"I might have a copy in the garage. I'll take a look."
Is "might" a modal or an adverb, there? How can we tell?
Is "might" a modal or an adverb, there? How can we tell?
might modal/adverb
Have you been reading ETAQ papers or something, Molly? :o
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=ETAQ
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=269
>> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=269#comment-3224
>>> http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2008/06/18/de-bellis-grammaticae/
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=ETAQ
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=269
>> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=269#comment-3224
>>> http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2008/06/18/de-bellis-grammaticae/
It is a modal auxillary used subjuntively.
You can tell because it is followed by another verb in the infinitive 'have'
You can tell because it is followed by another verb in the infinitive 'have'
<<It is a modal auxiliary used subjunctively>>
Hmm. For what it's worth...
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, by S.Chalker & E.Weiner: "Traditionally, the uses of ordinary indicative tenses to express hypothesis etc., ..... have been described as examples of subjunctive mood or tense - perhaps because in translation such a usage might need a subjunctive form in another language. Modern grammar considers this to be quite unjustified, and restricts the use of the term to two distinct tenses: so-called "present subjunctive" (where 3rd person singular lacks -s, and where 'be' is the sujunctive of 'is', 'am' and 'are'), which is used in mandative constructions (I recommend that he write and apologize; She requested that she not be disturbed), and set expressions (God save the Queen! Perish the thought! Come hell and high water), and rather formally, in subordinate clauses of condition and concession (If that be the case, our position is indefensible); and so-called "past subjunctive" (also called the were-subjunctive), with the word 'were' used as the "past" of the verb 'be' for all persons, used in clauses of hypothetical condition. [It differs from the past indicative of 'be' only in the 1st and 3rd person singular, which properly replace it. The reference is to present (or future) time, e.g. If I were you, I'd own up (If I was you...); If only my grandfather were alive today (If only my grandfather was...); If she were to come tomorrow... (If she was...)]. The subjunctive was so named because it was regarded as specially appropriate to 'subjoined' or subordinate clauses."
The Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar, by Larry Trask: "The distinctive subjunctive forms are now confined to the verb 'be' and to the third-singular forms of other verbs; they are still common in American English, while in British English they are confined to very formal styles. A subjunctive normally only follows a verb like 'suggest', 'propose', 'demand' or 'insist'. Examples, in which the subjunctive verb-forms are bracketed: I suggest that she [refuse] the offer; They are demanding that she [reveal] her sources; I insist that they [be] freed. These subjunctive forms contrast with the corresponding indicative forms (ordinary) forms - in my examples, refuses, reveals and are, respectively. Informal and moderately formal British English in fact uses the indicative forms in most cases. British English therefore loses the distinction, still always made in American English, between 'I insisted that they were locked up' (=I asserted vigorously that they were already in jail) and 'I insisted that they be locked up' (=I demanded that they should be put in jail). To avoid this ambiguity, British (and other) speakers sometimes insert the modal 'should': I insisted that they should be locked up. As a result, some grammarians extend the label 'subjunctive' to sequences like 'should be locked up', but not everyone would accept this extended usage."
The English Verb, by Michael Lewis: "The few linguistic fossils which constitute 'the English subjunctive' can be dealt with as lexical items. They in no way contribute to an understanding of the basic structure of the contemporary English verb. Is not a term that schoolchildren or the average foreign student of English should ever have to meet!"
Me, I simply view modals as the 'finite' element of the verb phrase (and every other verbal element that follows the finite element in the same verb phrase must necessarily then be non-finite, a fact that has little or nothing to do with the subjunctive).
Hmm. For what it's worth...
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, by S.Chalker & E.Weiner: "Traditionally, the uses of ordinary indicative tenses to express hypothesis etc., ..... have been described as examples of subjunctive mood or tense - perhaps because in translation such a usage might need a subjunctive form in another language. Modern grammar considers this to be quite unjustified, and restricts the use of the term to two distinct tenses: so-called "present subjunctive" (where 3rd person singular lacks -s, and where 'be' is the sujunctive of 'is', 'am' and 'are'), which is used in mandative constructions (I recommend that he write and apologize; She requested that she not be disturbed), and set expressions (God save the Queen! Perish the thought! Come hell and high water), and rather formally, in subordinate clauses of condition and concession (If that be the case, our position is indefensible); and so-called "past subjunctive" (also called the were-subjunctive), with the word 'were' used as the "past" of the verb 'be' for all persons, used in clauses of hypothetical condition. [It differs from the past indicative of 'be' only in the 1st and 3rd person singular, which properly replace it. The reference is to present (or future) time, e.g. If I were you, I'd own up (If I was you...); If only my grandfather were alive today (If only my grandfather was...); If she were to come tomorrow... (If she was...)]. The subjunctive was so named because it was regarded as specially appropriate to 'subjoined' or subordinate clauses."
The Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar, by Larry Trask: "The distinctive subjunctive forms are now confined to the verb 'be' and to the third-singular forms of other verbs; they are still common in American English, while in British English they are confined to very formal styles. A subjunctive normally only follows a verb like 'suggest', 'propose', 'demand' or 'insist'. Examples, in which the subjunctive verb-forms are bracketed: I suggest that she [refuse] the offer; They are demanding that she [reveal] her sources; I insist that they [be] freed. These subjunctive forms contrast with the corresponding indicative forms (ordinary) forms - in my examples, refuses, reveals and are, respectively. Informal and moderately formal British English in fact uses the indicative forms in most cases. British English therefore loses the distinction, still always made in American English, between 'I insisted that they were locked up' (=I asserted vigorously that they were already in jail) and 'I insisted that they be locked up' (=I demanded that they should be put in jail). To avoid this ambiguity, British (and other) speakers sometimes insert the modal 'should': I insisted that they should be locked up. As a result, some grammarians extend the label 'subjunctive' to sequences like 'should be locked up', but not everyone would accept this extended usage."
The English Verb, by Michael Lewis: "The few linguistic fossils which constitute 'the English subjunctive' can be dealt with as lexical items. They in no way contribute to an understanding of the basic structure of the contemporary English verb. Is not a term that schoolchildren or the average foreign student of English should ever have to meet!"
Me, I simply view modals as the 'finite' element of the verb phrase (and every other verbal element that follows the finite element in the same verb phrase must necessarily then be non-finite, a fact that has little or nothing to do with the subjunctive).