The present form of must, mot, became obsolete. Dare also lost the syntactical characteristics of a modal auxiliary and evolved a new past form (dared), distinct from the modal durst.
|
|
Modal notions are expressed by further periphrastic constructions. A verb with the suffix may be used in an independent clause to convey obligation: "All the children must go to school". is used as a modal auxiliary of volition, as in "I want to learn Rama" ( "learn"). Ability may be expressed by the future/irrealis tense form in , e.g.
|
|
French, like some other Romance languages, does not have a grammatically distinct class of modal auxiliary verbs; instead, it expresses modality using conjugated verbs followed by infinitives: for example, pouvoir "to be able" (Je peux aller, "I can go"), devoir "to have an obligation" (Je dois aller, "I must go"), and vouloir "to want" (Je veux aller "I want to go").
|
|
Yet another example is the use with 'ಇಷ್ಟ'. For example, one says 'ನನಗೆ ಸೇಬುಗಳು ಇಷ್ಟ ಆಗುತ್ತವೆ' (idiomatically--'I like apples'; literally--'to me, apples become pleasure'). Dative constructions are used to make the equivalent of English sensory linking verbs and with many modal auxiliary verbs. For example, 'I see him' is translated as 'he causes me to see (him)', with 'me' in the dative case.
|
|
The grammar in Malaysian English may become simplified in the mesolectal and basilectal varieties. For example, articles and past-tense markers may sometimes be omitted, question structures may be simplified, and the distinction between countable and mass nouns may be blurred. In the basilectal variety, omission of the object pronoun or the subject pronoun is common. The modal auxiliary system is also often reduced, and sometimes, a verb may be absent.
|
|
Germanic languages tend to have two morphologically distinct simple forms, for past and non-past, as well as a compound construction for the past or for the perfect, and they use modal auxiliary verbs. The simple forms, the first part of the non-modal compound form, and possibly the modal auxiliaries, are usually conjugated for person and/or number. A subjunctive mood form is sometimes present. English also has a compound construction for continuous aspect.
|
|
In many cases, an auxiliary verb is used, as in English, where futurity is often indicated by the modal auxiliary will (or shall). However, some languages combine such an auxiliary with the main verb to produce a simple (one-word, morphological) future tense. This is the origin of the future tense in Western Romance languages such as French and Italian (see below). A given language may have more than one way to express futurity.
|
|
The indicative mood form is used in both clauses of "if [possible situation]...then..." sentences, although "if" can be replaced by the use of the subjunctive mood form. The subjunctive form is used in both clauses of "if [imaginary situation]...then..." sentences, and is often used in subordinate clauses. There are various modal auxiliary verbs. There is a progressive construction using "to be" which is used only for abstract concepts like "learn" and not for activities like "sit": ég er að læra "I am [at] learning".
|
|
The traditional NP-analysis has the drawback that it positions the determiner, which is often a pure function word, below the lexical noun, which is usually a full content word. The traditional NP-analysis is therefore unlike the analysis of clauses, which positions the functional categories as heads over the lexical categories. The point is illustrated by drawing a parallel to the analysis of auxiliary verbs. Given a combination such as will understand, one views the modal auxiliary verb will, a function word, as head over the main verb understand, a content word.
|
|
The term simple future, future simple or future indefinite, as applied to English, generally refers to the combination of the modal auxiliary verb will with the bare infinitive of the main verb. Sometimes (particularly in more formal or old- fashioned English) shall is preferred to will when the subject is first person (I or we); see shall and will for details. The auxiliary is often contracted to 'll; see English auxiliaries and contractions. This construction can be used to indicate what the speaker views as facts about the future, including confident predictions: ::The sun will rise tomorrow at 6:14.
|
|
The simple conditional or conditional simple, also called conditional present, and in some meanings future-in-the-past simple, is formed by combining the modal auxiliary would with the bare infinitive of the main verb. Sometimes (particularly in formal or old-fashioned English) should is used in place of would when the subject is first person (I or we), in the same way that shall may replace will in such instances; see shall and will. The auxiliary is often shortened to 'd; see English auxiliaries and contractions. The simple conditional is used principally in a main clause accompanied by an implicit or explicit condition (if-clause).
|
|
For example, "John had left" implies that the reference point is in the past relative to the time of speaking, and that John's leaving occurred before that point. "John will have left" is similar, except that the reference point is in the future relative to the time of speaking. In the case of the future-in-the-past, the reference point is in the past, but the action is placed in the future relative to that point (it can be considered a posterior tense). An example is found in "John would later return to the party" (although the modal auxiliary would can also have other meanings).
|
|
The Metaoperational Theory is thus a theoretical framework within which questions as the following may find an answer: What makes it possible for the English modal auxiliary SHOULD to express distinct notions like advice (a), fear (b), doubt (c), etc.? (a) We should make better use of wind-power. (b) Fiona did physics in case she should fail in one of the other subjects. (c) I should think this happened 15 years ago. In other words, how is the core meaning of SHOULD to be formulated if the theory is to account for the marker’s many different uses and meanings (or ‘sense effects’) in context? Or again, how come the French verbal form called ‘the imperfect tense’ (Fr.
|
|