we can compare may and can 24
must and may compared 28
to have to 29
to be to 31
must, to have to and to be to compared 32
ought to 34
Shall and should 35
must, should and ought to compared 41
Should + perfect infinitive, ought to + perfect infinitive and was/were to + perfect infinitive compared 41
Shouldn’t + Perfect Infinitive, oughtn’t to + Perfect Infinitive and needn’t + Perfect Infinitive compared 49
Final conclusion 50
Modality is expression of speaker’s attitude to what his utterance denotes.
The speaker’s judgment may be of different kinds, that is, the speaker may express various modal meanings. Modal verbs unlike other verbs, do not denote actions or states, but only show the attitude of the speaker towards the action expressed by the infinitive in combination with which they form compound modal predicates. These modal verbs may show that the action (or state, of process, or quality) is viewed by the speaker as possible, obligatory, doubtful, certain, permissible, advisable, requested, prohibited, ordered etc. Modal verbs occur only with the infinitive. This or that meaning is to a great degree determined by communicative type of the sentence and the form of the infinitive. That is a huge problem for foreign learners of English, who make a great deal of mistakes in this field. So, the aim of my work is to show how modal verbs can be used, in what case we need one or other verb and why.
English modality can be expressed not only by modal verbs. Modality can be expressed by different linguistic means. In actual speech all forms expressing modality work together to make the meaning clear. But in every case there is some leading form that expresses the main attitude. These forms fall into four categories: phonetic (intonation), grammatical (mood), lexico-grammatical (modal verbs), lexical (modal words and phrases). But the most important from them is the third form, which includes modal verbs. It is important to take into account one more feature peculiar to modal verbs. They all show that a certain action is represented as necessary, doubtful, etc. From the point of view of the speake, there are verbs which ‘help’ other verbs to express a meaning: it is important to realize that “modal verbs” have no meaning by themselves/ A modal verb such as would has several varying functions; it can be used, for example, to help verbs express ideas about the past, the present and the future. It is therefore wrong to simply believe that “would is the past of will”: it is many other things.
English modality can be expressed not only by modal verbs. There are many ways to express it – generally Mood shows the relation between the action expressed by the predicate verb and reality. The speaker establishes this relation.
In present-day English the category of mood is made up by a set of forms opposed to each other in presenting the event described as a real fact, a problematic action of as something unreal that does not exist.
Actions represented as real facts are expressed by the Indicative Mood.
E.g. Architects have done some very good work, too, in designing new schools. Many of these are prefabricated, which means that as much of the building work as possible if done not on the building site but in factories where mass production methods are used.
When the brothers had gone home, Mr. Waterfall announced that they were a much pleasanter pair of young men than the had been led to believe.
The Indicative mood is characterized by a great number of tense-aspect-phase forms that may be used in the Active or in the Passive Voice. It should be stressed that the use of the Indicative Mood does not always mean that the action expressed by the predicate verb is true to fact, that it actually takes (or took, or will take) place in reality. When the speaker uses the Indicative Mood he merely represents an action as a fact, but he maybe mistaken or even telling a lie.
E.g. “I’ve seen to it,” he said, but everyone knew it was not true.
Commands and requests, which are problematic actions, are expressed by the Imperative Mood.
The Imperative Mood is the plain stem of the verb (e.g. Come over here. Listen to him, etc.). It may be used in the affirmative and in the negative form The negative form is an analytical form built up by means of the plain stem of the auxiliary verb to do followed by not (don’t) and the infinitive of the notional verb without to (e.g. Don’t go over there. Don’t listen to him, etc.). The negative form of the verb to be is also built up by means of the auxiliary verb to do (e.g. Don’t be inquisitive. Don’t be a fool, etc.).
If we wish to make a command or request more expressive, we use the emphatic form. It’s also an analytical form built up with the help of the plain stem of the auxiliary verb to do which is placed before the notional verb, including to be (e.g. Do come over here. Do listen to him. Do be quiet, etc.).
A command or request is generally addressed to the second person singular or plural. There is usually no need to mention the subject of the action before the verb in the Imperative mood. But occasionally the verb may be preceded by you in familiar style (e.g. You don’t worry.).
A command or request may be addressed to the first person plural. It is also formed with the help of the plain stem of the verb, to let followed by the pronoun us (the contracted form is let’s) and the infinitive of the notional verb. This form is actually an invitation to a joint action (e.g. Let’s have a cup of tea. Let’s do it together, etc.).
Actions represented as unreal are in present-day English express by a variety of forms.
Among them there is a mood form – the conditional Mood.
The fact that there are a number of forms engaged in expressing unreal actions could be explained historically.
In the older periods English used to be a synthetic language and had special forms that served to express unreal actions – the so-called Subjunctive mood. It was built up synthetically by means of inflections. As a result of loss of inflections, the difference between the forms of the Indicative Mood and the Subjunctive Mood has in most cases disappeared. The place of the old Subjunctive Mood was in a number of cases taken up by analytical forms and modal phrases, i.e. combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. It is this historical process that accounts for the great variety of different forms expressing unreality in modern English.
As some of the forms expressing problematic or unreal actions are modal phrases, it is necessary before describing the different forms of unreality to treat modal verbs first.
The speaker’s attitude towards the action if the sentence may be expressed in different ways:
By one of the mood forms that serve to show whether the action is represented as a real fact of as problematic, or unreal, this form of expression is found in every sentence because it is indispensable to predication.
By modal verbs which represent an action as necessary or unnecessary, possible or impossible, certain of doubtful and the like. But modal verbs need not be used in every sentence and are, therefore, to be regarded as an additional means of expressing the speaker’s attitude towards the action in the sentence.
By attitudinal adverbs such as certainly, perhaps, probably, luckily, unfortunately, etc. They express different degrees of certainty on the part of the speaker of the desirability of the action from his point of view.
We find the following modal verbs in English: can, may, must, ought, shall, should, will, need and dare. Besides, to have and to be in some of their uses are also classed among modal verbs. A modal verb in combination with the infinitive forms a modal compound predicate.
Modal verbs are defective verbs since they lack many forms characteristic of regular verbs: they have no –s in the third person singular in the present tense and no verbal, so they have no analytical forms; some of them lack the form of the past tense.
Modal verbs have the following peculiarities:
they are followed by the infinitive without the particle to (with the exception of ought, to have and to be);
their interrogative and negative forms are built up without the auxiliary do.
Most of the verbs have more than one meaning. Each of their meanings is characterized by a specific usage.
Some of the meanings may be found in all kinds of sentences; others occur only in affirmative of interrogative or negative sentences;
Different meanings may be associated with different forms of the infinitive – simple and perfect (both in the active and passive forms), continuous and perfect continuous;
If the modal verbs have more than one form (can – could, may – might, will – would, also the verbs to have and to be), their different meanings are not necessarily found in all those forms.
The use of modal verbs is in most cases independent of the structure of the sentence: the use of this of that modal verb is determined by the attitude of the speaker towards the facts contained in the sentence. In this case we may speak of the free or independent use of modal verbs.
E. g. He admires you. He thinks you’re a little beauty. Perhaps I oughtn’t to have told you that.
He may be in the hall now, waiting for me.
But sometimes the use of certain modal verbs depends on the structure of the sentence, mainly on the type of the subordinate clause, and occasionally also on the lexical character of the predicate verb in the principal clause. This may be called the structurally dependent use of modal verbs.
E. g. It is obviously necessary that an investigation should be made.
Christine feared she might not be met at all.
When the use of modal verbs is structurally dependent, their meaning is sometimes weakened; in fact, it may be quite vague. This may be accounted for by the fact that these verbs become rather part of the structure than bearers of individual meaning.
It is important to take into account one more feature peculiar to modal verbs. They all show that a certain action is represented as necessary, possible, desirable, doubtful, etc. from the point of view of the speaker. Consequently, modal verbs are generally used in conversation. In past-time contexts they may be found only in reported speech or thought, Thus You should have done it before, or He might be wrong, or It must be true cannot be possibly found in narration unless they are used after He thought that … He said that … He knew that …, etc.
The only exceptions are the past tense forms could, would, had, was and might which may be used only in conversation but also in narration.
E. g. Walker was illiterate and could not sign his name.
When I looked at her I saw tears in her eyes. So I had to tell her the truth.
We can’t but mention that modal verbs are of common usage in literature – both American and English. In this work several examples taken from the works of famous American and English writers of the 18-19th centuries, such as I. Asimov, O. Henry, S. Maugham, F. Scott Fitzgerald, A. Christie, O. Wilde, M. Spark and others, can vividly show you their usage and importance in speech. We guess it’ll be necessary to provide you with some examples on their usage from different newspapers and analyze them thoroughly.
The modal verb can has the following forms: can – the present tense (e.g. He can speak English) and could – the past tense. The form could is used in two ways: a) in past-time contexts as a form of the Indicative Mood (e.g. He could speak English when he was a child), b) in present-time contexts to express unreality, or as a milder and more polite form of can, or as a form implying more uncertainty than can (e.g. He could speak English if necessary. Could I help you? Could it be true?). Compare with the Russian мог бы: Он мог бы сделать это, если бы у него было время (unreality). Не мог бы я Вам помочь? (politeness). Неужели он мог бы так сказать? (uncertainty).
Can has the following meanings:
E.g. I can imagine how angry he is.
We can represent a figure of a three-dimensional solid.
This meaning may also be expressed by to be able . The phrase can be used in all tense-forms if necessary.
In the meaning of ability and capability can occurs in all kinds of sentences.
E.g. Right and left we can go, backward and forward freely enough, and men always have done so. You can move about in all directions of Space, but you cannot move about in Time.
In this case can is followed by the simple infinitive and reference is made to the present. But depending on the context it may also refer to the future.
E.g. He can go up against gravitation in a balloon, and why should he not hope that ultimately he may be able to stop or accelerate his drift along the Time-Dimension, or even turn about and travel the other way?
However, if the time reference is not clear from the context or if it is necessary to stress that the action refers to the future, shall/will be able is used.
E.g. He will be able to write to us from Portugal. I shall be able to earn by own living soon.
The form could may be used in past-time contexts and in this case it is followed by a simple infinitive. It is a form of the Indicative Mood here.
E.g. A man could not cover himself with dust by rolling in a paradox, could he? But then where could it be? After what had happened I couldn’t trust him.
The form could may also be used in present-time context in combination with the simple infinitive to express unreality with reference to the present or future.
E.g. I told myself that I could never stop, and with a gust of petulance I resolved to stop forthwith. (не смог бы прекратить).
You could articulate more distinctly with that cigarette our of your mouth. (мог бы говорить более отчетливо).
As the form could may be used in two ways it is usually undertoosd as expressing unreality with reference to the present or future unless there are indications of past time in the sentence or in the context. Thus the sentence She could paint landscapes will be understood as Она могла бы писать пейзажи.
If there is no indication of past time in the context but the speaker wishes to refer the action to the past, was/were able is used of could to avoid ambiguity.
E.g. She was able to explain the mystery.
In combination with the perfect infinitive could indicates that the action was not carried out in the past.
E.g. She could have explained the mystery. (Она могла бы объяснить эту тайну; но не объяснила).
possibility due to circumstances.
E.g. You can see the forest through the other window.
We can use either the Present Perfect of the Present Perfect Continuous in this sentence.
In this meaning can is found in all kinds of sentences. It is followed by the simple infinitive and it refers the action to the present of future.
E.g. You can obtain a dog from the Dog’s Home.
Can we use the indefinite article with this noun?
We can’t use the indefinite article with this noun.
In past-time contexts the form could is used. It is followed by the simple infinitive in this case.
E.g. You could see the forest through the other window before the new block of houses was erected.
The form could in combination with the simple infinitive may also express unreality with reference to the present of future.
E.g. You could see the houses from here if it were not so dark.
In combination with the perfect infinitive, could indicate that the action was not carried out in the past.
E.g. You could have seen the house from there if it had not been so dark.
E.g. You can take my umbrella.
Can in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences, interrogative sentences in which a request is expressed, and in negative sentences where it expresses prohibition.
E.g. You can use my car. Can I use your car? You can’t use my car today.
In this meaning can is combined with the simple infinitive.
The form could with reference to the present is found only in interrogative sentences in which it expresses a more polite request.
E.g. Could I use your car?
The form could is found in reported speech (i.e. in accordance with the rules of the sequence of tenses).
E.g. He said that I could use his car.
He asked me if he could use my car.
E.g. Can it be true?
In this meaning can is found only in interrogative sentences (in general questions). Besides, sentences of this kind are often emotionally colored and so their application is rather restricted.
Depending on the time reference, can in this meaning is used in combination with different forms of the infinitive.
Thus, if reference is made to the present, the simple infinitive is found with static verbs.
E.g. Can he really be ill?
Can it be so late?
With dynamic verbs, the continuous infinitive is used.
E.g. Can she be telling lies?
Can he be making the investigation all alone?
Can in combination with the perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g. Can he have said it? Can she have told a lie?
The combination of can with the perfect infinitive may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is usually found with static verbs.
E.g. Can she really have been at home all this time?
However, if can is followed by a dynamic verb the Perfect Continuous infinitive is used.
E.g. Can she have been waiting for us so long?
Could with reference to the present is also used in this way, implying more uncertainty.
E.g. Could it be true?
Could she be telling lies?
Could he have said if?
Could she have been waiting for us so long?
In Russian both variants, with can and could, are rendered in the same way: Неужели это правда? Неужели он лжет? And so on.
E.g. It can’t be true. (Это не может быть правдой. Вряд ли это так.)
In this meaning can is found only in negative sentences, which are often emotionally colored. Depending on the time reference, this can is also used with different forms of the infinitive/
E.g. He can’t be really ill.
She can’t be telling lies.
He can’t have said it.
She can’t have been at home all this time.
She can’t have been waiting for us so long.
Could is also used in this way making the statement less categorical
E.g. It couldn’t be true.
She couldn’t be telling lies.
He couldn’t have said it.
She couldn’t have been at home all this time.
She couldn’t have been waiting for us so long.
Can and could followed by different forms of the infinitive, are found in special questions where they are used for emotional coloring (to express puzzlement, impatience, etc.).
E.g. What can (could) he mean?
What can (could) he be doing?
What can (could) he have done?
Where can (could) he have gone to?
It can be rendered in Russian as: Что, собственно, он имеет в виду?
As is seen from the above examples, the form could referring to present is sometimes clearly opposed to can in that it expresses unreality whereas can expresses reality. This may be observed in the following meanings:
ability – He can speak English. He could speak English if necessary.
possibility due to circumstances – You can get the book from the library. You could get the book from the library if necessary. E.g. “You can have a million books on our television screen, and even more. There is nothing to throw away.” (I. Asimov)
“How could a man be a teacher? “ (I. Asimov)
In the other meanings, however, this difference between the two forms is obliterated. Could is used either as a milder or mote polite form of can as a form implying more uncertainty than can:
permission – Can I use your pen? Could I use your pen? (more polite)
uncertainty, doubt, improbability – Can it be true? Could it be true (less certain). It can’t be true. It couldn’t be true (less certain).
We can also find some examples of modal verbs usage in some newspapers , magazines or in literature.
E.g. It could be true but it is advisable to find out first what has really happened there. (Может быть, это и правда, но лучше сначала выяснить, что же действительно там произошло.)
“Honey, you couldn’t support a wife,” she answered cheerfully. “Anyway, I know you too well to fall in love with you.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
In this case the verb could is used here in the meaning of doubt, uncertainty and improbability.
The modal verb may has the following forms: may – the Present tense (e.g. it may be true) and might – the Past tense. The form might is used in two ways: a) in past-time contexts, mainly in reported speech in accordance with the rules of the sequence of tenses (e.g. He told me that it might be true) and b) in present-time contexts as a milder and more polite form of may, or as a form implying more uncertainty than may (e.g. Might I come and see you? It might be true), or to express unreality (e.g. He might have fallen ill if he hadn’t taken the pills).
May has the following meanings:
1) supposition implying uncertainty
E.g. He may be busy getting ready for his trip.
In Russian this meaning is generally rendered by means of the modal adverbs возможно and может быть.
In English this meaning may also be rendered by means of the attitudinal adverbs perhaps and maybe.
In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty the verb may occurs in affirmative and negative sentences.
E.g. He may be at home.
He may not be at home (Возможно, что его нет дома).
Two factors may temporarily have increased their caution. (W. Faulkner)
In this meaning may can be followed by different forms of the infinitive depending on the time reference expressed.
May in combination with the simple infinitive usually refers the action to the future.
E.g. He may come soon.
The action may also refer to the present but only with stative verbs.
E.g. He may be ill.
He may not know about it.
May in combination with the Continuous infinitive of dynamic verbs refers the action to the present.
E.g. It’s too late to phone him now. He may be sleeping.
I never see him about now. For all I know, he may be writing a book.
May in combination with the Perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g. He may have fallen ill.
“What’s happened to the dog?” I asked. “It isn’t here. His master may have taken it with him.”
The combination of may with the Perfect infinitive may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is usually found with stative verbs.
E.g. He may have been at home from about two hours.
However, if may is followed by a dynamic verb, the Perfect Continuous infinitive is used.
E.g. He may have been waiting for us for an hour.
In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the form might is also found. It differs from the form may in that it emphasizes the idea of uncertainty. It may be followed by the simple, Continuous or Perfect infinitive.
E.g. He might come soon. He might be ill.
He might be doing his lesson now. He might have spoken to her yesterday.
possibility due to circumstances
E.g. You may order a taxi by telephone.
A useful rough-and-ready rule is that rime adverbs may come at either end of the sentence, but not in the middle.
May in this meaning occurs only in affirmative sentences and is followed only by the simple infinitive.
The form might is used in past-time contexts in accordance with the rules of the sequence of the tenses.
E.g. He said the might order a taxi by telephone.
Might followed by the Perfect Infinitive indicates that the action was not carried out owning to certain circumstances (expressed in the sentence or implied).
E.g. He might have fallen ill if he hadn’t taken the medicine.
Luckily he wasn’t driving the car. He might have been hurt.
You are so careless. You might have broken the cup. (Ты чуть было не разбил чашку).
It seemed to him that the most interesting thing in life was what might lie just around the corner. (O. Henry)
E.g. The director is alone now. So you may see him now.
If you have got a car and can drive, you may spend part of your holiday moving from place to place. (C. Eckersley)
May in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences, in interrogative sentences which usually express a request, and in negative sentences where it denotes prohibition. But in negative sentences it is not common as prohibition is generally expressed by other modal verbs (see can and must).
E.g. You may smoke in here. May I smoke in here? You may not smoke in here.
In this meaning may is combined only with the simple infinitive. In interrogative sentences the form might is also found when we wish to express a more polite request.
E.g. May I join you?
In reported speech the form might is used.
E.g. He told me that I might smoke in the room He asked me if he might join us.
disapproval or reproach
E.g. You might carry the parcel for me. You might have helped me.
Here we find only the form might used in affirmative sentences and followed by the simple of Perfect infinitive. In the latter case it expressed reproach for the nonperformance of an action.
The form might which expresses unreality is not always parallel to may. Might expresses unreality only in combination with the Perfect infinitive.
E.g. You might have let me know about it beforehand.
There was a car accident in front of our house. Luckily Tommy was at school. He might have been killed.
In most cases might is used as a milder and more polite form than may of as a form implying a greater degree of uncertainty:
permission – May I call to my mother now? Might I call to my mother now? (very polite)
Might I take the liberty of pointing out that you have made a small mistake? (J. Joyce)
supposition – He may come a little later. He might come a little later (less certain).
The Chancellor’s measures might help towards an agreement on an incomes policy. (Moscow News).
The two forms are not opposed in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances where only may is used, nor in the meaning of disapproval of reproach where might alone is found.
E.g. You may find the book at the library.
You might have considered your parents’ feelings.
May as well (might as well, might just as well) + infinitive is a very mild and an emphatic way of expressing an intention. It is also used to suggest of recommend an action.
E.g. I may as well take the child with me. (Я, пожалуй, возьму ребенка с собой. Пожалуй, будет лучше, если я возьму ребенка с собой).
You may as well give him the letter. I might as well stay at home tonight.
“I’ll go at six.” “That’s far too late; you might just as well not go at all.” (Можно было бы и не ходить туда совсем).
It might have been worse means “Things are not so bad after all.” In Russian it is rendered as: Могло бы быть и хуже or в конце концов дела обстоят не так уж и плохо).
He might have been a … means ‘He might have been taken for a …’ ‘He looked as a …’
E.g. Roy Wilson, the new doctor, was twenty-eight, large, heavy, mature and blond. He might have been a Scandinavian sailor.
If I may say so … has become a stereotyped phrase in which the meaning of permission is considerably weakened.
E.g. If I may say so, I think you have treated him very badly.
In addition to the above cases illustrating the independent use of may, this modal verb occurs in subordinate object clauses after expressions of fear as well as in adverbial clauses of purpose and concession.
Here are some more examples from the works of the English and American literature:
E.g. Try as she might, her poor head just wouldn’t let her think what it was she should rightly remember.(O. Wilde)
You certainly won’t. You may freeze your nose, but you won’t be shivery cold. It’s hard and dry, you know. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
We can compare May and Can
The use of can and may is parallel only in two meanings: possibility due to circumstances and permission. In these meanings, however, they are not always interchangeable for a number of various reasons.
Thus in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances the use of may is restricted only to affirmative sentences, whereas can is found in all kinds of sentences.
Can – He can find this book at the library. Can he find this book at the library? He cannot find this book at the library.
May – He may find this book at the library.
Their time reference is also different. May refers only to the present or future: the form might is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech. Can (could) may refer to the present, pastor future.
May – He may find the book at the library. I said that he might find the book at the library.
Can – He can find the book at the library. He could find the book at the library yesterday. He can find the book at the library tomorrow.
Both could and might combined with the Perfect infinitive indicate that the action was not carried out in the past.
E.g. He might have found the book at the library.
He could have found the book at the library.
It follows from the above that the sphere of application of can in this meaning is wider than that of may.
When may and can express permission the difference between them is rather that of style than of meaning – may is more formal than can which is characteristic of colloquial English.
E.g. May (might) I speak to you for a moment, professor?
Can (could) I have a cup of tea, mother?
May in negative sentences expressing prohibition is uncommon.
The modal verb must has only one form it is used in present-time contexts with reference to the present of future and in combination with the Perfect infinitive it refers to the past. In past-time contexts this form is used only in reported speech, i.g. the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed with must.
Must has the following meanings:
obligation (from the speaker’s point of view)
E.g. Any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and – Duration.
In different contexts must may acquire additional shades of meaning, such as duty or necessity.
In this meaning must is found in affirmative and interrogative sentences and followed only by the simple infinitive.
E.g. He must not leave his room for a while. (Он не должен (ему нельзя) выходить из комнаты некоторое время).
This meaning is expressed in negative sentences and must is also followed by the simple infinitive.
E.g. You must come and see us when you’re in London.
You must stop worrying about your son.
You mustn’t give another thought to what he said.
You mustn’t miss the film. It is very interesting.
You must have your hair cut.
It is much too long. You mustn’t cry.
“Andy” – she spoke in a quick, low voice – “of course you must never tell anybody what I told you about Canby yesterday.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
This meaning is found in affirmative and negative sentences and is closely connected with the two above mentioned meanings.
supposition implying strong probability
E.g. Watson, we must look upon you as a man of letters.
It must be late as the streets are deserted.
Must in this meaning is found only in affirmative sentences. In Russian this meaning is generally rendered by means of the attitudinal adverbs вероятно, должно быть.
In English this meaning may also be expressed by means of the attitudinal adverb probably.
In this meaning must may be followed by different forms of the infinitive. If reference is made to the present, the Continuous infinitive is used with dynamic verbs.
E.g. The book is not on the shelf. Jane must be reading it. Let’s have something to eat. You must be starving.
If must is followed by the simple infinitive of dynamic verbs, it expresses obligation.
E.g. Jane must read the book. You must stay here.
However, with stative verbs the simple infinitive is used to express supposition.
E.g. He must be over fifty.
He must know all about it as he has read a lot on the subject.
“He must be a Southerner, judging by those trousers,” suggested Harry mischievously. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
Must in combination with the Perfect Infinitive refers the action to the past.
E.g. You must have examined the house very carefully, to find a single pellet of paper.
It must have been his first taste of peace for years.(A. Marshall)
The combination of must with the Perfect Continuous infinitive indicates an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.
E.g. It must have been raining all the night. There are big puddles in the garden.
However, if must is followed by a stative verb, the Perfect infinitive is used.
E.g. He must have been here since breakfast. He must have known it all along.
When must expresses supposition implying strong probability, its use is restricted in two ways:
It is not used with reference to the future. In this case we find attitudinal adverbs in the sentence.
E.g. She must really love you to distraction. He must evidently know all about it
It is not used in the interrogative or negative forms. It is found only in the affirmative form.
Must needs denotes obligation.
E.g. He must needs go there. (Он непременно должен пойти туда.)
“I think you must ask somebody else to your party instead of Henry, Jim” (B. J. Chute)
“Yes, but I must wash before dinner,” Jimmy said and added, “You’re lucky. Dirt doesn’t show on you.” (B.J. Chute)
I must be going and I must be off both mean – it is time for me to go (in Russian – мне пора уходить).
I must tell you that … and I must say … are stereotyped phrases in which the meaning of obligation is considerably weakened in must.
In the sentences: You must come and see me some time You must come and have a dinner with me. You must come to our party. You must come and stay with us for the weekend and the like, the meaning of obligation in must is also weakened. Must has become part of such sentences which are a common way of expressing invitations.
Must and May compared
Must and may can be compared in two meanings:
Both may and must serve to express supposition but their use is not parallel. May denotes supposition implying uncertainty whereas the supposition expressed by must implies strong probability
E.g. For all I know, he may be an actor. His face seems so familiar. He must be an actor. His voice carries so well. I saw him an hour ago. He may still be in his office now. He always comes at 10 sharp. So he must be in his office now.
They must be satisfied with going to the piers… (M. Spark)
May and must are used to express prohibition in negative sentences. But may is seldom found in this meaning. In negative answers to questions with may asking for permission we generally find must not or cannot.
E.g. ‘May I smoke here?” “No, you mustn’t (you can’t).
To have to
To have to as a modal verb is not a defective verb and can have all the necessary finite forms as well as the verbal.
E.g. He is an invalid and has to have a nurse.
She knew what she had to do.
He frightened her – I had to yield him my last date before Bill came. (F. Scott Fitzgerald0
I shall have to reconsider my position.
He is always having to exercise judgment.
My impression was that he was having to force himself to talk.
I have had to remind you of writing to her all this time.
The women at barfed had had to be told that an experiment was taking place that day. “As a matter of fact,” he said, “I’ve been having to spend some time with the research people.”
It wouldn’t have been very nice for the David’s sons to have to mix with all those people in the smoking-room.
Having to work alone, he wanted all his time for his research.
The interrogative and negative forms of the modal verb to have to are built up by means of the auxiliary verb to do.
E.g. Why do I have to do everything?
Did he have to tell them about it?
“That is all right,” she said. “I just thought I’d ask. You don’t have to explain.”
There was a grim on his face. He did not have to tell me that he already knew.
The verb to have to serves to express obligation or necessity imposed by circumstances.
It is rendered is Russian as приходится, вынужден.
In this meaning it is found in all kinds of sentences – affirmative, interrogative and negative – and is combined only with the simple infinitive.
E.g. I am afraid you will have to go to the court.
They will have him back. (Они заставят его вернуться)
Did he have to do it? He did not have to do it.
If you go abroad, no matter how you are traveling, you have to go through the customs. (M. Spark)
The negotiations might fail. In that event the Government would have to decide what to do. (Morning star)
I have to revise other ideas about her. (F. Scott Fitzgerald0
In negative sentences to have to denotes absence of necessity.
E.g. You don’t have to go there. (Вам нет необходимости идти туда).
You mustn’t go there. (Вам нельзя идти туда).
In spoken English the meaning of obligation and necessity is also expressed by have (has) got to. Like the verb to have to it is found in all kinds of sentences and is combined with the simple infinitive.
E.g. He has got to go right now.
Has he got to go right now?
He hasn't got to go just yet.
This combination may also be found in the past tense, though it is not very common.
E.g. He had got to sell his car.
A few drops begun to fall “We’d better take shelter,’ she said. (Нам лучше укрыться).
She didn’t like to say that she thought they had better not play cards when the guest might come in at any moment.
Had better is followed by the infinitive without to.
We can compare the usage of this verb in American and British literature:
You’ve got to be kidding – American English.
You’ve got to be joking – British English.
To be to
To be to as a modal verb is used in the present and past tenses.
E.g. We are to meet at six.
We were to meet at six.
To be to as a modal verb has the following meanings:
a previously arranged plan or obligation resulting from the arrangement
E.g. We are to discuss it the following week.
Is he to arrive tomorrow?
Who was to speak at the meeting?
Mass struggle is vital if the elimination of the evils of racial hatred is to be guaranteed.(Daily Worker)
This meaning of to be to is found in affirmative and interrogative sentences in the present and past tenses. To be to is followed by the simple infinitive.
The past tense of the verb to be to in combination with the Perfect infinitive denotes an unfulfilled plan.
E.g. I promised to go to a club with her last Tuesday, and I really forgot all about it. We were to have played a duet together.
orders and instructions, often official (frequently in reported speech).
E.g. I just mention it because you said I was to give you all the details I could.
Norman says I am to leave you alone. All junior officers are to report to the colonel at once.
The Prime Minister is to go to Paris next week. (Daily Worker, London)
In this meaning to be to is found is affirmative and negative sentences and followed by the simple infinitive.
something that is destined to happen
E.g. He was to be my teacher and friend for many years to come.
He did not know at the time that he was never to see his native place again.
How was I to know that I was going to meet a raging beauty?
It has been a great blow to me that you haven’t been able to follow me in my business as I followed by father. Three generations, that would have been. But it wasn’t to be.
This meaning of to be to is rendered in Russian as суждено. It is mainly found in the past tense and its application is limited to narration. It occurs in affirmative and negative sentences and is followed by the simple infinitive.
E.g. Her father was often to be seen in the bar of the Hotel Metropole.
Where is he to be found?
Nothing was to be done under the circumstances.
Responsibilities and obligations possessed by the Soviet trade unions are to be envied. (Morning Star)
In this meaning to be to is equivalent to can or may. It is used in all kinds of sentences in the present and past tenses and is followed by the passive infinitive.
Here are some examples taken from the literary works:
‘Tell him to go to sleep’. – ‘She says you’re to go to sleep’. (D.H. Lawrence).
I could scarcely see her in the darkness, but when I rose to go – it was plain that I was not to linger – she stood in the orange light from the doorway. (F Scott Fitzgerald)
Must, to have to and to be to Compared.
The verbs must, to have to and to be to have one meaning in common, that of obligation. In the present tense the verbs come very close to each other in their use, though they preserve their specific shades of meaning. Thus must indicates obligation or necessity from the speaker’s viewpoint, i.e. it expresses obligation imposed by the speaker.
E.g. I must do it. (I want to do it).
He must do it himself.
To have to expresses obligation or necessity imposed by circumstances.
E.g. What a pity you have to go now (It is time for you to catch you train).
He has to do it himself. (He has got no one to help him).
To be to expresses obligation or necessity resulting from an arrangement.
E.g. We are to wait for them at the entrance. (We have arranged to meet there, so we must wait form them at the appointed place).
Sometimes the idea of obligation is absent and to be to expresses only a previously arranged plan.
E.g. We are to go the cinema tonight.
In the past tense, however, the difference in the use of the three verbs is quite considerable.
Must has no past tense. It is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech.
E.g. He said he must do it himself.
Had to + infinitive is generally used to denote an action which was realized in the past as a result of obligation or necessity imposed by circumstance.
E.g. I had to sell my car. (It was necessary for me to do it because I needed money).
He had to put on his raincoat. (It was raining hard outside and he would have got wet if he had not).
Was (were) to + infinitive is used to denote an action planned for the future which is viewed from the past. The action was no realized in the past and the question remains open as to whether it is going to take place.
E.g. We were to meet him at the station. (It is not clear from the sentence if the action will take place).
If the speaker wishes to make it clear at once that the plan was not fulfilled, the Perfect infinitive is used to show that.
E.g. We were to have met him t the station. (That means that we failed to meet him). However, the simple infinitive may also be used in this case.
In reported speech (in past-time contexts) must remains unchanged in all of its meanings.
E.g. He said he must do it without delay.
He said I mustn’t tell anyone about it.
The doctor told her that she must eat.
They believed the story must be true.
Parallel to must, had to + infinitive is also used occasionally in reported speech to express obligation.
E.g. He said he had to make a telephone call at once.
In this case had to is close to must in meaning: it does not include the idea of a realized action but refers to some future moment.
The modal verb ought to has only one form which is used “with reference to the present of future. In reported speech it remains unchanged. Ought is always followed by the infinitive with to.
Ought to has the following meanings:
obligation, which in different contexts may acquire additional shades of meaning, such as advisability and desirability,
E.g. You ought to say a word or two about yourself.
Ought she to warn him?
He oughtn’t to mention it to anybody.
“It doesn’t mean you ought to marry a Yankee.” He persisted.(F. Scott Fitzgerald)
In this meaning ought to is possible in all kinds of sentences, though it is felt to be awkward in questions where should is preferred.
Generally ought to refers an action to the future and is followed by the simple infinitive. With reference to the present ought to is used with the continuous infinitive or with the simple infinitive if the verb is stative.
E.g. At your age you ought to be earning your living.
You ought to feel some respect for your elders.
It was getting darker and darker – all those tomb-stones ought to be repainted, sure enough, only that would spoil them, of course. (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
“If you care for him you certainly oughtn’t to belittle yourself in front of him,” said Ailie in a flash, her head high. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
In combination with the perfect infinitive ought to in the affirmative form shows that a desirable action was no fulfilled.
E.g. You ought to have chosen a more suitable time to tell me this news.
In the negative form ought to in combination with the Perfect Infinitive shows that an undesirable action was fulfilled
E.g. I’m sorry. I ought to have said it.
You oughtn’t to have married her, David. It was a great mistake.
supposition implying strong probability.
E.g. Oughtn’t you to go and have your tiffin?
The of ought to in this case is not very common as this meaning is normally rendered by must: He/You ought to know it (=he is/you are supposed to know it). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Shall and should
Historically, shall and should were two forms of the same verb expressing obligation. She was the present tense of the Indicative Mood; should was the Subjunctive Mood. But later they came to express different meanings and in present-day English their use is not parallel – they are treated as two different verbs.
In modern English the modal meaning of obligation in shall is always combined with the function of an auxiliary verb of the future tense.
Shall is still used to express obligation with the second and third persons, but at present it is not common in this meaning in spoken English. Its use, as a rule, is restricted to formal or even archaic style and mainly found in subordinate clauses, i.e. it is structurally dependent.
E.g. It has been decided that the proposal shall not be opposed.
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of without the publisher’s consent.
At present, however, this meaning of obligation, somewhat modified, is found with the second and third persons in sentences expressing promise, threat or warning. It is used in affirmative and negative sentences and combined with the simple infinitive.
E.g. You shall have my answer tomorrow.
“You shall stay just where you are!” his mother cried angrily
He shall do as I say.
The meaning of obligation may also be traced in interrogative sentences where shall is used with the first and third persons to ask after the will of the person addressed. In this case it is also followed by the simple infinitive.
E.g. Shall I get you some fresh coffee, Miss Flour?
Who shall answer the telephone, Major?
Sentences of this kind are usually rendered in Russian with the help of the infinitive: Принести Вам ещё кофе? Кому отвечать по телефону? etc.
In modern English the modal verb should is used with reference to the present or future. It remains unchanged in reported speech.
Should has the following meanings:
obligation, which in different contexts may acquire additional shades of meaning, such as advisability and desirability,
E.g. It’s late. You should go to bed.
You shouldn’t miss the opportunity.
Should I talk to him about it?
He said that the status of the Greek minority should be viewed in the light of political balance. (Moscow news)
He said that this was not a temporary problem. Lasting arrangements should be made. (W. Faulkner)
Should in this meaning is found in all kinds of sentences. Like ought to it generally refers an action to the future and followed by the simple infinitive.
With reference to the resent should is used with the Continuous Infinitive or with the simple infinitive if the verb is stative.
E.g. You shouldn’t be sitting in home. Move out of it into the garden.
You shouldn’t feel so unhappy over such trifles.
Should may be combined with the Perfect Infinitive. In this case the meaning of the combination depends on whether the sentence is affirmative or negative. In an affirmative sentence should + Perfect Infinitive indicates that a desirable action was not carried out.
E.g. He looks very ill. He should have stayed at home.
He should have told me about it himself.
In a negative sentence should + Perfect Infinitive serves to show that an undesirable action was carried out.
E.g. Oh, John, you shouldn’t have done as you did.
They shouldn’t have concealed it from us.
supposition implying strong probability,
E.g. The film should be very good as it is starring first-class actors.
The use of should in this case does not seem to be very common as this meaning is usually rendered by must.
In addition to the above mentioned cases showing the independent use of should this verb occurs in certain object clauses where it depends on the lexical character of the predicate verb in the principal clause and in adverbial clauses of condition, purpose and concession.
E.g. I suggest hat you should stay here as if nothing had happened.
“It’s important,” I broke out, “that the people should know what we’ve just heard.”
She was terrified lest they should goon talking about her.
Should may have a peculiar function - it may be used for emotional coloring. In this function it may be called the emotional should. The use of the emotional should is structurally dependent.
It is found in the following cases:
In special emphatic constructions where a simple predicate is not used:
in rhetorical questions beginning with why,
E.g. Why should I do it? (С какой стати я буду это делать?)
Why shouldn't you invite him? (Почему бы Вам его не пригласить?)
in object clauses beginning with why,
E.g. I don’t know why he should want to see him (Я не знаю зачем он ему нужен)
I don’t see why we shouldn’t make friends.
in attributive clauses beginning with why after the noun reason,
E.g. There is no reason why they shouldn’t get on very well together (Нет причины почему бы им не ладить дpуг с другом).
in constructions of the following kind,
E.g. The door opened and who should come in but Tom (Дверь открылась, и, кто бы Вы думали, вошёл? Никто иной, как Том)
As I was crossing the street, whom should I meet but Aunt Ann.
in the set phrase How should I know? (Почём я знаю?) In the above cases should may be followed by the Perfect infinitive which in simple sentences refers the action to the past and in complex sentences shows that the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the principal clause.
E.g. I went into business with her as her partner. Why shouldn’t I have done it? (Почему бы мне не сделать это?)
He didn’t know why he should have expected them to look different (Он не знал почему ожидал увидеть их с другими).
In certain types of subordinate clauses where should + infinitive is interchangeable with a simple predicate in the Indicative Mood:
in object clauses after expressions of regret, surprise, sometimes pleasure or displeasure,
E.g. I‘m sorry that you should think so badly of me (Мне жаль, что Вы так плохо обо мне думаете).
He was little surprise that Ann should speak so frankly about it.
I’m content that you should think so.
The rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed here. The Perfect infinitive is used to show that the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the principal clause.
E.g. I am sorry that you should have had a row with Kate about it.
He was annoyed that they should have asked him that.
in object clauses following the principal clause with it as a formal subject,
E.g. It is absurd that such things should happen to a family like theirs (Нелепо, чтобы такие вещи случались в такой семье, как их).
In the principal clause we find such expressions as it is wonderful (absurd, monstrous, natural, odd, queer, singular, strange, terrible and the like), it infuriated, (outraged, puzzled, startled, surprised and the like) me, it struck me as funny, etc. We also find he following interrogative expressions in the principal clause: is it possible (likely, probable)? , it is not possible (likely, probable), it is impossible (improbable, unlikely).
As we see from the above examples, the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed here either.
If the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the principal clause, the Perfect infinitive is used after should.
E.g. It is inconceivable that Mrs. C. should have written such a letter.
It is much better that you should have found everything out before it’s too late.
in constructions of the following kind,
E.g. That it should come to this! (И до чего дело дошло!)
To think that it should come to this! (Подумать только, до чего дело дошло!)
To think that it should have happened to me! (Подумать только, что это произошло со мной!)
Some literary examples:
It is good that the Government should have recognized the opportunity and the obligations so clearly. (E. Hermingway)
To sum it up, it should be said that as compared to the use of a simple predicate in the Indicative Mood, the use of should + infinitive gives the statement emotional coloring such as surprise, amazement, irritation, indignation, pleasure, displeasure etc, i.e. it emphasizes the speaker’s personal attitude towards the facts stated in the sentence. The Indicative Mood represents these acts in a more matter-of-fact way.
Must, should and ought to compared.
All the three verbs serve to express obligation. Must, however, sounds more forceful, peremptory.
E.g. You must do it at once (Вы должны сделать это немедленно!).
Both should and ought to express obligation, advisability and desirability and are used when must would sound too peremptory.
E.g. You should do /ought to do/ it at once (Вам следует/надо/нужно сделать это немедленно).
Should and ought to are very much alike in meaning and are often interchangeable. In using ought to, however, we lay more stress on the meaning of moral obligation, whereas should is common in instruction and corrections.
E.g. You ought to help him; he is in trouble.
You should use the definite article in this sentence.
Must, ought to and should serve to express supposition implying strong probability. Must, however, seems to be in more frequent use than the other two verbs.
Should + Perfect Infinitive, ought to + Perfect Infinitive and was, were to + Perfect Infinitive compared.
Should + Perfect infinitive and ought to + Perfect infinitive show that the action has not been carried out though it was desirable; was/were to + Perfect infinitive indicate an action that has not been carried out though it was planned.
E.g. You should have helped him.
You ought to have warned him (Now she is in trouble).
He was to have arrived last week (but his plans were upset by some cause or other).
The verb will has the following forms: will – the present tense and would – the past tense. The latter form is used in two ways:
in past-time context to express an actual fact and
in present-time context to express unreality or as a milder and more polite form of will.
Will and would may also be used as verbs of full predication (not modal verbs). Will may be used as a regular verb (wills, willed). It means проявлять волю, заставлять, внушать. Would s a defective verb. It is used with reference to the present and means “ желать”. It is found mainly in poetry and like the verb to wish is followed by an object clause: I would I were a careless child.
While shall and should are treated as two different verbs in modern English, will and would are considered to be the forms of the same verb, its original meaning being that of volition (Volition is a general term which includes such meanings as willingness, readiness, consent, intention and determination to perform an action). However, in some of their meanings the use of will is parallel only to would which denotes an actual fact in the past; in other meanings will is found alongside would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of will.
The use of will and would which denotes an actual fact in the past is parallel in the following cases:
when they express habitual or recurrent actions,
E.g. She will (would) sit for hours under the old oak tree looking at the beautiful country around her (…любит/любила сидеть, обычно сидит/сидела …)
In addition to indicating an habitual action, will (would) in this case implies willingness, personal interest on the part of the doer of the action. Will (would) in this meaning is found in affirmative sentences and is followed by he simple infinitive.
In present-time context will in this meaning is not common. In past-time context would is mainly characteristic of literary style.
E.g. Then there were weekends when he would ride over to the house of one farmer or another and spend a couple of nights on the hills.
when they express refusal to perform an action,
E.g. The doctor knows I won’t be operated on.
He was wet through but he wouldn’t change.
“Clark,” she said softly, “I wouldn’t change you for the world”. (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
This meaning is found in negative sentences; will (would) is followed by the simple infinitive. In Russian it is usually rendered as никак не хочу, ни за что не хотел.
when they are used with lifeless things to show hat a thing fails to perform its immediate function,
E.g. My fountain pen won’t (wouldn’t) write.
The door won’t (wouldn’t) open.
In this meaning will (would) is found in negative sentences and is followed by the simple infinitive. In Russian it is usually rendered as никак не пишет (не писала), никак не открывается (не открывалась) and the like.
when they are used with the first person to express will, intention or determination,
E.g. “Damn it!” he thought, “I’m going to get out of this hole. I will make money. I am an Englishman and I will suffer no priest to interfere in my business”.
“I said I would do anything for him. We decided that we wouldn’t interfere”.
This meaning is found in affirmative and negative sentences. The present tense will, in addition to expressing its modal meaning, serves to refer an action to the future; the past tense would is generally used in reported speech and also serves to refer an action to the future but in this case it is viewed from a past moment.
The use of will and would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of will is parallel in the following cases:
in interrogative sentences where they express willingness, consent,
E.g. Will you dine with me tomorrow, Lewis?
“Won’t you sit down”? said doctor.
You’ll forgive me, won’t you?
in clauses of condition introduced by if where they also express willingness, consent,
E.g. “It’s about forty minutes’ walk from ere and if you’ll come now I’ll go with you” he said.
No, we are not going to quarrel at all if you’ll only let me talk.
Mr. Marlowe? If you will come this way, please? (R. Chandler) (Сюда, пожалуйста!)
In both cases will (would) is followed by the simple infinitive and the action always refers to the future.
Both interrogative and conditional sentences are often actually polite requests in this case. There is hardly any difference between the use of will and would here; the role of would is to make the request still more polite.
The use of will and would is not parallel in the following cases:
Will may be used to express supposition with reference to; the present or to the future in combination with the simple infinitive, or to the past in combination with the Perfect infinitive. This meaning is found with the second and third persons.
E.g. This will be the school, I believe.(Это, по-видимому, и есть школа).
You will have heard the news, I’m sure (Я полагаю, Вы уже слышали новость).
It should be noted that the use of will in this meaning is not common.
Would may be used rather sarcastically to express that something was to be expected. It is found in affirmative and negative sentences.
E.g. “Auntie Meg has been very brave”. “Yes, she would be brave”. (That was to be expected of her under the circumstances).
“I don’t understand him and I don’t approve of is decision”. “No, you wouldn’t”. (I did not expect you would).
The law wouldn’t call it a murder if I shot a thief entering my house by force. (W. De Mille)
This meaning can be rendered in Russian as Этого и следовало ожидать.
Note the use of will in the following sentences, e.g.:
Boys will be boys. (Мальчишки остаются мальчишками).
Accidents will happen.
phrases with will and would:
Will not have (won’t have) followed by an object and an infinitive without to means “I’ll see to it that it does not happen”.
E.g. “I will not (won’t) have you speak to me like that, her voice came sharply.
Both would rather (‘d rather) and would sooner (‘d sooner) followed by an infinitive without to mean ‘to prefer’.
E.g. “I’d rather do it myself” he said .
He’d sooner die than let me think he was a failure.
Would … mind in interrogative sentences may also express a polite request: Would you mind getting me a cup of tea?
Would also occurs in certain subordinate clauses where it is structurally dependent.
E.g. I wish the train would stop for a moment.
I wish they wouldn’t insist on it.
This modal verb will – would is more often used in literature. Here are several examples on its usage.
E.g. Senor Montevalde had never faced a bull without the protection of a stout fence, and never would. (F. Harvey)
This Velma was an entertainer, a singer. You wouldn’t know her? I don’t suppose you went there much.(R. Chandler)
Look where we would there was no rock or tree (O. Wilde).
“I’ll speak to her and tell her to lay off.” – “If you would.” (A. Christie) (Будьте любезны!)
“And what would you be doing, my dears?” she said. “What brings you to Gipsy’s Acre?” (A. Christie) (Что бы это вы могли тут делать…..)
Sometimes the boys would play a trick on their teacher (M. Spark).
It would be impossible to build a bridge without knowing it.(W. Faulkner)
The modal verb need may be used either as a defective or as a regular verb.
As a defective one need has only one form, which is the present tense. In reported speech it remains unchanged. It is followed by the infinitive without to.
Need expresses necessity. When reference is made to the present or future it is followed by the simple infinitive. It is used in negative and interrogative sentences. In interrogative sentences need usually implies that there is no necessity of performing the action.
E.g. You needn’t be afraid of me.
You need not meet him unless you’d like to. Need I repeat it?
Occasionally it may be found in affirmative sentences but it is not typical.
In negative sentences it is not always the verb need that is in the negative form; the negation may be found elsewhere in the sentence.
E.g. I don’t think we need give her any more of our attention. I need hardly say that I agree with you.
In combination with the Perfect infinitive need express an action which has been performed though it was unnecessary. It implies a waste of time or effort.
E.g. You needn’t have come. The deal is off.
It was obvious. You needn’t have protested. We needn’t have told him a lie even if we didn’t want to tell him the truth.
As a regular verb need can have all the necessary forms including the verbal. It also expresses necessity. It is followed by the infinitive with to and is mainly used in interrogative and negative sentences (like the defective need).
E.g. He didn’t need to explain.
You don’t need to tell me that you are sorry.
Did you need to read all those books?
It should be noted that this need is in more common use than the defective one, particularly in American English.
E.g. He needs a new coat.
Does he need my help? He does not need anything.
The modal verb dare may also be used as a regular and as a defective verb.
Dare as a defective verb has two forms which are the present and the past forms. It means ‘to have the courage or impertinence to do something’ Its use is very restricted. In present-day English it is mainly found in questions beginning with how which are actually exclamations and in negative sentences.
E.g. How dare you say that!
How dare she come here!
How many years is it since we danced together? I dare not think.
He dared not look at her.
Dare as a regular verb has all the necessary forms including the verbal. It has he same meaning as the defective dare. Its use is also restricted. It is mainly found in negative sentences.
E.g. He does not dare to come here again.
She told me she had never dared to ask him about it.
No one dared to live in the house since.
I dare say.
E.g. I dare say I looked a little confused.
My son is not in town but I dare say he will be before long.
In Russian this phrase is usually rendered as очень возможно, пожалуй, полагаю, осмелюсь сказать.
Shouldn’t + Perfect Infinitive , oughtn’t to + Perfect Infinitive and needn’t + Perfect Infinitive compared
Shouldn’t + Perfect infinitive and oughtn’t to + Perfect infinitive show that an action has been carried out though it was undesirable; needn’t + Perfect infinitive indicates that an action has been carried out though it was unnecessary.
E.g. You shouldn’t have come (for you are ill);
You oughtn’t to have written to them (because your letter upsets );
You needn’t have come (as the work is finished);
You needn’t have written to them (because I sent them a telegram).
I will formulate few basic grammatical rules applying to modal verbs:
All verbs are NEVER used with other auxiliary verbs such as do, does, did etc. The negative is formed simply by adding “not” after the verb; questions are formed by inversion of the verb and subject.
2. Modal verbs NEVER change form: you can never add an “-s” or
“-ed”, for example.
3. Modal verbs are NEVER followed by to, with the exception of ought
4. Modal verbs are used in conversation. In the past it is possible to find
them only in reported speech. The only exceptions are the Past Tense
forms could, would, had, was and might which maybe used not only
in conversations but also in narration.
So, as you can see there are in Modern English these modal verbs: ought to, must, shall, should, will, need, dare: to have and to be can also be used as modal verbs. May express possibility/high probability (97%) and permission (3%). The modals used to express permission are can (58%), may (16%), could (13%), and might (13%), could (17%), will (17%). The three most frequent modals are would (28% of all modal occurrences), could (17%), and will (17%).
“Грамматика английского языка: Морфология”. Кобрина, Корнеева, Осовская и др. С-П., 1999.
“Грамматика английского языка. Пособие для студентов педагогических институтов.” Под ред. Ильиша.
“Learn to read science”. Н.И. Шахова и др. “Наука”, 1980.
“The English verb. A new grammar for every one”. А.К. Кравченко, Л.В. Ушакова и др. Иркутск, 1997.
“Modality in Modern English”. Е.М. Гордон и др. М., 1968.
“Модальные глаголы в английском языке”. Е.А. Зверева.
“Составные глаголы в современном английском языке”. М.Д. Кузнецов и др. М., 1959.
“Пособие по морфологии английского языка”. Е.А. Корнеева. М. “Высшая школа”, 1974.
“Модальные глаголы в английской речи: учебное пособие для студентов институтов и факультетов иностранных языков”. А.П. Грызулина. М., “Высшая школа”, 1986.
“Английский глагол”. Т.А. Расторгуева, И.П. Верховская и др. М., 1987.
“Очерки по сопоставительной грамматике русского и английского языков”. А.И. Смирницкий. М., “Высшая школа”, 1975.
“Морфология английского языка”. А.И. Смирницкий. М., 1959.
“Наклонения английского языка”. М.В. Смолина. М., 1977.
“Учебник английского языка”. Е.К. Старщникова и др. М., 1979.
“Английский язык для студентов старших курсов”. Г.А. Попова и др. М., 1961.
“Учебник английского языка”. С.В. Понтович. М., 1960.
“Трудности перевода общественно-политического текста с английского на русский”. Т.А. Зражевская, Т.И. Гуськова. М., 1986.
“Новое в английской грамматике”. Г.А. Вейхман. М., 1990.
“Учебник английского языка”. Т.И. Арбекова, А.Д. Бодрова. М., 1968.
1.“The time machine”. Herbert G. Wells.
2.“The Painted Veil”. W. Somerset Maugham.
3.“His Last Bow”. Arthur Conan Doyle.
4. “The Fun They Had”. I. Asimov.
5. “The Green Door”. O. Henry..
6. “The Ice Palace”. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
7. “Donkey”. A. Marshall.
8. “Essential English”. C. Eckersley.
9. “You Should Have Seen the Mess”. M. Spark.
10. “The Witness For The Prosecution”. A. Christie.
11. “The Portrait of Dorian Gray”. O. Wilde.
12. “Ruthless”. W. De Mille.
13. “The Birthday Present”. B.J. Chute.
14. “The Bear”. W. Faulkner.
15. “Evelyne”. J. Joyce.
16. “The Cat in the Rain”. E. Hemingway.