Re: [tied] "Simple" Future

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham > >
> > > Does it also neatly explain why Dutch, German and the
> Scandinavian
> > > languages do?
> >
> > Probably works in Western Romance as well - note the limitations

on

> > the fused infinitive + habe:re.
> >
> >
>
> I should explain myself more clearly.
> Ducth, German and the Scandinavian languages can nest modals (since
> the modal verbs have an infinitive), eg
>
> 'zal kunnen ...', 'soll ... können', 'skal kunne ...' "must be able
> to"
>
> in contradiction of your theory.

To me, that says that they do not form 'moods'. The presence of
moods is a formal rather than a semantic issue. In what way are
these modals not full verbs?

> In school, we are taught that the infinitive of
> English 'must', 'will', 'can' is 'to have to', 'to be willing
> to', 'to be able to'

(a) How is having two presents and two simple pasts explained away?
And, of course, 'must not' and 'do not have to' are very different!

(b) Oh dear! 'I am willing to' does *not* mean 'I will'. If I were
willing to help, I might not help unless I was invited to do so!

Richard.