Talk:Modal verb

message: The  redirection of "Modal Verb" to the Grammatical Mood page is erroneous.  It was correct prior to this edit when it was being redirected to the  Modal Auxiliary Verb page.
The  Modal Auxiliary Verb page needs to be greatly expanded.  The comment on this erroneous edit is "to eliminate a double redirection".  The  Modal Auxiliary Verb page is so small that it was thought to be nothing more than a redirection to the Grammatical Mood page.
: Modal verb should not redirect to English modal auxiliary verb because other languages have modal verbs. peace – ishwar  (speak) 08:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now about Germanic modal verbs in general, with an emphasis on syntax.  I find conflicting information about whether the terminology "modal verb" is applicable to non-Germanic languages.  That question should be settled by someone who can read grammar books in those languages, rather than English text about them.  --Syboor 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: I would recommend not using the first source in the bibliography section.  It is a doctoral thesis and although very well researched and organized, much of the findings are incorrect. Drew.ward (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Modal auxiliaries don't indicate "mood", but rather function. Examples of "mood" are interrogatory, imperative, subjunctive, emphatic, etc. Mood has a distinctive meaning in grammar. 72.146.54.30 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about mood.  It's about the permissive and subjunctive moods.  It's just that these moods aren't technically considered to exist in English, since they are usually indicated by modal auxiliary verbs rather than by separate verb forms.  Benjamindees (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  modals do express mood.  Really there's no discussion there, they simply do. Drew.ward (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not about "Mood" 

message: A. This article mentioned the use of the verb "do" in English quite a bit, but did not mention the use of this verb to make emphatic statements. (Something that is missing entirely in some languages such as German,wher they use adverbs instead.) I have now at least mentioned this usage of the verb.
B. This article did not mention the use of the verb "may" as a subjective verb. At least I have mentioned that now. In German, subjunctive verbs are used all the time, and there are two forms Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II - which labels I can't keep straight. One of these has decreased very much in use in English, but it appears in such sentences as, "If I were the King of North America." The other one has vanished to a mere vestage in English, practically down to the verbs "may", "might", and "let". An example of the first verb is "That may be an actual spaceship from another planet..." Here "may" is clearly not an "asking permission" verb, but rather, it is a subjunctive. As for the subjunctive form of the last verb, examples would be "If he be lying, let his tongue be pulled out," and "If I am lying, let my tongue burst into flames."  
Anyway, the point is that "may" has the use as a subjunctive verb, as well as a modal auxiliary, and "do" has the use to make statements emphatic. It also makes questions emphatic: "Did you really go to college at the University of Southern California?"72.146.54.30 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of mention of some alternative verb forms - but it has been done some now 

message: This is a call for help to anybody who speaks a non-Germanic language or even non-Indo-European language: Of course, many languages out there are stronger on grammatical mood than on actual modal verbs, but I am sure there is more than one way of translating sentences like the following into your respective mother tongues:
:He can't write / She can swim.
:We don't have to go. / You have to leave.
:You shouldn't smoke. / You should listen to me.
:You musn't say anything. / May I ask you a question?
Even if there is not a strict class of modal verbs in your mother tongue, the corresponding control verbs or auxiliary verbs (i.e. direct translations for "can / must / shall / will / may") are more likely to exist than not, aren't they? I think this page would greatly profit from a section that exemplifies the way other, unrelated, languages handle the same concept. Trigaranus (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modal verbs in other languages 

message: I've taken the liberty of moving the following addition to the discussion page:
=== Dialects ===
There are some other modal verbs that exist only in some dialects of english.
* wanna = want to
I wanna go to the cinema. (= I want to go to the cinema.)
* gonna = going to
We're gonna win this game. (= We are going to win this game.)
* gotta = got to
You gotta go. (= You got to go.)
Modal verbs as a category are not formed with a "to" infinitive. Expressions such as "I want to" or "I am going to" are not modal verbs, nor are they dialectal, even in a contracted form, which simply makes them more informal. The "gotta" construction is just a shortening of "have got to" and not a modal verb, either. Sorry for that. Trigaranus (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects 

message: There are some other modal verbs that exist only in some dialects of english.
* wanna = want to
I wanna go to the cinema. (= I want to go to the cinema.)
* gonna = going to
We're gonna win this game. (= We are going to win this game.)
* gotta = got to
You gotta go. (= You got to go.)
Modal verbs as a category are not formed with a "to" infinitive. Expressions such as "I want to" or "I am going to" are not modal verbs, nor are they dialectal, even in a contracted form, which simply makes them more informal. The "gotta" construction is just a shortening of "have got to" and not a modal verb, either. Sorry for that. Trigaranus (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects 

message: I'm really not fond of the way this article treats the two modals. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says that effectively there is no difference in modern English between the two, aside from a few set phrases. Citations would be very nice.
I have just removed this entire section on shall/will:
"As regards the modal auxiliary verbs shall/will, it is misleading to suggest either that these verbs are "future tense auxiliary verbs" that are used to form a future tense in English where shall is used for the first person and will for second and third persons (a "rule" of "traditional" grammar), thereby forming a compound "simple future" or "pure future" tense, or that shall and will are interchangeable in modern English. This latter belief no doubt arises from the fact that the contracted forms of shall and will are identical ( 'll), as are the contracted forms of the past/subjunctive of shall and will, namely should and would ( 'd), which contractions having led to the usage of will/would for all persons in demotic English and most particularly in American English. 
Shall and will have distinct meanings, but some of them sometimes overlap, as with I/we statements combining promise (a statement of obligation) and intention (a statement of willingness).  With I/we questions used as suggestions or as requests for advice, only shall/should is possible: "Shall/Should I do something?" fundamentally asks if I am obliged to another party to do something.  (cf. sollen in German: Was soll ich tun? [What shall I do?]) In most other cases, "will" is usable.  Will in 2nd and 3rd persons can indicate a sure prediction if the statement/question is marked for future time (When will he arrive? - He will arrive tomorrow) or future time is understood in context (Do you think he will come? – Sure he will come), the certainty of prediction being marked by the speaker's belief that he knows the volition of the subject of the modal verb; if no futurity is marked or understood in context, then will, but not shall, carries meanings of (a) general deduction, (b) highest probability, (c) habit, or (d) habit-power, e.g.: (a) If George is British, he will be quite conservative in his opinions; (b) Did the caller have a British accent? – Then that will have been George (would have been George is still highly probable but there is a slight doubt implied by the past form of will that, in this context, is subjunctive in function; must have been George is also a high probability statement but it is a logical conclusion: the speaker is logically obliged to believe that the caller was George); (c) He will always call me when I'm having lunch; (d) This bottle will hold at least two pints."
Not only is it very incorrect, but it's English-specific and there is already a page on English modals.
 
The document in that link explains many of the problems this section had with which form is used in regard to the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall vs. Will 

message: English	German      	Dutch
dare   	dürfen, darf	durven, durf
The article states that these modal verbs share common roots. It is not the case for the last example. English dare comes from a Germanic root *dars, *dursan- "to dare" (PIE *dhers-), whilst German darf and Dutch durf come from *þurfan- "to need" (PIE *terp-). No relation between the two groups. Please correct. Leasnam (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but "no relation between the two groups" is kind of an exaggeration. CapnPrep (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: dare/darf/durf

message: I am by no means a hard core grammarian, but the opening sentence defines a modal verb as one that indicates modality. well, duh....
Silicon retina (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in immediately directing us to Linguistic modality that this supposedly 'weak' opening sentence fully demonstrates its heart-wrenching awesomeness. Or do you know a way of defining "modality" in less than one line? ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak opening sentence

message: Removed from the "Function" section:
: must = absolute (often moral) obligation, order, requirement, necessity; can/could = physical or mental ability; may/might = permission, option, choice; will = intention in 1st person, volition in 2nd and 3rd persons; and shall/should = in 1st person objective though not moral obligation, no choice, as in: One day I shall die: we all shall die one day; in 2nd and third persons shall implies an incumbent obligation, destiny (It shall come to pass) or a command, decree, necessity imposed by the speaker, as in: A meeting shall take place on the last Friday of every month or a promise, namely that the speaker is stating his obligation to another party that an action or event take place, as in: You shall go to the ball, Cinderella. However, if a speaker states: I will let you go to the ball, Cinderella, in stating his intention, he is, in this instance, also making a promise.
This seems more to be an attempt at an English usage guide than discussion about the general concept of modal verbs (as other languages that have them divide the various meanings quite differently). –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: This sentence does not mean "You may not do that". It means "You do not have to do that". Pamour (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function 

message: Hello, 
The opening paragraph is a bit contrary to the definition of modality. The page is this:
:"..is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality – that is, likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation."
To me, this suggests that modality is simply "likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation". However, the Linguistic modality page states that "modality is what allows speakers to attach expressions of belief, attitude and obligation to statements"
I find the current diction on this page to be a bit confusing and misleading. Perhaps it should be changed? 
192.5.110.4 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For me the two definitions are saying almost the same thing, in different words. How would you change it (them)? Victor Yus (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd disagreement 

message: "German, Afrikaans, and West Frisian never use "do" as an auxiliary verb for any function"E.g. [www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Gottsched,+Johann+Christoph/Theoretische+Schriften/Grundlegung+der+deutschen+Sprachkunst/II.+Theil%3A+Die+Wortforschung/Das+VI+Hauptst%C3%BCck/V+Abschnitt] has "ich thue essen" (= "ich esse"; Engl.: "I do eat" = "I eat").So, doesn't or at least didn't the German "do" - i.e. "t[h]un" - function like an auxiliary or modal verb?
-84.161.15.243 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It sometimes does in Swiss German dialects at least, especially in "simple" language (e.g. when talking to a child): "Tue das nöd mache." (do that not make/do). But that would just make it an auxiliary verb a bit like the English do, NOT a modal verb. The question whether a language uses "do" (or its respecitve counterpart) in connection with a modal verb is not really a relevant one for German and its variants, since every verb, including modal verbs, has an infinitive form and (usually) a past participle -- so of course you can use it with an auxiliary verb. Trigaranus (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German "do"? 

message: "The verbs/expressions dare, ought to, had better, and need not behave like modal auxiliaries to a large extent, although they are not productive "
I can't speak for non-North American dialects, but the modal verb "had better" (also stated as "better", "had best" and "best") is definitely more productive than "shall" in North American English.
"You had better leave" = "You better leave" = "You best leave" = "You had best leave".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Had better" is productive 

message: English modals don't really have a past tense conjugation in the usual sense, but it's noticeable that many of them come in pairs, where one member of the pair ends in a [d] or [t] sound and has a more hypothetical or "subjunctive" meaning than the other member of the pair which doesn't end in [d] or [t]: will/would, shall/should, may/might, can/could (also dare/durst back when "dare" was a full modal, and "I durstn't" meant "I wouldn't dare").
So the bit in the article about "may" not having a past tense "mayed" is rather unfortunate, since at least some people would say that "might" fills that inflectional slot... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  English modals and past tense 

message: At the end of the lead it says: "In English and other Germanic languages, modal verbs are often distinguished as a class based on Lucas Shaw." Am I the only one who has no idea what this is supposed to mean?
Emptybathtub (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lucas Shaw" 

message: modals 175.176.71.29 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Modal and modal verbs difference 2405:201:5C0B:6027:E9AA:665A:DA4D:7667 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: New section needed under "in other languages". RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian