[austechwriter] Re: Must, will, etc. - modals

  • From: "Steve Hudson" <cruddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:22:26 +1000

Funny, I coulda swore "will" was a future "to be". Ye olde infinitive
actually.

Steve Hudson

Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
Email:      steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Products:   http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
Spellbooks: 728 pages of dump left and dropping...


-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Petra Liverani
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2003 3:53 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [austechwriter] Must, will, etc. - modals


You might find it interesting to note that "must" and "will" belong to a
class of auxiliary verbs in English called modals. Modals are words which
indicate our opinions and attitudes. English modals include:
can    could
shall   should
will     would
may    might
must

In modern English only "could" and "would" are used as pasts of "can" and
"will". (I could do gymnastics when I was young. He would sit for hours).

Modals are used with many different meanings. "Will" combined with a verb is
often taught as being future tense. However, there really is no proper
future tense in English. "Will" can be used for future but so can the
present continuous (I'm going to America next week). "Will" can also be used
in other ways. For example:

That will be John at the door. (probability)
You will not go to the party. (prohibition)
I will go to the party. (intention)

There's quite a lot of stuff on modals on the internet and an interesting
one about teaching modals to foreigners can be found at
http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/modalsinteaching.html

In the last place I worked "shall" and "will" were replaced with "must" to
express obligation. "Must" seems to unequivocally express obligation better
than "will", especially for non-native speakers. However, people might find
"must" off-putting if they find it all the way through a document. As
someone else suggested, using "always" or trying to find other ways around
using a strong-sounding imperative without comprising meaning is probably
desirable.

Petra

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. austechwriter
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2003