EIGHTEEN WEEKLY LESSONS FOR COMPETENT
 AND CREATIVE TEACHERS OPEN TO RECENT
INSIGHTS CONCERNING THE GRAMMAR OF
ENGLISH AND DESIROUS OF FINDING
OUT HOW TO COACH PUPILS TO
CONSTRUCT THE GRAMMAR
SYSTEM FROM ITS FOUR
BUILDING BLOCKS

© 2002, 2003, 2005 by Orchid Land Publications

C.-J. N. Bailey

[20020630, updated 20030808]

PART B

THIS PAGE IS CONSTANTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 

L83A
STRUCTURAL LESSONS FORMS AND THEIR USAGE
 1. PREDICATION; FUNCTORS
 2. COMPLEMENTS
 4. MODIFICATION--ADJECTIVAL; 
     DETERMINERS; THE
     GENITIVAL POSTPOSITION
 5. MODIFICATION--ADVERBIAL
 6. MORE ON HYPHENS; WORD 
     ORDER; APPOSITION;
     VOCATIVES; IMPERATIVES; 
     EXCLAMATIONS 
 7. PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES 
     FOREGROUNDING, STRANDING, 
     AND PIED-PIPING; POSTVERBS 
     AND PREVERBS
 9.
EMBEDDED CLAUSES I-- 
     ADVERBIAL SUBORDINATE 
     CLAUSES; ALSO 
     UNEMBEDDED  QUESTIONS
 3. PERSONAL & OTHER   
     PRONOUNS--SUBSTITUTES FOR 
     NOMINALS
 8. VERB MODALITIES  I--
     EXOCHRONOUS (TIMELESS) 
     AND POSTERIOR MODALITIES
10. COMPARISON FORMS OF 
     MODIFIERS

L83B

11. VERBIDS I--GERUNDS AND 
     PARTICIPLES; ABSOLUTE  
     CONSTRUCT
14. SUBORDINATE  CLAUSES--  
     EMBEDDED ADJECTIVAL 
     CLAUSES
15. VERBIDS II--INFINITIVE 
     CONSTRUCTS; CAUSATIVES 
     AND CONTRACAUSATIVES; 
    RAISING
16. SUBORDINATE  
     CLAUSES III--EMBEDDED   
     NOMINAL CLAUSES;   
    EXTRAPOSITION
18. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES; SURREALIS CLAUSES; WISH, WOULD PREFER, &c
12. VERB MODALITIES II--PASTS,  
     ANTERIORS, AND PRETERITIVE
     GOT 
13
. PASSIVES, CONTRAPONENTS 
     PRETERITIVE HAVE GOT
17. VERB MODALITIES IV--
     MODAL VERBS,  PURPOSE  
     CLAUSES, AND JUSSIVE
     AND HORTATORY USAGES

    

L83C

APPENDIX A:  VIRTUAL WORDS AND CLAUSES
APPENDIX B:  WHERE PIED-PIPING AND STRANDING PREVAIL 
APPENDIX C:  PROCESSUAL MODALITIES
APPENDIX D:  USING WORDS

  

PART TWO for more advanced learners, who learn to
construct and analyse increasingly complex structures 

11 VERBIDS II--GERUNDS AND PARTICIPLES

GERUNDS AND GERUND CONSTRUCTS

     A gerund is a nominal formed by adding -ing to a verb:

      moving ; being/getting moved 
having moved : having been/gotten moved 
going to move : going to be/get moved
having been going move : having been going to be/get moved 

     The form of a gerund construct:  If there is a subject of a gerund, it is genitival; cf. "Buying groceries is a weekly chore," their investigating the matter, my posting that letter, and "your notifying the editor."   When the subject of a gerund is a determiner, it is genitival if a noun or personal pronoun:  "The gardener's moving the lawn" "your undertaking this investigation."  With a different focus, a gerund may be followed by an agentive noun preceded by of or, if viewed as a passive, by by, with, or through.  When the object of gerund follows it, it has of before it when the verb is preceded by a determiner or genitival pronoun like their, my, your; e.g. a/the filtering of the harmful particle, that restoring of the monumentHowever,  with different focus, even the object of a gerund may be genitival; e.g. the lawn's moving.  Any subject of the foregoing is then preceded by by, with, through; e.g. the lawns' mowing by the gardener.   
     N
OTE that some apparent gerunds have become real nouns; e.g. forms that can be pluralized--like building, saying, posting, being, filing, and other former gerunds are real nouns and may have a plural ending.  Any form with a plural (e.g. beings) should be regarded as a true noun. 
     When
the gerund has a determiner, of stands between it and its object, if it has an object; e.g. "each carrying out of that command."   (This is often ignored when the determiner is a noun with the genitival postposition or words like my, your, etc.; cf.  's, as in "any re-ordering [of] the events in the schedule"; however, if the noun with 's has its own determiner, of is present, as in "This morning's re-ordering of the work schedule."   When the subject lacks a determiner, of is usually absent, as in "obtaining the necessary materials" and "wealth's being able to buy whatever it wants."  Note the difference between my late posting of that letter and my posting of that letter too late.  In the first of these examples the gerund is premodified by the adjective late, whereas in the second example, it is an adverb that modifies posting. 
When the nouniness of the gerund is foremost in the mind of a speaker or writer, it is modified by an attributive adjective; but when the verbiness of a gerund is present to the mind of the writer or speaker, it is modified by an adverb.  When a form ending in -ing is modified by a prepositional phrase, the latter is adjectival if the form is regarded as a noun; it is adverbial when the form is participialIn "getting ready on time," the prepositional phrase would be regarded as adjectival unless getting modifies a preceding noun, as in "two persons getting ready on time."  A nouny gerund can be followed by a relative clause (e.g. the hasty withdrawing of the funds that resulted from that failure of communication) or even an adverbial clauses (e.g. the hasty withdrawing of the funds after their announcement had been made)The immediate foregoing is much preferable to the immediately foregoing.  The last example is mixed--preceded by an adjective, modified with an adverbial clause.  It seems generally advisable to place of before the object of a gerund having a subject or other determiner other than a genitival personal pronoun; e.g. the filing of the materials at that time and an assembling of relevant materials that was carried out earlier in the day.

     The function of a gerund construct:  A single gerund or one accompanied by a subject and/or a direct or indirect object or modifier can serve as a subject, object, or predicate complement of a predicator as well as an appositive (that act--naming the perpetrator).  A model active gerund has a subject followed by 's and an object preceded by (objective of); cf. passivized "Jane's having been invited."  But a difference in focus can upset the pattern; in  The inviting of Stacey, Stacey can be the object (the default understanding) or the subject--which can be disambiguated by using by instead of of.  Similarly, Tracey's inviting (with no object) can be interpreted as Tracey's doing (the default interpretation) or, less likely, as someone's inviting Tracey.  The latter is sufficiently confusing for it to be rare and usually disambiguated as the inviting of Tracey.  When there is no of before its object, a gerund construct is best construed as the first kind of participial construct (see below for "They heard about Melanie running the race").  If the subject is a noun lacking 's or is not a genitival personal pronoun, the construct is best classified as participial--something it cannot be if an article or demonstrative or genitival subject precedes it (e.g. "about that student demonstrating your theory to the class" or its object is the object of of.  With verbs of perception, as in "They heard Melanie doing it," a construct with verb form ending in -ing is to be analysed, for obvious reasons, as a participial predication paralleling infinitival predications like "They heard Max enter."  (CLICK HERE concerning where to is virtual (deleted) with an infinitive.)   
     Note the difference between "They continued doing it that way for years" and "They continued to do it that way for years" and similar expressions with other main verbs.  While the difference is extremely subtle, the gerund complement simply states a fact here, whereas the irrealis infinitive connotes something to do with will or purpose--so that continued to do it may have overtones of persistence lacking in the parallel with a gerund.  We can say "They continued to do it against all odds" more easily than "They continued doing it against all odds," though both are possible.
     A third-person v
erb that can be inflected with -s has the -s when the subject is singular; e.g. "The sun comeS up at six this time of year."  When the subject is plural or when there are two or more subjects conjoined with "and," the verb lacks -s (e.g. "The teams meet tomorrow for the finals" and "The sun and moon give light to our days and nights, respectively."  When subjects are linked with (n)or, the verb "agrees' with the nearest; e.g. "The lady or her daughters expect to be present" and "Does the lady or her daughters intend to be there?"  Collective or (group) nouns are plural in Britain, at least when thought of as teams, but are generally singular in North America; e.g. "The Senate is meeting today" and "The American team is winning" would have are meeeting and are winning in Britain.  But contrast "
These United States" act as one when the entire country is attacked"--where the singular purposely contrasts with the singular unity.  
      A special situation is the
Q of N situation, where Q stands for quantifier.  We say "(One) lot of sugar was shipped yesterday, and (two) lots of apples will be sent tomorrow" when lot and lots are not quantifiers.  But when they are quantifiers meaning "a good deal," we say, "A lot of apples were sent yesterday and lots of sugar will be sent tomorrow."  The
PRINICPLE is that the verb agrees with N in the Q of N construct, not with Q.  
     A recent development is seen in the use of of in "too big of a project," "not very big of a project," "It's not all of that different," and "a little bit different of a make-up."  The connotation of such expressions with quantifying slight the importance of what is mentioned or obliquely to reject a suggestion.  

PARTICIPLES AND PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTS

     The two forms of a participle:    (i) durative and (ii) perfective.  The durative kind look like gerunds.  (Gerunds and attributive durative participles of three syllables having "r,", "l", "n," or "w" before -ing drop the middle vowel and become dissyllabic in a given tempo of speaking:  gath'ring, lab'ling, butt'ning, swall'wing.   The attributive participle in a gath'ring storm may be contrasted with the predicative participle in a storm gathering strength; cf. further a crying child with a child crying because of hunger.  (See Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 163, for the difference orderings of "She saw a crying child" : "She saw a child crying" and of He had a broken arm" : "He had an arm broken.")
    
The principle use of the durative participle in its predicative form is to constitute PROGRESSIVE modalities like is reading, were sleeping, having been studying, going to be helping, etc.  That this is not a "continuous" modality, as some grammarians allege, is evident when it cannot be used in something as continuous as "Troy was standing 600 years" or even "Troy used to stand 600 years"--a least in the absence of a locative (e.g. there).
     The second kind of participle is termed perfective although the modality formed with have plus this kind of participle is not completive, as in "They have always done it that way (and will continue to do it that way), but is used for occurrences detailed in Lesson 12.  This kind of participle has many forms in English.  It regularly ends in -ed, but may end in -(e}n, -t, or nothing (with a vowel change, as in cost and shed or simply without a vowel change (e.g. swum and bound) or with both a vowel change and appended -en (e.g. broken, spoken, frozen).

     Note that many endingless forms have an underlying or virtual //t// added.  Some verbs ending in //t// and //d// are inflected by adding a final //t//.  The final //d// of and send changes to /t/ before the ending //t//, and the two ts combine as one--as they do in //cut+t //, //quit+t//, //shut+t//, and //put+t//.  Note that a heavy base vowel is lightened before two consonants (e.g. felt, meant, and heard), including /t+t/, which get simplified to one [t] after causing the base vowel to be lightened, as in bit, shot, slept, read, fed, led.   Note that shed as well as read, fed, and led end in //d+d//, which simplify to a single [d] after lightening the vowels of read, feed, and leadFled and told are exceptional in obvious ways.
     English has remnants of old strong verbs, which inflected pasts and participles by changing the nucleus rather than appending a suffix; cf. shrunk .....

     Some verbs differentiate attributive and predicative participles.  There are four classes of these:

allegëd : alleg(e)d, blessëd (poëtic blest) : bless(e)d
burnt : burned, bereft : bereaved
rotten : rotted; proven: proved
sunken : sunk, drunken : drunk;
and for some, hidden : hid

The attributive form (ending in -ëd, -t, -en) is used before a noun (e.g. a proven theory, a sunken ship), while the predicative form (in -(e)d or zero) is used after a noun (as in a theory not proved till after its proposer's death, that man drunk on cheap wine) or in a compound verb like have sunk.  Attributive and predicative forms (see the A-X N rule in Lesson 4) are different for a number of completive participles, the main groups being represented by:
    
A few additional variants of these patterns are heard in molten : melted, swollen : swelled, and stricken : struck.  Note also clad : clothed as well as shod : shoed.  A number of other forms ending in -en exist only as adjectives; e.g. misshapen.  Cf. dog-bit with bitten.

Seven verbs form both past and perfective participle by changing everything following the initial consonant(s) to -ought or -aughtbring, buy, catch, fight, seek, teach, think; note also ought, originally a participle of owe, and distraught, from distract (see below)--whose unmarked perfect participle is distracted..  (If these forms are taught before all other verbs, foreign students will never have trouble with them; if taught after regular formations, even the best students will often get them wrong, saying teached and the like.)   There are also old participles now used as adjectives:  distraught, fraught, wrought--which is sometimes also used as the participle for work or wreak.  In North America, gotten is the participle of get, got being used as a participle only in preteritive have got (for which, see Lesson 12).  Note differences in fit and  fitted, wed and wedded, etc.  Many say fit for the past of fit, but I continue to say fitted like outfitted; the adjective fit means "in good condition," etc.   Hanged has pretty much disappeared in favor of hung, as has dived in favor of dove; neither participle of dive fits the old pattern of drive.  There is a transitive verb cost with past and perfect participle regularly formed as costed.  Cf. the different meanings of quit and  quitted (with which compare acquitted).  Some speakers have (a)waked, while others say (a)woken.  Where I come from we said, waked up or awakened--with awoke as an occasional variant. I say lighted, though others say lit--which for me means "drunken."  In contrast with broken, broke means "bankrupt."  Usually preceded by all, shook up is a variant of shaken up that has emotional connotations.  A number of verbs have two forms in use; some speakers seem to differentiate transitive and intransitive forms of some of these; e.g. speeded (up), sped up.  Note that (over)flown and (over)flowed belong, respectively, to (over)fly and (over)flow.
       If adverbial -ly is suffixed to a participle, the attributive form (e.g. rottenly) is used, unless it ends in -t (e.g. burnt, left) or nothing (put and led, the result of the sound rules operating on underlying put+t and lead+t).  Note that the participial ending -ed (e.g. in supposed, pronounced, and confessed) has "e" pronounced before -ly; e.g. supposëdly, pronouncëdly, confessëdly.  Some participles (e.g. said) are not amenable to being suffixed with -ly.

 

     A participial construct or participial phrase is analogous to a gerund construct in including  modifiers and an object with the participle.  Note the different roles of the participle in:

"We left it standing in front of her door.'
'They saw something moving (or  move [an infinitive]) in the bushes.'

In the first of the foregoing examples, standing is predicative participle modifying the preceding pronoun--it.  But is not a predicator like moving in the second example; the subject of moving is something.  As noted in parentheses, the short infinitive is allowed in the same position; but with be, there is a difference between the short and long infinitives (see Lesson 15):  "We saw them (to) be obnoxious."  For the different status of a predicative participle with the object of see and the object of (non-causative, non-contracausative) have,  see Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 163.
    Whenever the subject of a verbid ending in -ing is genitival, it is to be analysed as a gerund; e.g.  "They heard its moving in the bushes."
     English
has absolutes with a participial predicator that function as modifiers of the predication of main clause they precede:  "They having been seen by the police, their leader could hardly avoid confessing everything."  This is more or less equivalent to "Since they had been seen by the police, their leader could hardly avoid confessing everything." Note that the pronominal forms undergo a double reversal here, re-reversing the forms heard in marked environments.  For similar expressions involving predicative-adjective quasi-absolutes, which modifying a noun in the sentence, CLICK HERE.

ABSOLUTES

     English has quasi-absolutes modifying a subject--either preceding the subject and following a predicate:   "(Being) ready, she departed."  "They came in, (being) prepared to sing."
                    "(Having) long (been) ready, he finally departed."

Being and  having been may be present or omitted.  True absolutes differ from the preceding in that the do not modify a noun but the predicator: e.g. "That (having been) announced, our defenders prepared for the onslaught."
     One should not mistake for an absolute any examples of focusing on a given item in the sentence by putting it first; e.g. "This guy Moe, what was his interest in the matter?" and "Literal, that translation is not."
     See Appendix C for cleft and cloven sentences. 

 

12 VERB MODALITIES II--PASTS, ANTERIORS, AND THE
MISNAMED PRETERITIVE HAVE GOT 

    Any form of a verb, simple or compound, is called a MODALITY.

Plain-past forms:   Regular ones ending in -ed; irregular ones like ate, ran, spoke, etc.
With did  "They did (not) help"  Emphatic when not negated; contrast "never   
     helped" without do-support.
Used to (habitual)               "He used to sit there like that in those days."
Would (characterizing)      "She would sit there like that in those days."   

(The forces of the be and get passivizing auxiliaries get reversed in the last usage, as do other uses of would as compared with will.)  See Lesson 6 for the way a past takes did-support with not--but not with never.  Contrast "wasn't moving" with didn't (useta) move." And note there that when the negative comes first with any time-form of a verb, it is never that takes do-support; not takes do-support when it does not negate the predicator.  Emphatic do can precede any non-auxiliary (including modal) verb.  
   
A
MODALITY is any form or use of a verb—simple or compounded.   
     A talented teacher can guide students into seeing for themselves that a "definite" past act or state is one that falls within a block of past time that has ended before the "now" of a statement--and that an anterior happenings, represented by perfect participles compounded with auxiliary have (or has), fall occur a block of past time that ends with now or hasn't ended yet.  Further, events or states that are prior to some other time than now--including any time whatever--are anteriors in English:

Prior to any time:  "One should always use whatever tools have come to hand."  

We would not say came unless we regarded as true the tools' having come to hand before the now of the statement.  Note the difference:

"They have done it at ten o'clock a.m."   [an un-English present-posterior]
"They have always done it at ten o'clock a.m."  [an exochronous-posterior, which allows a definite past time--an event or state in a block of time ending before "now"]

Prior to a past time:  "They had finished it before we arrived."
Prior to a time later than some past time:  "They were to have finished it by ten o'clock."
Prior to a future time:  "By midnight, they will have repaired whatever has gone wrong."

In the last two examples, the repairing spoke of there can have already taken place at the now of the statement; or it can still be posterior to that.  An educated person would usually avoid saying, "If they already did it, we'll be able to avoid an unpleasant task."  The past is to be avoided with since in its temporal meaning; we say, "Nothing untoward  has happened since they arrived."  (When since is equivalent to because, the past is of course acceptable.)   A past event that could have taken place at any time prefers the anterior; e.g. "That same investigator has at some time been accused of fraud."  More interesting is the contrrast between after and since; cf.:

"It stood there (long) after the war."  vs.  "It has stood there since the war."

Note that [ha]ve may be omitted when the time of the sending is known to lie in the past; have sent leaves the time of sending open--a past promise may not yet have been fulfilled.  See Lesson 13.)  In the sentence, "People who succeed in business don't give money to those who haven't helped them," didn't  (which is what I read in the newspaper today) would be correct if one had specific donors at a specific past time in mind.  Here are examples of the exochronous-anterior and a posterior-anterior:

"Things (never) seem as good as they have been"  
"It seems to be something that has been disdained in an earlier century."
"Things will never seem as good as they have been"
"They will have done it by tomorrow."

In the last example, "they" may have done it before now or not yet.  An example with an imperative is:  "Next week, let me know what hasn't been received by then."
     Students should be guided to deduce the following for themselves:

     "Already did it," "didn't do it yet," and "came this far" are not educated usages.   But the former educated usage, "They've just done it," has been yielding to what is more system-conform.  Notice the use of "the first time" and "the last time" in the following  examples:
--"That was the first time that it had looked that way."
--"That was the last time that it looked that way."
--"This is the first time that it has looked this way."
--"This is the last time that it's gonna look this way."
     I recently read "It rose to 83% in recent years."  This  sounds odd to me, presumably because recent years is a period of time extending till now.  I would say, "It has risen," etc.  Rose would be unexceptionable in "It rose to 83% two or three years ago."  Educated users of English say
--"For ten years I didn't eat cheese" 
when one means "For the ten years
UP TILL THAT [PAST] DATE, I didn't, etc."  We say 
--"For ten years I haven't eaten cheese" 
when the thing being talked about is ending either now or not yet.  I have found (i) no language other than English that distinguishes exochronous from present verbs and (ii) none that does not use the present where English has the present-anterior in examples like this last--at least when the verb (unlike haven't eaten in the foregoing) is not negated.
     We of course say "I no longer eat cheese" and "I no longer ate cheese by then."  With the last, cf. "I had stopped eating cheese by then."      

 it does, the anterior modality has to be regarded as being as marked as is the anterior modality or the least-marked posterior modalities--or as an imperative or infinitive (an anterior or posterior infinitive is doubly marked, causing double reversals, as described in Chh. 5 and 6 of Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis).     

MARKED MODALITIES-CONTEXTS-USES 

Double and quartern reversals end up looking like a de­fault form; 
three reversals resemble a singly reversed item.  

Negative
Interrogative
Comparative1
Contrastive emphasis  

Anterior
Exochronous
Posterior
Surrealis5

Purpose2
Hypothesis, Contingency3   
Indirect quotation4

Modal Verbs6
Imperative
Infinitive (not gerund)7

     Inverted (Predicate-Subject) word order for direct yes-no interroga- tion, optative may (“May it . . .”contrasting with potential “It may . . .”), and other uses.

     1Not superlative.  Under comparative are understood not only more but also [(just) [this/that] much, very, too, and right—though not right would be odd.
        2Whether an infinitive construct or a (so/in order) that- clause.  Note that result clauses (beginning with so, that, or simply that do not constitute marked contexts.
     3A hypothesis clause may neutral and marked, coun­terfactual or dubitative (non-expectative), or expectative.  The last two types are over-marked.  See note 5.
       4For uses of past-posterior would in direct and indirect questions, see the Appendix.  See the Appendix also for uses of should.
     5That is, a subordinate clause posterior to a main clause.   The main clause in a conditional sentence is called the contingency clause; the hypothesis clause is imbedded in it.  Surrealis clauses may be neutral (hypothesis, temporal, relative, concessive), dubitative (non-expecta­tive)¾especial­ly hypothesis clauses), or expectative.   (This three-way divi­sion contrasts with the counterfactual/neutral categorizaton of non-posterior conditional sentences.)
    
6See immediately below for various uses of would and should.
     7Contrast the aim to comply with the aim of complying.

Uses of non-past-posterior would (and will)  

a)      Volitional (“be willing, insist on, persist in”; but actual volition is non-modal will[s]); e.g. ”He would drink too much when he visited them.”  A metaphorical use is heard in “It would turn out that way.” 

b) Epistemic or presumptive, as in “It’would be there by now, she mused.”  In contrast with will, past would ocurs only in mind-reading quotations like the foregoing.      
c) Characterizing; e.g. “She would always say that in those days.”

    Past-pasterior would is unmarked used in indirect quotations (where was/were going to is marked), but this use of would does not exist in independent clauses.  Could can be used for was/were able to in a main clause when the context is negative, interrogative, etc.; it is unmarked in these contexts and (even when not negative, interrogated, etc.) in subordinate clauses; e.g. indirect quotations.

     Uses of should

a) Equivalent to ought in meaning (but this use of should and the use of ought are not parallel; e.g. ought takes the long infinitive [with to] when in an unmarked context).

b) Semi-dubitative or non-expectative in hypothesis clauses; e.g. “If they should do it tomorrow, . . .”—not very different from “If they did it tomorrow, . . .”

c) Deletable or virtual in clauses subordinate to expressions of volition or necessity and of importance or propriety; e.g. “It was necessary that it [should] not arrive late.”  It is heard in negated adverbial (but hardly object-noun) pur­­pose clauses beginning with lest.

d) Factual, as in "We're surprised and disgusted that he should say a thing like that."  This follows expressions that are not neutral with respect to expectation or desideration; i.e. they are expectative or counterexpectative or else desired or undesired.

ANTERIOR-POSTERIOR MODALITIES

     Present-posteriors make use of was/were going to and would--as well as could and might.  One often hears also can have, could have, may have, might have, must have, ought to have, etc. (see Ch. 17).  The forms would, could, and might are default forms for indirect questions following a main clause with past (but not anterior) predicate.  English has past-posteriors like was going to and 
present-anterior-posteriors
like have been going to, . . .  even past-anterior-posteriors like had been going to and posterior-anteriors like am going to have done and will have seen.   

  MAIN CLAUSE (OTHER THAN THE CONTINGENCY CLAUSE OF A 
CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE)
SUBORDINATE CLAUSE 
DEPENDING ON A MAIN CLAUSE (OTHER THAN THE CONTINGENCY CLAUSE OF A CONDITiONAL SENTENCE) HAVING A
 PAST PREDICATION
DEFAULT 
(UNMARKED)
was/were gonna
could
or was/were able to
would
could
MARKED AS
"SETTLED NOTION" WHEN NEGATED OR TRULY INTERROGATED
wouldn't('ve); would('ve)?

couldn't('ve); could('ve)?
was/were going to . . . 
was/were
(gonna be) able to . . . 

     The foregoing refers to non-posterior would (see Lesson 17).  Note that posterior would can occur in a contingency clause having a virtual (deleted) hypothesis clause.
     The only ways for must and ought to have past reference is to add have or to write "hadda," "It was necessary that/for . . .  to 
. . . ," or "was/were obligated to . . . " 

A past-posterior-posterior like would be going to do is less rare than a  posterior-posterior like will be going to do.  Note that verb modalities can become as long as must have been going to have been getting watched [by the authorities].  (Note that we avoid the jingle, been being, in a passive verb where possible.)

    TIME-SEQUENCING

     When the finite predicator of the first clause is past, the finite predicator of the next clause is past or conditional; e.g.
     "They (had) said that we would be contacted."
     "When they (were going to) rent the house that we had looked at, we rushed over to talk with them."
     Exceptional is "He thought that the world was/is round."  The exochronous modality may follow a past.

     Should and ought are treated as an exochronous form and can go with a past or present, as in "They were assuming that it should/ought be ready by then" and "They are assuming that it should/ought be ready by now."

     When the predicator of the first clause is present or present anterior, the main clause is present, exochronous, posterior, or uses a conditional form of a modal verb, or an imperative-- would, could, might, should; but after a present-anterior or an exochronous anterior, a past is sometimes heard:
     "When I'm studying, please refrain from talking."
     "It seems odd that they would be doing that."
     "They'll tell you that we are the best ones to do that job."        
     "If it's ready, bring it over."

     When the exochronous, exochronous-anterior, posterior, or posterior-anterior comes first, the exochrnous or exochronous-anterior is preferred to any past form:

     "I've always thought that that course is [rarely was] the best for me."
     "We'll see what has been done."  Here, was would be proper only if the speaker is referring to a real past, not a time prior to future time, indeterminate between past or future.

CLICK HERE to see about the double-past-anterior in "If I'd've been there, . . .  

     'Ve loses its //v//, as does unstressed of. before a consonants. Compare musta and woulda with lotsa (the last standing for lots of).  'Ve also loses its unstressed vowel after a pronoun ending in a vowel-- including who and who all, as well as adverbial why, how,   how many, and where--which ends in a diphthong; the reduction requires a faster tempo for would following the WH-adverbs.  If 've occurs in an environment where both losses occur--e.g. I've been--'ve simply disappears.  Confusing between reduced 've and unstressed of occurs when speakers re-stressed musta as must of.    
     Note that 'd is used for had and would not only after a subject but also after any WH-word (what, who, how, when, where, why, how many, etc.).  'D stands for did not only after a
WH-word but also immediately following the adverb so. 
The reduced vowel is more likely to be lost after a preceding vowel when 'd is used for had in a given context than when it is used for would.  Since //d// assimilates to (i.e. becomes like) certain consonants, one says I'b been for I'd been in slower tempos; in faster tempos the two b's co-alesce and I been results.  Since this is very undesirable in past counterfactual hypotheses like "If he been," English has developed the double past-anterior "If he'da been" (or is somewhat slower tempos, "If he'd've been").
     'S may represent not only is; it can be an elided form of has quite generally
     Hafta, hasta, and hadda blend the auxiliary and a reduced form of to, something that creates a form treated as a single word  Some foreigners don't understand this and put an adverb between the two components.  Occasionally a native-speaker does the same thing but without foregoing the change for //v// to [f] (cf. left with leave) or //z// to [s] (cf. lost with lose) in these forms.  Hybrid forms like "He doesn't haf yet to do it."  

13 PASSIVES, CONTRAPONENTS

     The passive modality is formed with be or get (native speakers get the difference right; the teacher should read up on the difference in Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis; see index).      

Passive "Mice are hated by cats" = active "Cats hate mice"

The perspective is different:  Whichever is up front receives the main focus.

The passive modality has as its subject the direct object; passive verbs are transitive, since they can have objects when active.   If the subject of the active form is mentioned, it is preceded by a preposition-by, with, or through--and is called the agent (or, if impersonal, optionally the instrument; by is preferred for personal agents).  

PASSIVE MODALITIES

STATE OR ON-GOING ACT  SINGLE 
ACTION

WITH UNMARKED PASTS (including plain, progressive, and habitual pasts)  
AND PRESENT PROGRESSIVE


be


get

 

WITH MARKED MODALITY, INCLUDING CHARACTERIZING PAST, EXOCHRONOUS, ANTERIOR, POSTERIOR, OR INFINITIVE MODALITIES

get  be 

One should distinguish exochronous "That program gets aired at noon every day" from "That program is aired at noon every day."  The latter simply states a fact--almost a state--with no eye to action; it may be the result of a past action.  Interesting contrasts are heard in the following:

state or on-going action

single action

They were (being) 
watched yesterday. 

They got arrested yesterday.

They were getting watched 
the next day. 
The were being arrested 
the next day. 

The marked posteriority of the sentences in the lower row of the foregoing reverses the uses of be and get; negation and true interrogation (not the many kinds of English questions discussed in L78) have the same effect, though when both are combined, the result is a double-reversal that looks like an non-negated, non-interrogated use.
    Native-speakers know where to use be and get for passives. Foreign learners should refer to the index of Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis.   Contraponents are verbs that are non-passive in form (i.e. they lack the auxiliaries be and get and are finite in form) but whose sense is passive.  This use of transitive verbs is very common in timeless statements like "This book translates easily."  A normal agent is excluded, but instrumental "with the aid of good lexicon" could be added.  The current replacing of intransitive lie with contraponent lay in today's educated usage is not being paralleled except among the less-educated by a replacing of sit with contraponent set (which, however, has acceptable intransitive uses in "The concrete has set" and "The sun is setting."  (See L52.)  
     English has a verb that would be called preteritive in a classical (Latin, Greek) grammar.  The form have got is used as a non-past.  Unlike have, it lacks verbid forms (see below:  gerund, and participle, and infinitive) and, in North America, a past (viz. had got, heard in Britain and its former dependencies outside of North America).

14  SUBORDINATE CLAUSES II--EMBEDDED 
ADJECTIVAL (RELATIVE) CLAUSES

    Relative clauses are adjectival; they begin with the relative pronouns that (omitted in certain contexts; see below) and who or which--the so-called WH-pronouns; cf. the WH-adverbs.  Relative pronouns are normally moved to the front of their clauses; but see Appendix B, Lesson 7 above, and the section on pied-piping following this section.  Whose is a determiner.  We distinguish restrictive relatives and non-restrictive relatives--also called appositive--a term best reserved for true appositives to words like statement, claim, and the like--as in "the claim that he won."   (Titles like Queen and Judge function like determiners.)

  Note that appositives are reduced sentence containing the predicate be.  Thus, "the witness proved right" is reduced from "the witness who has/had been proved right."  (This explains the contrast of sunken and proven before a noun but sunk and proved following  noun and in any verb form.) 

 Restrictive relatives are not parenthetical in a way that non-restrictive relatives are.  Contrast the restrictive clause in "That's the one who/that happened to be here yesterday" with the non-restrictive clause in "My father, who happened to be here yesterday, told me about it."  

      Non-restrictive clauses, which are set off by commas, and indirect questions (like "Say who did it") avoid the relative pronoun that and use WH-relative pronouns (who, which; cf. WH-relative and interrogative adverbs where, when, why, and how); note that who is preferred to which for persons and pets having personal names That is the default relative pronoun; it is often virtual (deleted) when not the subject or predicate complement of restrictive relative clause.  But there are contexts in which that is not used.  These include the positions following a non-virtual preposition (see below) and following determiners like those and the quantifier all.  (Some languages say all what; this is un-English.)  Since the genitival postposition 's is not used with that, we say whose (for who's); but we say "of which" or "of whom" when this phrase modifies a clause-initial word; e.g. "Look at those books, some of which are falling apart"; a non-restrictive clause would prefer "Look at the ones of which some are falling apart."  We also avoid that where it could be confused with the conjunction.  In a succession of relative clauses, we often replace that with a WH-pronoun when the first is long, as in "the book that discusses what happened that year in Nigeria and which is now available in the college bookstore."  When one relative clause is embedded in another, we sometimes use a WH-pronoun in one clause (usually the clause in which the other is embedded) and who or which (hereafter WH-pronouns) in the other; e.g. "That's the book that she lent the student who needed it for his research" or "That's the book she lent the student who needed it for his research."  An example of conjoined relative clauses, the first of which has embedding of a non-relative clauses beginning with that is:  "I looked up the term that the teacher who lectured yesterday used and which seemed to her to be very important."  Whether we say relative in which or where depends on the degree of explicitness that is appropriate; see the first sentence of this paragraph.  In speaking and even in writing, we often say "the way" instead of the fuller "the way that" or "the way in which."  In "the way @ that" (where @ is a virtual pronoun), that follows a virtual pronoun; a WH-pronoun does not do so.   
    Though required when the preposition is foregrounded to the front of the clause, whom is rarely used, partly for the reasons given in Appendix B; see also the section on pied-piping that follows here. 
I have known speakers unable or reluctant to use whose (for who's) for antecedents that are non-persons and animals with names.  I can use either whose or of which in the following (see L57 for <of NOMINAL> vs. <NOMINAL's>).   In the early days of Middle English, Who? was a calque of French qui?--which had the same form in every function--even as the object of a preposition.  Later, the which (a calque of Old French laquele/liquels) and who were used as relatives; and in due course, whose (i.e. who's) and whom (an indirect-object dative in Anglo-Saxon) came into use as both interrogative and relative pronouns.     
     Notice that, although from where cannot be used in a question, direct or indirect, it is allowed in a non-restrictive relative clause like "We reached Hilo, from where we went to Kona."
     Clauses beginning with whatever (pronominal or determiner), whichever (pronominal or determiner), or who(se)ever are nominal clauses; see Lesson 16.

PIED-PIPING AND STRANDING

     The foregoing terms are complementary.  To understand them, consider the difference between the following sets of interrogative and relative-clause examples:

"To what (or "To which cause") did they attribute your illness?" 
"That's the book about which I've heard a lot" 

"What (or "Which cause") did they attribute you illness to?"
 "That's the book that I've heard a lot about." 

Note that in the first group, the preposition to or about is moved along with the foregrounded WH-pronoun or determiner to the beginning of the clause.  This is pied-piping.  In the second group, the prepositions are not moved to the beginning of the clause.  This is stranding.  Except where undue complexity and/or confusion would result from not pied-piping, it is usually avoided.  But there are a number of places in English where one must strand and a number where one has got to pied-pipe.  See Appendix BUnnecessary pied-piping of a preposition to the front of an interrogation or relative clause is the mark of a foreign speaker or a native-speaker who is uncertain about whether one's usage is educated enough to get away with ignoring that old "rule" of former grammar books.  

     Sound rules are, of course,  a different matter; cf. (if you read German) the full set of phonetological rules for all varieties of English in Maroldt [a revision of Bailey & Maroldt], Grundzüge der englischen Phonetologie:  allgemeine Systematik [Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik 16, Institut für Linguistik, Technische Universität Berlin, 1988]).  

Because of an older insistence on the goodness of pied-piping (older grammarians didn't use that term), we hear overcorrections that involve misuses of whom:  

  • "the one whom I thought had delivered it" (even the 1611 Bible has "Whom say ye that I am?") 

  • "Give it to whomever is authorized to sign for it" (where who is the subject of is authorized and the entire clause is the object of to in the preceding clause)

I've received letters from school-teachers in which whom appeared to be used randomly, perhaps salted in for emphasis or something of like sort.  Another hypercorrection involves a redundant preposition, as in the BBC announcer's "the one to whom I did a favor to."  
     As already intimated, educated speakers avoid pied-piping and whom as much as is convenient, though it may be used to avoid making a construction too complex.  Note that whom is not used by educated speakers for an object of a verb or preposition in a direct or a question or relative clause unless it stands directly after a foregrounded preposition.  Pied-piping is avoided in indirect (embedded) questions altogether.  Note these examples of stranding in indirect questions:  "We saw who it was sent by" and "They're wondering who did what to who."  The rather formal (or, where formality is not appropriate, pretentious) "That is a person in whom you can put your trust" is not asystematic; but it may be inappropriate for a given style of English.  
     Whatever
, whoever/whosever, and whichever are never omitted.  Clauses beginning with these words are not relative clauses but nominal clauses. 

15 VERBIDS II-INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTS; CAUSATIVES 
AND CONTRACAUSATIVES; RAISING

     An infinitive has the form of the basic verb; e.g. speak. There is a virtual (omitted) to (pronounced as t' before a vowel) before the short infinitive; the long infinitive as the functor to; e.g. to speak CLICK HERE for the uses of the two; either can be used after than.  Note that be to VERB--as in "They are to do that tomorrow"--forms one of the marked posteriors; it  indicates obligation or at least expectation.  (We do not use the infinitive form (to be to help), though Thomas Malory used it.)
    
An infinitive (construct) can be a modifier or a nominal.  The full form of the construct is: 

FOR NOM TO INFINITIVE (OBJECT); e.g.
"(It's time) FOR NOM TO CALL US."

For NOM is often deleted when NOM would be indefinite "one" or when NOM is the same as a nominal being modified (e.g. "I notified the fellow [for him] to call us"; it is also optional when a infinitive construct modifies a modifier (adjective or adverb; e.g. "easy [for one] to do").   A nominal infinitive construct functioning as the subject (e.g. "For us to come early might be inconvenient for them"), predicate complement ("The object was for us to get it done on time"), or object (e.g. "They said for us to come early" and "instead of for them to leave early") of a higher clause has the full form of the infinitive construct; i.e. both for and to are present.   Note that the only prepositions taking an infinitive object are instead of and besides (both of which prefer a gerund, though an infinitive may keep or omit the functor to, as in "wanted to stay instead of [to] go"), than (e.g. other/rather than [to] go), as (e.g. as well as [to] go"), and besides (which also prefers a gerund, but omits to with an infinitive; e.g. do nothing besides eat and sleep")  If an infinitive construct modifies an object and its own object is the same, the object of the infinitive is omitted (is virtual),  as in "It was too much (for us) to overcome X"--where X represents the deleted much.  The sequence for for is reduced to one for; e.g. "They wanted for [for] us to be on time."   When an infinitive construct indeterminate whether an example like "It was too much (for one) to overcome X"--where X is the repeated object too much.   Note that the sense is really passive "to be overcome"; one may say "It was too much to be overcome"--in which event an agent/instrumental "by one" is usually omitted at the end.
     Infinitives and infinitive constructs serving as modifiers have the long form with the functor to:

  • a person to learn from          (adjectival)

  • happy to have been invited  (adverbial)

The only prepositions that can have as their object an infinitive construct are except, besides, but, and than (not without); e.g. "There was nothing to be done but to let them go" and "It's over except for them to formally close the meeting."

    There is a subtle difference between began to do it and began doing it and parallel expressions:  The example with the infinitive is not as factual as the example with the gerund; it may imply that one began to do something, but the act was interrupted and never really got off ground.  But goes more easily with the infinitive example than with the gerund example.  The reader can think of other examples, say with try.  Tried to do it implies non-success, whereas tried doing it conveys not such connotations.  The infinitive can convey intentionality rather than success.   
    Most verbs cannot take full infinitive constructs--of the form {for NOMINAL to VERB}--as direct objects.  While desire can do so (e.g. "They desire for th'others to stay away"), want drops for:  "I want my dogs t'enjoy what they eat."  See more on this below.  Note that for is never present when the infinitive lacks a subject--as it nearly always does when the subject is the same as the subject of the main clause (e.g. "They want to see it"); cf. also the sentence-adverb, "To tell the truth, I don't know what caused the outage."  While most non-object nominal uses of the infinitive take to, after than, to is often virtual (omitted).  The long infinitive--with to--is used to modify other parts of speech; e.g. the person to watch out for, eager to go, carried out with haste.  While there are a few exceptions, it is usual for the {for NOMINAL}
subject of an infinitive to be dropped if that subject would be a reflexive pronoun whose antecedent is the same as the subject of the sentence in which the infinitive is embedded; e.g.  "I desire {for myself} to take a swim" and "They pretend {for themselves} to be ready."
     In its rôle of modifying a noun and in its nominal rôle, an infinitive (construct) is irrealis--often expressing a purpose yet to be realized--in contrast with a participle and with a gerund (which can have 's suffixed), respectively.  Contrast these gerunds and infinitives:

                  a book for GETTING advice from : a book TO GET advice from 
                  happy at
HEARING the news : happy TO HAVE HEARD the news

     "Their passing on that gossip is (or "was") being complained about"  : "For them
to pass on such gossip will/would be (or "has been") complained about"

and 

"For them to pass on such gossip is disreputable."  

Notice here how an irrealis (posterior, conditional, anterior, exochronous) predication accompanies an infinitive-construct subject.  With the last example, compare "Their passing on such gossip is having an untoward effect on this meeting."
    
While the full form of an infinitive construct is "for NOMINAL to VERB" any part of it may be virtual (omitted)  except the verb itself; but for is never present when the nominal subject is not present, though for can be absent with the subject nominal's being absent.     

     After make and perceptual verbs, both  for and to are virtual, as in "They made us do it" and "He heard [or: "saw"] them do that."  In the structure, "I saw them to be charming," see is a conceptual verb meaning "realize"; "to be charming" describes or characterizes "them."  Compare infinitive and adjective or participle in the following:

    STATE:        "I saw them to be charming" : "I thought them charming."
    ACTIVITY:  "I saw them do it (with short infinitive) : "I saw them doing it."

In the foregoing, see is perceptual with the infinitive denoting activity, but conceptual with the infinitive representing a state.  (See also Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, P. 158.The foregoing illustrates usages with perceptual verbs and with conceptual verbs like think, consider, regard.  Note that one is beginning to hear "consider . . . as" and "declare . . . as"  by analogy with "regard . . . as."  Whether as is present or virtual (as in "regarded that as necessary"), and whether be is present or virtual ("thought it [to be] a stupid error"), what follows these words is called the object predicate in school grammar.

     Help, even when negated or interrogated, omits for and (when more like a modal verb) may omit to:  "They helped us (to) finish the job on time."  In this example, us is as much object to help as subject to finish.  When the nominal in question is longer, to can be present:  "The manager helped the new employees (to) learn how to handle that matter."  When negated, truly interrogated, or in comparison (i.e. following than), as well as when help is itself and infinitive, to is more likely to be  virtual (deleted); e.g.  "The manager didn't help the new employees learn how to handle that matter," "Did the manager help the new employees learn how to handle that matter?"--and also  "He helped others to finish their projects more than he helped us finish ours" and "She gave up her free time to help us finish our project."   SEE BELOW.
     With causative verbs other than make, for is virtual but to is present:  "That caused/forced/impelled us to be vigilant."  Verbs of commanding, requiring, etc.--which are volitionally (deontically) causative--act like causatives; e.g.  "They required us to pay on time."  Like help, make is a bit different from other causatives in that it drops both for and to (e.g. "That threat made them pay on time") unless it is separated from its  infinitive construct object--in which eventuality, to is acceptable, as in, "The commander made every single soldier that has been exposed to mustard gas (to) take a shower lasting fifteen minutes.")  
     In the colloquial usage of some regions, a few simple infinitival expressions are used instead of an prohibition (negative imperative); e.g. "Not to worry!"

CAUSATIVE HAVE AND GET AND THE CORRESPONDING CONTRACAUSATIVES 

     One needs to distinguish causative and contracausative get and have (on which see the details in nn. 20-21 on pp. 225-226 in Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis.  There, it is said that have and get parallel the be and get passives.  But those examples come from marked imperatives, which should doubly reverse passives, given that causatives constitute a marked verb category.  Whatever the truth, contracausatives do reverse causative uses:

Intentionality

CAUSATIVE

CONTRACAUSATIVE
(undergoing something)

Responsibility

Directly or purposely
causing
(default)

"They got their hair cut." 
"They got  th'others to
accept the deal."

 "She had her favorite 
dog die on her."  
" He had his benefits cut off."
Not 
responsible
(default)
Obliquely causing
(more 
marked)

"They had th'others speak in their place at the annual meeting."

 "He got his sleeve caught on that hook."  
" They got their wings clipped." 

Obliquely
responsible
(more marked)

     The foregoing are predicted all to be reversed when negated or truly interrogated and when they are objects of imperatives.  For the different status of a predicative participle with the object of see and the object of (non-causative, non-contracausative) have,  see Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 163.

These differences are very subtle.  Causative get reverses the non-intentionality of passivizing get (as in "He got caught"), while contracausative get indicates a degree of negligence that brings on or results in what happens.  By contrast, causative have and contracausative have connote a degree of non-directness or distance from what happens.   Note that when have is contracausative, "He had his benefits cut off"--not to be confused with a simple description with non-causative have--the sense is that he caused them to be cut off."   The similar-sounding contracausative sentence conveys the sense that it simply happened to him without his knowing why.  If he had known why, got would have been more appropriate.
 
     Older grammars objected to split infinitives, i.e. putting a modifier between to and the verb form, as in "to quickly depart."  But:
-- since to a functor parallel with be and get in passives, have and had in anteriors, will and would in the constructs that they form,
--and since none of the foregoing resists having a modifier between the functor and what follows (e.g. "had always been quickly observed"), 
--there are no convincing grounds against splitting infinitives--something that educated speakers frequently do and indeed have to do sometimes to avoid ambiguity.

RAISING 

    The most important instance of RAISING needed for school grammar can be illustrated with the following example:  

Stacey happened to have been thought to have been present.

we have to begin with the following basic sentence, in which the eventual subject, John, is the subject of the most deeply embedded subordinate clause:

That someone thought {that Stacey had been present} happened.

When the first clause (the underlying subject of happened) undergoes PASSIVIZATION, we get:

That it was thought {that Stacey had been present} happened.

Stacey is first "raised" to become the subject of the clause in which it is embedded to yield:

Stacey was thought {to have been present} happened.

Note the change of the finite verb had been present to the infinitive to have been present.   A second "raising" makes Stacey the subject of happened, as was thought becomes infinitival to have been thought:

Stacey happened to have been thought to have been present.

I found that Berlin and Brunei students greatly enjoyed becoming proficient in raising long strings of embedded clauses.

     Quasi-modal verbs and modal verbs actually represent raisings.  Thus, Stacey hadda (or must) leave can be analysed as having been raised from <{That Stacey leave} was (or is) necessary> where was and is stand for the more correct underlying be.

16 SUBORDINATE CLAUSES III--EMBEDDED
NOMINAL CLAUSES; EXTRAPOSITION

    Like nouns, nominal clauses can be subjects or objects of predicators or prepositions; nominal clauses begin with that or, if they are of the WH-variety, with whatever or whichever (either determiners or  pronominal) and with whoever.  Note that when whatever, whichever, and whoever are pronominal, they are equivalent to an underlying anything that or anyone who . . .   Note also that complementizer-that is often omitted when the clause is the object of a verb of speaking (with time-sequencing!) or a conceptual verb like knowing, thinking, and the like; but understand leaves that in place, and realize usually does so--as always does see in the sense of these two verbs.  Compare these uses:

  • Subject and predicate complement:  "That he was not healthy was what we had assumed." 

  • Object of verb of speaking:  "We claimed (that) it was time to leave."
                 Passivized:  "That it was time to leave was obvious."

  • Object of a verb of knowing/understanding/realizing/etc.:  "They understood that we were 
         unwilling
    " and "We saw that they were unwilling."

  • Object of a verb of perception/feeling:  "I heard/saw that they were ready."

  • Object of any preposition:  WH-nominal clauses like "We were aware of what was impending."

  • Object of except, besides, but, than:  "We knew everything except that one document was missing."  (Without cannot take as its object nominal clause or an infinitive construct.)  Note that it goes against the grain of the system that respect clauses having a that clause as object of in (as in "It's more suitable in that it is at least not old and run-down").  One is tempted to analyse such examples with a virtual "respect to the fact" coming between in and that.  

     The foregoing  uses should not be confused with the function of that-clauses as appositions:
"The fact that they had failed to do their work was something that caused chagrin."  

Like what, who, and which, adverbial where, when, why, how can create nominal indirect questions (which do not display interrogative word order SEE L78):
       
       "He knew what had happened"; "We wondered what it was."  
       "She knew how to do it"; We wondered why it was there."

Cf. the conceptual use of see in:  "She saw who did it" and "He saw where it was";

 Note that in "They asked us what had happened," us is the object of one of the few verbs (cf. call, consider) that takes two direct objects; and (ii) that from where cannot be used in a question, direct or indirect, but only in a non-restrictive relative clause. 

       A different kind of nominal clause functioning as an indirect question begins with if (unmarked) or whether (marked).  An if-example like "They asked if we were ready" expects an affirmative answer, whereas "They wondered whether we were ready (or not) leaves open the possibility that the answer can be either affirmative or negative.  

     Since nominal clauses and  infinitive constructs can be objects of prepositions as well as subjects and complements of a finite predicator, they function like nouns.  Since "the person in the front row" and "the one I talked to" can take genitival 's (contrast current usage with Shakespearean the King's daughter of English and Jacobean the Lord's our God), such constructs are obvious of a kind with the noun in helper's.    If one is to have insight into a grammatical system, it is essential to understand this--and that modifying phrases, clauses, and infinitive constructs fit into the same slots as a simple adjective or adverb (except that they are not amenable to comparison).  This is the key to building and understanding the grammar system.

EXTRAPOSITION

    A grammatical process aptly named extraposition replaces the subject of a clause with the dummy-subject It or--when the subject is an indefinite nominal, not an infinitive construct or a nominal clause--There and then places the original subject after the predicate.

     To go to town was necessary ==> It was necessary to go to town.
     That they were unwell is obvious ==>  It's obvious that they were unwell.
     A tennis court has been built here ==>  There has been a tennis court built there.

Cf. "They told us that there is a cafeteria in that building."

Sometimes, extraposition occurs in a different way, affecting only a participle modifying the subject (which is left before the predicator):

 --"He left the house running."  "She arrived here exhausted."
--"It wasn't fair their doing that."

Occasional variants occur like "It has its own special character, this theatre does" or "It has its own special character, does this theatre."

See further on cleft-sentences and cloven-sentences in Appendix C.  

17 VERB MODALITIES IV--MODAL VERBS

          Modal verbs or modals constitute a special kind of auxiliary verb.  he English modal verbs are:

Exochronous
only

PAIRED:
Exochronous : Conditional

Either exochronous
or conditional

must 
ought

will : would
can : could
may : might

should

The two uses of the conditional are:  (i) a doubtful present or future; (ii) a past-posterior.  Many heard on the media reverse the proper uses of may and might:  Like can, epistemic (see below) may simply expresses a present or posterior possibility; and may have simply expresses a past possibility.  Like could and would, might expresses a doubtful possibility now or in the future; and like could have and would have, might have expresses with doubt a possibility before the time of speaking or writing.  Like could and would, might also expresses (not necessarily with doubt) a possibility occurring later than a reference time in the past.  We thus say, "I believe that it may (have) cost a lot" if we think the possibility likely--the plus outlook; and we say, "I believe that it might (have) cost a lot" when we have doubts--the negative outlook.  But "I thought it might cost a lot" is neutral- between being sanguine--not too different from "I thought it was going to happen"--and being doubtful.  Though must and ought are deontic (unmarked) and epistemic (marked), must've and  had to have are simply epistemic (unmarked in an additionally marked form); ought to've seems to retain deontic force as its unmarked force--perhaps because of the origin of ought as originally a past form of owe, in which case one might think of a double reversal back to the unmarked force of ought itself.

     FORCE refers not only to the foregoing characteristics of modal or modal-like verbs (see further table on p. 240 of ETBLA); it also has a wider sense, as when we speak of the causative or factitive force of verbs, typically ending in -en, -ify, -ize and –ate; e.g. deepen, simplify, specialize, and activate—as well as cause and make.  But its usual use in grammar and logic has to do with the psychology and on­tology of modal verbs.   Usually force has other logical and grammatical references.  There are first, the force of necessity and possibility, either of which can be reduced to th’other . . . since what is unnecessary = what is possible not to be and what is necessary = what is not possible not to be; while what is impossible = what is necessary not to be, and what is possible = what is not necessary not to be.  These forces can be further categorized as having either ontological (technically epistemic) or moral (will-based; tech­ni­cal­ly deontic) force.  Thus, epistemic can and may express what is onto­logically possible, whereas deontic can and may express permission or (when negated) prohibition—which depend on will.   Must expresses on­to­logical necessity or moral obligation.  The latter is more often expressed with should or ought, which can, though less often, express ontological expectation.  (See on expectative and desidertive force below).  Expectation is something that falls short of than necessity.  Need also expresses lesser degree of ontological or moral necessity; this is of desideration.  The forces of expectativity and desideration will be discussed shortly; note here simply that expectativity is mental, whereas desideration is volitional, or at least emotional and non-cognitive.

    The difference between "It may happen" and the highly constrained "May it happen" and "May you be rewarded" is that the examples with inverted word order are equivalent to "I hope/pray that it may happen."  We have here something of an indirect imperative like jussive-let in "Let it happen," though without the concessive connotations that the latter can (but doesn't have to) have.

     Note that elided verb forms are usually avoided at the end of a sentence; e.g. "They must have."  With sentence-final elided forms are, however, heard with conditional forms; e.g. "They wouldn't've."  Note two that -n't've and not've occur more freely, as in  as in"They may not've" and "They mightn't've."

See below for the transvestite modals need and dare.
See below also for let and various hybrid modals.

         The term force is used  in analysing modal verbs or modals; see p. 240 of my Essays on time-based linguistic analysis.  They are (paired ones like) will : would, can : could, may : might and also (unpaired) should, must, and ought.  Would (which, like will, has got three non-posterior uses; see the next-to-last box below), could, might, and should (with four uses, including the virtual $ discussed below; one use of should that is of particular interest is mentioned in the next box below) are called conditional forms and can serve as doubtful presents or posteriors and (under given conditions; see the last box below) as past-posteriors.  The other forms are exochronous.  See below for transvestite modals and quasi-modal verbs.

     Though force can have a wider sense (as when we speak of the causative or factitive force of verbs ending in -en, -ify,–ize and -ate like deepen, simplify, specialize, and activate, as well as cause and make), its grammatical and logical use has to do with the psychology and ontology of modal verbs.  Necessity and possibility (either of which can be reduced to th’other, since what is necessary is what is not possible not to be, and what is possible is what is not necessary not to be).  These forces can be either ontological (technically epistemic) or moral (will-based; technically deontic); thus, epistemic can and may speak of what is ontologically possible, whereas deontic can and may permit or (when negated) forbid.

     Many languages divide up reality into factual, realis, and irrealis categories.  Realis is what is neutral between being factual and irrealis; many languages, including the daughter languages of English, combine past and posterior forms (e.g. bin go “was going to”; cf. English would) to express unreality. 

     The irrealis category can be subdivided into various subcategories:

     What is negated or interrogated, and in general what is not actual, including whatever is doubted (the technical term is dubitative), conjectured, hypothetical, or contingent and lies in the future or outside of time (what Classical grammars called gnomic assertions);

     What is unexpected (i.e. uncertain or doubtful:  technically dubitative), counterfactual, or desired.

     When we say what can (have) or may (have) be(en), we are not excluding the possibility that it already is—it possible is or is not.   But when we use the conditional forms, could, might, and would, we shift the likelihood into the neg­ative column:  We are implying that the possibilty or reality does not exist or at least is unlikely.

     Some facets of analysing English verb forms require the classificatory fea­tures [expec­tative] (unexpected; neutral; expected); [factual] (what is a fact; neu­tral; what is counterfactual); and [desiderative] (desired; neutral; undesired (what is disliked or disgusting).  What is counterfactual, the most extreme irrealis situation. 

   Marked contexts are summed up in the following table:

MARKED CONTEXTS

Negative
Interrogative
Comparative1
Contrastive emphasis 

Anterior
Exochronous
Posterior
Surrealis5

Purpose2  
Hypothesis, Contingency3   
Indirect quotation4

Imperative
Infinitive (not gerund)

     1Not superlative.  Under comparative are understood not only more but also [(just) [this/that] much, very, too, and right—though not right would be odd.
       
2
Whether an infinitive construct or a (so/in order) that- clause.  Note that result clauses (beginning with so, that, or simply that do not constitute marked contexts.
     3A hypothesis clause may neutral and marked, coun­terfactual or dubitative (non-expectative), or expectative.  The last two types are over-marked.  See note 5.
       4For uses of past-posterior would in direct and indirect questions, see the Appendix.  See the Appendix also for uses of should.
     5That is, a subordinate clause posterior to a main clause.   The main clause in a conditional sentenceis called the contingency clause; the hypothesis clause is imbedded in it.  Surrealis clauses may be neutral (hypothesis, temporal, relative, concessive), dubitative (non-expectative--especially hypothesis clauses), or expectative.   (This three-way divi­sion contrasts with the counterfactual/neutral categorization of non-posterior conditional sentences.)

     Double and quartern reversals end up looking like a de­fault form; three reversals resemble a singly reversed item. 

An overall picture is found here: 

UNMARKED

M-A-R-K-E-D

Realis Modalities

Irrealis Modalities

Classes of verbs

Present (progressive)

Past (plain, progressive or habitual—“used to”)

exochronous
anterior
posterior
imperative, jussive, hortatory
infinitive
&
modalities formed with 
modal verb
s

auxiliary verbs, including modal verbs
copula(r) verbs*
perceptual verbs
conceptual verbs

  Verbids are gerunds, participles (both unmarked), and infinitives (marked, as shown above).  They have anteriors formed with have and posteriors formed with be going to.  Both exochronous or conditional forms of modal verbs have anterior modalities.   

     *Note go in expressions like go crazy--not the same as go crazily.

F. R. Palmer noticed (see Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 234, n. 29) that as a result of the different scope of negation in epistemic cannot and epistemic may not, epistemic cannot  means "It is not possible that . . .," whereas  epistemic may not means "It is possible that . . . not . . ."  Consequently, "He can't be in his office" doesn't allow the possibility that he could be there, which  is allowed in saying,  "He may not be in his office."  The difference between deontic can/can't and may/may not is more subtle in that the power to command is more latent in the case of can than with may, for which reason deontic can and can't are politer than deontic may and may not.  Robin Lakoff noticed that using must is peremptory when spoken to those one has power to command, whereas it is polite to one's superiors, as in "You must try some of this cake."  As for one's equals, we use have (got) to . . .  If we insert simply into the preceding expression, it simply adds a degree of urgency; e.g. "You have simply got to help those people resolve their dilemma!"  For finer force distinctions, see Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 241.)   One should also not forget also optative-may in "May they survive this catastrophe!" with its verb-subject word order.  In a few old expressions still in use (almost in quotation marks), may is virtual (deleted) and the word order is inverted; cf. "Be it ever so humble" and "Be that as it may."  Such expressions are today more like lexical entries than matters of analytical syntax; they are learned as a single bloc.  Note that epistemic and deontic forces exhibit reversed uses of the be and get passivizing auxiliary verbs. 

USES OF SHOULD

     Note that should and seldom-heard shall are no longer related like will and would.  Two uses of shall are (i) an interrogatively worded polite suggestion or invitation (e.g. "Shall I/we help?") or (ii) a determined promises or threat (e.g. "I/we shall return").    Besides (i) the use of should in the sense of "ought" and (ii) the dubitative or unexpectative sense of should (e.g. "If they should be doing that, . . . "), there are two uses of this modal verb that warrant comment:

(iii) The frequently omitted (and therefore virtual) should in expressions of necessity or volition and those of importance or propriety; e.g. "They insisted that we $ not remain there"--where $ represents a deleted should--one that can grammatically also be present.  The use may also be found in purpose clauses like "I'm working hard so that this project succeeds," especially those beginning with lest.  (The examples, "I wanted the help on this in order that the work not be left unfinished"--note the negation---sounds better than interrogative "Did they want to help in order that the work be ready on time"; worst of all is "I wanted to help in order that the work be ready on time.")  In contrast with the foregoing, "They insisted that we didn't remain there" is a factual assertion--at least in North American English.  See L26 and L54, which shows how the exochronous modality is becoming the new American subjunctive (the older subjunctive mode was lost in the first half of the twentieth century).  An example is:  "My policy is that it stops."
     The three uses of should discussed so far are irrealis

      The ignorant characterization of the $ use of should as a "subjunctive" is clearly wrong on three or four points, which are all automatically accounted for by the foregoing analysis.  Note the three main points of the unassailable argument:

--Should can be present; it doesn't have to be deleted.
--The time-sequencing principle is unaccountably violated if remain is a subjunctive; the principle was originally invented for Latin sub- junctives.  Note that should is suitable in any time-sequencing.
--Not unaccountably lacks do-support.

(iv) The use of factual should in an expression of (non-)desideration or (non-)expectation; e.g. "They were (not) disgusted (or "[not] surprised") that others should be spreading that rumor."  Even Brer Rabbit (who spoke African-American Creole almost a century and a half ago) said, "And who should 'e meet but Brer Fox!"  This archaïc expression implies the virtual presence of an expression like "to one's surprise" or "to one's dislike."  Where the factors of desideration and expectation are neutral (the mid value of the features), should is irrealis
     Dubitative should occurs in hypothesis clauses--in place of the would that is heard in similarly unexpectative uses with wish, It's time, and would rather/prefer/just as soon as; see Lesson 18.
     The three non-posterior uses of will and would are:
   

        Volitional (“be willing to” or “insist on, persist in”) in “If they will just shut up” or “If they will keep doing that” and “If they would only make less of a racket!”  Cf. "They would insist on going to an expensive restaurant."  This would can be posterior or non-posterior.  A less frequent sense is “bequeath in a last will and testament”; in this sense inflected wills exists and can take do-SUPPORT, though neither this nor the inflected is possible for the other uses under scrutiny here.  

        Epistemic or presumptive in “It’ll be there by now” and “It will’ve arrived there by now.”  Would is found as a past only in mind-reading quotations in “She would’ve arrived there by now, he mused.”  

     Characterizing in  “She will reply like that every time you ask her about it” and “She would reply like that every time    you  asked her about it.”  The latter is stronger than mere­ly habitual used in “She useta reply like that every time you asked.”  

    Indirect imperatives formed with let and may:

Third-person indirect imperatives or jussives formed with let,
first-person hortatives formed with let(')s
and prayers formed with may  

     Concerning imperatives (the direct kind--not the "Let's you and I do it" sort (where Let's is an operator rather than a true verb)--, consider "Ensure that it stays in place" and "Make sure that it will be done on time."  Here the imperatives have nominal purpose clauses as their objects; the predications of these clauses are expressed with the exochronous modality.  Contrast the dubitative/non-expectative alternative:  "Hasten the process that would bring out the desired goal."   See Lesson 18 and the discussion of subordinate (temporal-adverbial, relative-adjectival, and nominal-whatever clauses depending on  a main clause with a posterior predication of dubitative/unexpectative force:

  • "I would be there when(ever) you needed me."

  • "I would be there whenever you should/would/might need me."

  • "I would give it to the one you designated."

  • "I would give it to whoever you designated/should (might) designate."   

Clearly, only the generic clauses with WH . . . ever permit the should alternative the way surrealis hypothesis clauses like "If it should even stop, . . . " do.  Evidently, grammar quite logically regards hypothesis clauses as generic (gnomic).  Unlike hypothesis clauses, none of the foregoing allows would in the manner of object nominal purpose clauses like "Hasten the process that would achieve the desired goal."  Foreigners who speak non-Romance languages are wont to misuse "will" (or "be going to") for subordinate clauses embedded in clauses with a posterior predicate--especially those beginning with if, unless, when, as soon as, until, once, before, after, or a WH-pronoun (as in "Whoever [or:  "One who"] does that will regret it").

      Is the overall pattern statable in summary form and amenable to an explanation?     If it is, we need a way of distinguishing object purpose clauses from other subordinate clauses in posterior time.  To forward our investigation, it is worth noticing that in past time, adverbial purpose clauses--which look to the future--can take would or might--as well as the infinitive:

--"She worked long hours in order that she might/would have enough for a nice vacation trip."  (Cf. "She worked long hours in order to have enough, etc.")

      The data pattern leads us to wonder whether an object purpose clause--which is nominal rather than adverbial might nevertheless allow might: "Hasten the process that might bring out the desired goal."  This seems acceptable, though might is less usual than would, even though the converse holds in the adverbial example in past time.  CLICK HERE for time-sequencing.     
     For sustainable generalizations about predications in subordinate clauses embedded in clauses having a posterior predication (including imperatives), see Lesson 18.  
     It will take some time for a non-native speaker to internalize this involved set of generalizations--most of which educated native- speakers do not have to be taught, as they have internalized them from childhood.

      In contrast with result clauses, which have ordinary verbs, as in "They save their money, so now they can buy a car without going into debt" and especially examples with so . . . that like"The worked so hard that they are now well-off," similar-looking adverbial purpose clauses have irrealis predications--which observe time sequencing in differentiation will, may, can from the conditional forms would, might, and could--used when modifying something in a main clause with a past predication:

     "They are saying this  (so [or "in order"]) that it will/may/can be clear that there is a very real and present danger in such actions."
     "They said this
(so [or "in order"]) that would/might/could be clear that there is a very real and present danger in such actions."

     Notice that the exochronous is being more frequently used in the non-past type; e.g. "They are saying this  (so [or "in order"]) that it will/may/can be clear that there is a very real and present danger in such actions."  See more in Lesson 8 for the exochronous modality  with past purpose clauses beginning with lest for the exochronous modality in object (nominal) purpose clauses like "Ensure that it stays in place."
     The least formal and in many ways most natural-feeling usage has the infinitive:  "They are/were saying this (in order) to clear up the matter."  If a subordinate clause is embedded in the infinitive construct, it observes time sequencing:  "They are/were saying this to make it clear what was/is at stake."
  

     Besides the real modal verbs, there are a few hybrid categories.  Ought is like help in allowing the omission (usual with true modals) of to when the main verb is negated or truly interrogated.   Besides non-modals taking a long infinitive that have meanings like modal verbs--be bounda, be sposeta, (ha)d better, be able, be allowed/permitted, be required/obligated--there are transvestite modals like need and dare--which can be modals when negated or truly interrogated.  We can say "You don't need to do that" or "You needn't do that"; note the form and placement of the negative and well as the difference between long and short complementary infinitive.   We can say "Do I dare to ask"? is a straightforward question, but "Dare I ask?" is rhetorical and can convey reluctance; "I don't dare to ask" is a statement, whereas "I dare not ask" implies a degree of foreboding.  The modal constructs convey irrealis connotations.  The connotations of granting permission conveyed in need not or needn't are very attenuated, if not absent, in "don't need to"; and dare not or daren't express disbelief or dislike, reluctance, repugnance, fear to a degree that is absent in don't dare.
     Let always takes a short infinitive like a modal.  Lets is now used by some without an apostrophe as a sort of modal operator in "Lets you and him do it" or "Lets you and me do it" (with a double pronominal reversal in the marked context).   If causative make is not too distant (a concept relative to the tempo of utterance) from its infinitive, the infinitive can be short; this is not true of other causatives (except let).  SEE ALSO HEREWant and wish take long infinitives.
     Aside from vernacular double modals (e.g.  might could, shouldn't oughta) used by some speakers, there are quasi-modals--semantically modal but grammatically non-modal expressions--hafta/hasta/hadda,'ve gotta, be sposeta, be bounda, 'd rather, 'd just as soon, be fixinda, liketa (= liked to've "almost"), and useta (use be in Irish English), as well as completive done in has done gone and several other quasimodalities that are mostly limited to the African American Vernacular English (AAVE); e.g. the be steady modality discussed by Prof. John Baugh at Stanford University, most of which Dr. Crawford Feagin has found in vernacular forms of Southern States English (no surprise, given that in the formative days of English many Southern white children were reared up during their language-learning years by Black nurses; many effectively became bilingual--most obviously  on John's island in South Carolina, where the African American population [most of the plantation inhabitants] spoke Gullah).  One can speak of semi-modal keep (on) V-ing and start V-ing.

18 CONDITIONAL SENTENCES, SURREALIS CLAUSES; 
WISH, WOULD PREFER
, &c

    A conditional sentence has two clauses--a main contingency clause and a dependent adverbial hypothesis clause.  The hypothesis clause makes  grammar-learning more complex than the contingency clause does.  A surrealis clause is any sort of clause embedded in a clause with a posterior predication--including an imperative.   Surrealis clauses have distinct forms for neutral, dubitative/unexpectative, and the overmarked expectative forms--in contrast with conditional sentences that are not posterior, which only distinguish neutral and counterfactual forms.  A competent instructor should be able to  lead pupils to make the right deductions from examples presented in a systematic order as to the degree of irrealis force of given surrealis clauses:

     From the following data, the patterns are evident; they are summarized in what follows:    

Past:          "If it was delivered to her, she was/is one happy person."  
                   "If it had('ve) been delivered to him, he would've been happy to receive it."
                         "Had it been delivered to us, we'd've been delighted."

     Consider the double past-anterior (which has parallels in French and German):  If I'da (hadda, had've) been there, . . .  Many educated speakers use this form.  Note how "If I'b been" has "'d" assimilated to "b" by a normal English sound rule; in faster tempos, the two "bb"s coalesce and we hear "If I been"--where "'d" ("had") gets entirely lost.  The doubled form prevents this.  Since "If I had have" (used by one British playwright) sounds strange, it is easy for "If I'd've been" to be misinterpreted as "If I would've been"--though there are other reasons for using this last form.  Note that 'd stands for had, would, and-- after a WH-word (what, who, how, when, where, why, etc.) as well as so-did.  (This is an environment in which 's can stand for does.

Hybrid:             "If it has been lost, there will be difficulties."
Exochronous:  "If she's there, she's probably reading."
                         "If she were/was here, she'd be reading."
                                  "Were she here, she'd be reading."  [see below on if-deletion]
Posterior:        "If it arrives late, there'll be a problem.  [neutral]
                         "If it arrived late tomorrow, there would be a problem." [dubitative]
                         "If it should arrive late tomorrow, there would be a problem." [dubitative]
                                   "Should it arrive late tomorrow, there would be a problem."
                         "If it would in that case arrive late, there would be a problem." [concessive-dubitative]
                         "If it'll  arrive late, there'll be a
problem.  [expectative]     
                         "If it's gonna arrive late, there'll be a problem.  [concessive-expectative]            

NOTE that dubitative is [-expectative].  Note too that changing should to were to or would in a dubitative posterior hypothesis clause makes it concessive; e.g. "If she would/were to be late--because of what you think may happen--then there'll be nothing we can do about it."   As to how something can be both dubitative and concessive or treated as factual, this is possible where the factuality of a doubtful contingency is assumed.  The foregoing example means:  "The contingency that In an expectative posterior hypothesis clause, changing will to be gonna makes it concessive; e.g. "If it's gonna arrive late tomorrow, as I expect,  won't be without an alternative  plan of action."  

     (i) A neutral surrealis clause has the exochronous modality for posteriors; the contingency has will or an imperative.  Presents and past hypotheses and contingencies remain unchanged from usages that would prevail in any other kinds of clauses; time-sequencing would of course prevail.  Foreigners who do not speak Romance or Germanic languages have difficulty with neutral posteriors:  They use a posterior modality in the hypothesis clause instead of the exochronous modality; this converts them into the expectative type.  Will plus verb is fine in the contingency clause.      
   (ii) The dubitative/unexpectative kind has some variant of the TEMPORAL THROWBACK--one of the temporal modalities of English (see Appendix C).  In the instance of a present or past hypothesis clause, it is counterfactual:  Present becomes past ("If they were speaking about it now, . . . "); past becomes past anterior ("IF they had spoken about it before then, . . . "); the contingency clauses have would (present- or exochronous-counterfactual) and would have (past-counterfactual).   The posterior subtypes of dubitative/unexpectative hypotheses have the temporal throwback in several different forms and degrees of non-expectativity:    The normal past verb or a compound verb formed on should is dubitative; were to plus a verb is very unexpected; and will and be gonna are expectative; see below for the variants in the order of increasing unexpectedness:  past, should, were to).  (The main or contingency clause has would.)
  (iii) The expectative category (present only in posterior hypotheses) has be gonna or will like an ordinary posterior.  (The main or contingency clause has will.)  An example with an imperative in the main clause is  "Hasten the process that will bring out the desired goal."    

     Common errors (especially on the media) for past-counterfactuals are: (i) use of a past ("If it did," "If it was going to") and use of were (as in "If it were [going to be] ready") which, in third-person singular predications, is a present counterfactual (which can also be was, unless if is omitted and the word order gets inverted).  An alternative that is now emerging for past-counterfactual hypotheses has would've; e.g. "If they would've been there on time yesterday, . . ."
      The reader should be aware that not all if-clauses are hypothesis clauses; some are nominal--indirect questions (CLICK HERE).  If can be deleted if the hypothesis verb is were (not was!), had, did, should, or could; one of these verbs replaces deleted if and subject-verb-inversion results, as in "Were they here now, . . ." or "Were that to happen, . . .," "Had we known, . . .," "Did they but care, . . . ," "Should our plan fall through, . . ." "Could they but see our point of view, . . ."     
   
 Can you find a grammar that understands the systematic relations between verbs clauses depending on certain posterior-oriented verbs—as well as imperatives and most infinitive uses--and subordinate clauses depending on a future predication in the main clause?

Neutral:  “If it’s on time tomorrow, I’ll be there  when she arrives.”  (Contrast 
    "They say that it'll be on time tomorrow.)
Unexpectative, dubitative:  “I wish he would be on time tomorrow” ~ “If he were 
   (to be) on time  tomorrow” or “If he should be on time tomorrow, our plan might
    work.”  

Expectative:  I know (expect, promise) that it’ll be ready tomorrow” ~ “If it’ll (or
    “it’s gonna”) be ready tomorrow, then that problem is solved.”

Note that the dependent clauses following verbs of different types are formed like the contingency clauses of conditionals, except that should is not found in them; only would is used for dubitative examples.  Expect and promise have expectative forms.  Hope can be neutral or expectative; even dubitative examples like "I hope that they would rescind that order" exist.  The verb doubt does not have to take a dubitative dependent clause; we hear both "I doubt that that'll work" and "I doubt that that would work."

Speakers of non-Romance foreign languages have a lot of trouble with the neutral variant of hypothesis clauses; e.g. “If it’s on time tomorrow, I’ll be there  when she arrives.”  Using will in the If-clause come across with a strange expectativity when the speaker does not intend.   (Since most languages do not distinguish present and exochronous forms, often grossly misnamed "present simple" forms, they find it difficult to use the English exochronous modality.  Some native-speakers exhibit the error of changing wish to wished—instead of, or to­gether with, throwing back the time of the dependent clause, as when a person says, "I wished they were here."

     Grammar is the most involved and complex system any human being ever acquires; to teach grammar without instilling this consideration is unforgivable negligence.  One cannot understand notions of correctness other than authoritarian notions of a mythical "standard" or even "do as you please" without understanding what fits the system--what is system-conform--and the contrary.

Examples with wish, etc.

    Wish, 'd prefer, 'd rather, and 'd just as soon can take various constructions, including the foregoing:

"I wish that they had been there/were here/would be on time."  (Avoid the goophasm of throwing back the wrong word and saying wished for wish!) 
"I'd prefer it if they went back; I'd prefer that they (should) leave now; I'd prefer it if they left now/were to leave now/would leave now; I'd prefer their going back; I'd prefer (for) them to go back." 
"I'd rather/just as soon that they remained/(should) remain."
It's time for them to leave/(that) they left/(should) leave."

AFTERWORD

    As soon as we  give up the much-counterevidenced error that functor words do not get borrowed and its dependent, twin error that English is a lineal descendent of a Germanic language--Anglo-Saxon--and as soon as we pay attention to structures and in particular to  the resemblance of Middle English structures to Romance-language structures, the sooner we can see the true nature of English, abandon terms denoting categories of Latin or German but not English, and arrive at a true picture of what is the greatest and most flexible language in world at the beginning of the third millennium.  Readers unable to do this, readers unable to deal with terms, etc., should not be in any aspect of the grammar business.  Readers making terms too narrow ("continuous past") or downright wrong ("present-perfect tense") should not be in the business of writing grammars.  Let's get real!


   


Hits on this website from 19981122 till 20030724:   194,303