From: Richard Wordingham
Date: 2003-02-25
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordinghammy
> <richard.wordingham@...>" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > --- 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
> > opinion, simple prediction.formed
> >
> > Unless I'm missing something, I would have said that 'will'
> aProbably works in Western Romance as well - note the limitations on
> > 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.
>
> Does it also neatly explain why Dutch, German and the Scandinavian
> languages do?