epistemic", as the distinction between:

1. It was planned that I would go...
2. I was supposed to go...

In spoken English, it seems to me, the tone of voice (as well as the context) would distinguish the two: #1 would have a sudden rising intonation and stress on "should" ("I should have gone..."), whereas #2 might be quite level in intonation until "movie".

Your "good idea" interpretation may well be a third: cf. "I should have done that, too".

Hello Mr P and a good day to you, Sir.

I tend to agree with you that it is not so much epistemic. But does that then make it deontic? There is no third choice, is there? Or have I become wedded to the two and I'm then missing another?


More cogitation needed.



Best wishes,

MrP

And to you too, Mr P.