to be and to have are not modals, by any means. (my personal opinion)
be to could be a phrasal modal. I was to go. (because I can't say I to go)
was to has denoted the main meaning of the sentence.
have to could be a phrasal modal as well. I had to go. (because I can't say I to go)
had to has denoted the main meaning of the sentence.
Without was to or had to the sentences wouldn't have any sense.
But also without the main verb go I was to and I had to would mean nothing. (except such as a short answer to a question...)
In addition look at the sentence
You should read the posts carefully. and the sentence
You had better read the posts carefully!
had better is some kind of a modal too, because it does the same thing, helps to denote the exact meaning.
Had better as a some kind of modal (phrasal modal) help us to expres a stronger version of ought to (phrasal modal) when we want to recommend something but strongly.
Anyway in my last post I've tried to give you the answer why a full verb need is a semi-modal sometimes.
Finally I would like to hear your opinion now is would rather a phrasal modal or a semi-modal?
There being no report from the western front, we'll have to handle the problem ourselves.
Originally Posted by Clark
From what I was able to find out, semi-modals are distinguished from modals on the basis of the principle of formal application. This division into modals and semi-modals has nothing to do with semantics.
To be classified as a semi-modal a modal unit has to meet one of the following requirements:
a) to be followed by a full infinitive (e.g. ought to do)
2) to have finite forms (e.g. needed to do, will need to do)
3) contain more than one word (e.g. had better, would rather)
As you can see this division into modals and semi-modals seems to have English teaching value rather than linguistic value. It's meant to help students learn grammar rules and avoid making mistakes..
If I were you I wouldn't read at all.
Originally Posted by e2e4
Last edited by e2e4; 27-Jun-2008 at 19:04.
I'm afraid not. The sentence doesn't need any correction.
Originally Posted by e2e4
Please, keep writing. Now on vacation I can spend more time reading your wonderful prose.
Oh Clark, you know very well that there had to have been the books (we had been talking about) or the empty subject it. (you had to have pointed at them or the sentence doesn't carry any sense)
If I were you I wouldn't read the books at all.
if I were you I wouldn't read it at all.
Actually according to what I had once learned on here maybe better form would be the next one
If I were you I'd stop reading those books. (those, because you do not like the books I had been reading)
Much better sentence would be the next one
You'd better stop reading those stupid books.
I am sorry for going further with the corrections but the form was completely wrong actually.
Who knows what had you meant when you were going to write such the one actually.
But don't worry we are learners aren't we?
Last edited by e2e4; 27-Jun-2008 at 21:37.
By Kitt1919 in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 06-Nov-2007, 10:44
By Unregistered in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 05-Nov-2007, 01:40
By mir12480 in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 27-Jun-2007, 14:21
By emre in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 14-Mar-2006, 05:39
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO