--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
> Dear Peter:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "P&G" <petegray@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
> [PCR]
> Trask denied (with others) that "he will go" is a simple future
prediction, and claimed it had an intentional modality. He therefore
claimed that English has no non-modal future.
>
> Since the future has not yet occurred, a simple future should make
a prediction without modal implications, and expectation is, on my
opinion, simple prediction.
Unless I'm missing something, I would have said that 'will' formed a
predictive mood, as in 'They'll have had a shock when they looked
inside the room.', rather than an intentional mood.
English verb forms seem much easier to explain
if 'will', 'can', 'may', 'shall', and 'must' are all treated as
forming synthetic moods. In particular, such a treatment neatly
explains why we don't have *'will can do'. 'Ought to' also fits in
here (at least in Standard English). There is also the
defective "needn't" (no positive - I'm not sure it is simply a
negative of "must" distinct from "mustn't".).
Richard.