Timeline for Are modal verbs finite or non-finite?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 13, 2014 at 18:10 | comment | added | Elzee | @StoneyB Interesting. Bored can be a past participle adjective if it is modifying Barbara. And typing can be a present participle adverb if it is modifying the verb spent. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 18:01 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Elzee Sort of. In she is typing typing is a component of the construction BE typing in which the tense is realized on the form of BE employed. Your analysis and terminology depend on what you want to do with them. Just for grins, what do you do with the "participles" in the sentence Barbara, bored, spent her days typing? | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 17:49 | comment | added | Elzee | Request a clarification about present participles being non-finite. The word typing in "she is typing a letter" is a present participle and a non-finite verb whereas in "a good typing speed" it is a present participle functioning merely as an adjective and hence there is no question of it being finite or non-finite since only verbs can be finite or non-finite and not the adjectives. Is that correct? | |
| May 24, 2013 at 21:17 | comment | added | John Lawler | There only needs to be exactly one finite verb per clause if you write the rule to say "exactly one". If you write it to say "at most one" it's the same rule, except it doesn't presuppose that everything not compulsory is forbidden, which is usually not a good presupposition in dealing with language. Finity is not a matter of fact, but of theory. | |
| May 24, 2013 at 5:51 | comment | added | dainichi | @Elzee, just curious, what rules do you see being bent by calling "could" finite? I think you're misunderstanding the definition of "finite". The fact that it doesn't explicitly mark the number and person doesn't mean it doesn't have them. Modals in German have different finite forms in the present: "Ich kann gehen"(I can go), "Du kannst gehen"(you can go), "Wir können gehen"(we can go). The fact that these are all "can" in English does not change the fact that "can" is finite in these sentences. | |
| May 22, 2013 at 8:50 | comment | added | Elzee | That's exactly my point. There needs to be a finite verb per clause. If modals are neither finite nor non-finite, saying as Bradd Szonye said, 'it's handy to call them finite for the sake of rules', would only imply that we are bending the rules while merely calling them finite for that sake does not make them finite any way. So why can't we just say that sentences like the one I have mentioned in the question above are grammatically valid even without a finite verb? | |
| May 22, 2013 at 3:49 | comment | added | John Lawler | The rule is that there can be no more than one finite verb per clause, and it must be the initial verb in the verb chain. That works whatever color you want to paint them. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 23:42 | comment | added | B. Szonye | @JohnLawler That's a reasonable take on it, although it's handy to call them finite for the sake of rules about one root/finite verb per sentence. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 22:02 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @JohnLawler Seems to me the full modals have as much "tense" as lexicals; just the "non-past" form has a wider range of applications. But I'd be happier ascribing tense to clauses anyway. | |
| May 21, 2013 at 21:23 | comment | added | John Lawler | It's simpler to say that the modals have no tenses; after all, they don't inflect or agree, and there is no consistent difference between the official "present" and "past" forms. I'd say that modals are neither finite verbs nor non-finite verbs, but rather auxiliary verbs, and defective ones at that. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 11:05 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @BraddSzonye It is widely preferred to subjunctive these days. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 11:04 | comment | added | B. Szonye | Thanks for pointing out the irrealis mood, which I hadn't heard of before. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:59 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @BraddSzonye And it's arguable that in sentences like "Well, if we must we must; but I don't think we will", the first must is a "past" form in a present irrealis sense! | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:47 | comment | added | B. Szonye | Hm, you're right. Another question points out examples like “He knew that he must go.” It's an uncommon usage but still a familiar one. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:42 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @BraddSzonye Must has no distinct past form; but the only form it does have may be deployed in either a past or a non-past sense. Granted, use in a past sense is declining; but that is true of all the modals. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:32 | comment | added | B. Szonye | Must has no past tense. Instead we write had to. Still, good answer: +1. | |
| May 16, 2013 at 10:20 | history | answered | StoneyB on hiatus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |