02.11.2012 Views

V. VERB QUALITIES - UW-Parkside: Help for Personal Homepages

V. VERB QUALITIES - UW-Parkside: Help for Personal Homepages

V. VERB QUALITIES - UW-Parkside: Help for Personal Homepages

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

even a possibility of the implied request being granted. This humble use of can is an old and<br />

well-attested one, but it annoys those who would like the language to make more rigorous<br />

distinctions in word use. Those who feel this way would prescribe the use of may or might <strong>for</strong><br />

all cases where permission is sought. They can often be used interchangeably, without<br />

regard to tense considerations, though in general the past <strong>for</strong>ms of modals (could, might)<br />

appear somewhat more deferential:<br />

(5) May I have this dance?<br />

(6) Might I have this dance?<br />

When it comes to questions, you might want to use may/might only in highly <strong>for</strong>mal<br />

situations--or when asking an English teacher to dance. Notice, though, that they can also be<br />

used where the issue is simply possibility–thus infringing on the turf of can/could:<br />

(7) I may have offended her.<br />

(8) I might drop by your place later.<br />

114<br />

By most accounts, a Standard English sentence can have only one modal at a time. Various<br />

non-standard dialects, however, use might could and some other double modals, and use of<br />

these double modals may be coming more widespread. It is probably still safest to avoid<br />

them in <strong>for</strong>mal writing. In in<strong>for</strong>mal speech, of course, one hears the triple <strong>for</strong>m mightacoulda-woulda,<br />

with the “-a” endings representing the abbreviated have <strong>for</strong>m ‘ve, which is<br />

also responsible <strong>for</strong> the very non-standard <strong>for</strong>ms might of, could of, or would of.<br />

Some overlap in uses also occurs between the pairs will/would and shall/should.<br />

At one time school texts insisted that shall should be used <strong>for</strong> the future with the first person<br />

singular and plural and will in all other cases:<br />

(1) I shall see you soon.<br />

(2) We shall have a drink or two be<strong>for</strong>e we go.<br />

(3) He will lose his teeth that way.<br />

(4) They will want to <strong>for</strong>get this game.<br />

This usage survives, especially in British English, but Standard American English uses will in<br />

all such sentences, reserving shall <strong>for</strong> mandative uses, where it is much more <strong>for</strong>ceful than<br />

either will or should--closer, in fact, to must:<br />

(5) Meetings shall be held on alternate Fridays.<br />

Would is used in hypothetical futures, including polite requests, and is sometimes combined<br />

in that use with like:<br />

(6) I wouldn't do that if I were you.<br />

(7) Would you get me a beer while you're up?<br />

(8) Would you like to sit down?.<br />

Should is generally used interchangeably with ought to as a less <strong>for</strong>ceful <strong>for</strong>m of must and<br />

the mandative shall, one that does not assume compliance:<br />

(9) The committee shall meet every week.<br />

(10) The committee must meet every week.<br />

(11) The committee ought to meet every week.<br />

(12) The committee should meet every week.<br />

One can also find should as a rather <strong>for</strong>mal future in conditional clauses, as in sentence (13):<br />

(13) If George should come, tell him I’d like to speak with him.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!