ought(n't) to

[5jj]

T
must - mote

!

Strangely, it's the other way round. Historically, mote was the present tense form, must the past. Of course, that is irrelevant in today's English.

 

[5jj]

Sorry, but 'ought' is a finite verb-form. As such, a construction such as *did I ought? is not even theoretically possible.

It may not be theoretically possible, but it certainly is in practice. You may not like it; we may label it ungrammatical; but it is used.

It's similar to used to, where we see:

1. used you to?
2. did you use to?
3. did you used to?

#3 is theoretically impossible and certainly technically ungrammatical, but I have seen it several times in print. I have probably heard it too, but since it is difficult to hear any difference between #1 and #2, this is impossible to prove.

 

[Abstract Idea]

Strangely, it's the other way round. Historically, mote was the present tense form, must the past.

I think that is precisely what I said (or at least intended to say with that two-columns ordered past x present list).

 

[5jj]

I think that is precisely what I said (or at least intended to say with that two-columns ordered past x present list).

Sorry. You are absolutely right. My attention slipped.

 

[5jj]

A note to any learners who have struggled this far:

It is clear that there is no real agreement among native speakers, even those with long experience of teaching and/or writing.

I advise my students never to use ought to. There are good reasons for this:

1. As I noted in post #2, native speakers use should far more than they use ought (to).
2. Native speakers rarely use negative or interrogative forms of ought (to).
3. Should can always be used in place of ought (to) with practically identical shades of meaning.
4. Ought (to) can not always be used in place of should, as Philo pointed out in post #14.

If you have to use ought (to), for example in a multiple-choice question where you have to choose between different forms of the verb, avoid those using DO, and avoid those using 'to'. You are then more likely to hit on the answer the test-writer was looking for.

 

[philo2009]

It may not be theoretically possible, but it certainly is in practice. You may not like it; we may label it ungrammatical; but it is used.

It's similar to used to, where we see:

1. used you to?
2. did you use to?
3. did you used to?

#3 is theoretically impossible and certainly technically ungrammatical, but I have seen it several times in print. I have probably heard it too, but since it is difficult to hear any difference between #1 and #2, this is impossible to prove.

We are agreed, then, that it is not theoretically possible, since it is disallowed by the standard rules of English syntax.

I'm　prepared to concede that, as a solecism, it exists, although I'm sure that our user does not wish to be informed of incorrect/uneducated usage.

 

[philo2009]

4. Ought (to) can not always be used in place of ought (to), as Philo pointed out in post #14.

You mean, of course, 'in place of should'.



Overall, however, sound advice, I would say. Knowledge of 'ought to' can be confined to comprehension purposes.

 

[5jj]

You mean, of course, 'in place of should'.

Thanks. That was a careless slip. I am going back now to edit.

Overall, however, sound advice, I would say. Knowledge of 'ought to' can be confined to comprehension purposes.

5

 

[5jj]

We are agreed, then, that it is not theoretically possible, since it is disallowed by the standard rules of English syntax.

I'm　prepared to concede that, as a solecism, it exists, although I'm sure that our user does not wish to be informed of incorrect/uneducated usage.

I disagree slightly with your second point. If we tell our students that something cannot be said in English, and then they go out into the world and hear it, even occasionally see it, then they can become confused. I prefer to tell them, of such a construction, that it is generally considered (or: considered by some, as appropriate) to be unacceptable, but that they may well hear it.

 

[philo2009]

I disagree slightly with your second point. If we tell our students that something cannot be said in English, and then they go out into the world and hear it, even occasionally see it, then they can become confused. I prefer to tell them, of such a construction, that it is generally considered (or: considered by some, as appropriate) to be unacceptable, but that they may well hear it.

Agreed naturally. Just so long as unacceptability is clearly signalled.