Class notes 11/30/09:
Modals are there to tell you something about the main verb; they’re supporting verbs.
Must and Have To
- Have to: can take conjugations, auxilliary/modals, past & future [can potentially have the same two meanings as ‘must’]
- Must: can’t do any of the above [two primary meanings: obligation and conclusion from evidence]
‘Have to’ joins with ‘must’ and should be learned near each other, and that they work in a pair.
To Be Able and Can
These pattern out the same way as have to and must, with some differences.
- To be able: past, future
- Can (no future, but you could say that ‘could’ is the past)
These are also a pair and they related to each other in the same way, and perform in a way that true modals don’t.
To be is a stative verb (as opposed to action or dynamic verb). You wouldn’t teach this to students but they can be divided into three different categories: relational (I own the car), emotional (I hate him), cognitive (I think). They don’t normally take the progressive.
Progressive with these stative verbs means a temporary and immediate state. It softens and hedges. It introduces a new and potentially temporary state.
To simplify language input, learners take a small category and apply it to a larger category.
Original post: Love and More
Consider the following passionate declaration:
—Why am I with you?
—Because I love you and because you understand me.
versus…
—Why am I being with you?
—Because I am loving you and because you are understanding me.
In what context, if any, can you use the progressive aspect of to be, to love, to understand?
When you’re referring to something happening in that exact moment. “Am I understanding you correctly when you say…” refers to a conversation in progress.
What do to be, to have, to love, have in common?
They involve essence: emotion, cognition, state of existence. They don’t imply action.
What are other verbs like to be, to have, to love?
Think, feel, understand, contemplate, wonder… ?
What is particular about verbs such as to be, to love, to understand?
What recent ad featured “I’m loving it”? Why do you think it was sent to our brains by the ad industry?
McDonald’s. “I love it” is fairly passive and general. “I’m loving it” is active, informal and has a certain extra punch of enthusiasm.
To Be Able vs. Can
Here are the non-existent forms of can in the sense of ability (not “to store in cans”)
- To can [infinitive]
- Cans [third person singular]
- Canned [past tense]
- Canning [present participle]
- Has canned [past progressive]
- Is canning [present progressive]
- I would like to can play chess [conditional]
- I will can pass the test next week [future]
What “holes” are there for “can” that “be able to”can fill? (That is above all what learners need to know)
All the forms in brackets, above. Particularly, it is used with infinitives and participles (e.g. future and present perfect).
How do you think “to be able” is like and unlike a modal verb like “can”?
Like: Helps the main verb with specific meaning; stands alone only under certain circumstances (in reference to a known action).
Unlike: Has a more specific meaning, referring only to capability or permission concretely, not abstractly.
What functions that “can” has does “to be able” not have?
Abstraction. Unknown possibility. Lexical economy. “Know how to.”
Compare these two past forms:
- The police could catch the thief last year. [multiple possible meanings: they did catch him/her, or they were capable; that is, the concrete or the abstract.]
- The police were able to catch the thief last year. [though it could also mean capability instead of successful completion, it more often means the latter.]
What do these forms show about another limitation of “can” that “to be able” can provide a solution for?
More explicit demonstration of an action that actually occurred rather than only its potential.