10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Exercise 64. The word “if” does not belong with Form Relativity only. We can change “if” for “whether”, when we talk about circumstances or results rather than provisions or causes.

We have the “if” we can change underlined, in the exercise.

To practice spoken comprehension, we can use abbreviated auxiliaries, reorder phrases, as well as use Inversion, for style and flexibility.

Example 1:
She did not know if she was right.

Answer:
She did not know whether she was right.

Example 2:
If he hadn’t been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Answer:
Hadn’t he been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Alternately:
Had he not been extremely busy,
he would have remembered about the coffee.

*****
TASK

1. If she weren’t reading the calligraphic,
she’d be sleeping.

2. If he was writing, reading, or talking,
the colloquium had him busy all the time.

3. If he hadn’t heard from Bill then,
he’d be writing him a letter now.

4. If it weren’t such a good quality,
she’d think it a mere prank.

5. If it sustains the quality throughout,
it’ll compare with the Bodleian Horace.

6. They will / can see in the library,
if they get the Medici print.

7. If it weren’t so conscientious,
he’d throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. If it proves necessary,
she’ll have it carbon dated.

9. If it is as good as it looks,
it might be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. If it hadn’t been deprived of the front matter,
it would be easier to find out who made it.

Further journey brings the Causative and the Passive, our “have it carbon dated”, in example 8, and “had been deprived”, in example 10.

Exercise 65. We can use the word “if” also in the sense of the word “when”. Grammatically, it is up to our choosing, if we speak the premise or the result first.

The exercise is not grammatically difficult. Let us think how we could say it, as in EXERCISE 33 and EXERCISE 34.

Example:
IF you provision in the condition,
may stipulation precede in position.

Answer:
May stipulation precede in position,
WHEN you provision in the condition.

*****
TASK

1. You’ll make your adage suit,
IF you toot the root in the foot.

(We can look up word stress patterns in dictionaries).

2. IF the comma won’t curse or ban,
a dot might bid the span.

3. IF the verb does not adjust,
the pronoun must never entrust.

4. IF a Modal will emend,
may diction recommend a robust complement.

5. IF meanings collate and debate,
may syntax negotiate.

Exercise 66. It is most often up to ourselves to decide, if we use Form Relativity. Let us practice the choosing. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time.

As in EXERCISE 43 and EXERCISE 58, we practice holding on to our grammatical thinking even against unusual wording.

Our inspiration is a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen,
“THE LITTLE TINY OR THUMBELINA”.
Let us think the exercise over, as in MIND PRACTICE.

Example:
If there 1. (be) other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny 2. (can be) one of many similar beings.

Answer, with Form Relativity:
If there were other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny could be one of many similar beings.

Alternate, without Form Relativity:
If there are other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny is / can be one of many similar beings.

A. “If I 3. (be) only one of many Little Tinies, I 4. (be) actually a Little Tiny”, the Tiny hypothesized.

B. She 5. (be) strictly an inch tall and she 6. (want) a measure for her dreams.

C. “A cubit 7. (be) the length of your forearm right to the tip of your middle finger”, she 8. (reckon).

D. However, a cubit 9. (be) factually about 17.5 inches.

E. “If you 10. (have to think) about an inch to think about a cubit”, she went on hypothesizing, “my cubit N 11. (can be) a cubit, as I 12. (be) just an inch tall.

G. She 13. (visualize) a cube. “If you really 14. (need to consider) measures, you 15. (figure) on a cube of a dream”, she made another theory.

H. Nothing was positively two-dimensional. “Even if you 16. (reason) on your forearm simply, you 17. (will make) it out for three-dimensional”, she 18. (speculate).

I. “If nothing 19. (be) truly two-dimensional, dreams 20. (be) non-two-dimensional, too.”

J. “You 21. (can have) a cube of a dream, if you 22. (want) to tell whether your dreams are big or small?”

K. She 23. (start) to entertain the theory. Once you 24. (agree) to a measure, you 25. (can add up) cubes with dreams like with anything else.

L. Well, but a Thumbelina 26. (can have) a cube of a dream, if cubes 27. (be) cubits big, too? The Tiny 28. (sigh) with uncertainty.

Exercise 67. Let us be back with the grain of sand. The word “if” is not the only word to help make hypotheses. Let us try the words “as” and “when”.

They can work as conjunctions. “As” would agree with the premise. “When” would allow an opposite sense. We can know the study of meaning as semantics.

Example:
“If I N (be) a grain of sand, I (be) more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Answer:
“If I were not a grain of sand, I would be more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Task B gives the NODUS for the exercise. We put the thought in quotes in the grammatical PRESENT. All other phrasing is in the time of the nodus, or relative to the time of the nodus.

The exercise can help us prepare for further journey: the Reported Speech and other linguistic challenges.

A. “If wits N (be) a real thing, you (can evade) the matter of their shape”, the grain of sand (deliberate).

B. The grain of sand did eight hours of thinking about composite things a day.
NODUS

C. As the eight hours N (be) immaterial, the faculty the grain of sand (employ) during the time N (can be) immaterial either, it (conclude).

D. Obviously, the faculty you (use) to ponder on composite things (have to be) the reasoning faculty.

E. Wits, whatever their quality, (have to be) of a shape, the grain of sand (feel).

F. Therefore, it (be) uncanny for a grain of sand and a wind to be of the same mind.

G. “A thought (can be) genuinely the same, when the wits (be) not?”

H. Possibly, asking the wind its opinion N (can decide) on the issue, the grain of sand (analyze).

I. Alternately, the phrase “the same thought” (may become) just a way to speak about potentially very dissimilar things.

J. Still, the phrase “the same thought” truly (exist) and (have) its real shape. “What (happen), if you (translate) it to another language?”

K. The grain of sand (wonder) for five minutes. The phrase sure (may change) in its look.

L. Then, the term “shape” N (will be) as easy to comprehend.

M. “The same thought (will render) the same shape of mind if you (give) it the look of another language?”

N. The grain of sand (immerse) in thought for another five minutes.

Exercise 68. We can join Jim Colderstone in winter Alaska. Alaska has the largest population of bald eagles in the USA. We can mark Modality with the letter M.

We do not have to use a Modal everywhere the letter M is. We can use more than one Modal where the letter M is, or is not, too. The symbol is just to encourage Modality.

We are in the grammatical PRESENT, and we include Expression, but the exercise is open-ended: no one can or may prescribe on a natural language.

When Jim ran into the office (CHAPTER 6), Jill was not there. She left him a note, before going on her Paris vacation.

We cannot demand insight into private correspondence. The exercise only renders the message, in a mystified way. We can try to guess what Jill might have written, after a minor discord.

Example: You M N 1. (have) the ambition to be the colder stone, if you M 2. (be) in winter Alaska yourself.

Answer: You would not have the ambition to be the colder stone if you could be in the winter Alaska yourself.

A. It M 3. (be) enough that you 4. (go) EPIC terrestrial and you M 5. (see) that the temperatures 6. (favor) a Colderstone for the role.

(We can go epic.noaa.gov/epic, if we want to go EPIC terrestrial ourselves.)

B. Although you M N 7. (go) to Alaska to do STEM paperwork only, you M 8. (like) the ridges of new green and the cool breeze in a shiny spring Alaskan morning.

(We can go nsf.gov for STEM programs.)

C. Space and time M 9. (become) a source of perplexity, if you 10. (think) about times outside the present.

D. Well, humans M N 11. (be) logic strictly. And temperature, for the senses to come together well, M N 12. (be) the source for all feeling.

E. If they N 13. (have) a place in a human discourse, words M N 14. (tell) anything exact. The place yet 15. (be) only hypothetical. This 16. (be) the human person to make language possible.

Let us take our story to the grammatical PAST.

Answer:
Naturally, you would not have the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could be in winter Alaska yourself.
AN OPEN MODAL FRAME IN THE PAST

Alternate:

Naturally, you would not have had the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could have been in the winter Alaska yourself.
A MODAL FRAME CLOSED ON THE PAST

The alternate can “anchor” our discourse. The time-anchored alternate would tell about “there, then, that time, that winter: THE Alaska as we got to know it on the occasion, in the circumstance”.

*****

FROM THE KEY: Grammar resources vary so vastly in guidance on Modal verbs and the Conditional or Unreal Past that we may feel we need a comparison on language forms.

When we work out own, independent perspectives, we become able to use our language logic consistently.

It is enough we are consistent. We do not have to follow any particular resource, to be correct.

A.
MODAL MEDIATION in the PRESENT
It may / can be enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you may / can see that the temperatures would favor a Colderstone for the role.

FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It could / might / would be enough that you went EPIC terrestrial and you might / would see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

2ND CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If you went EPIC terrestrial, you would / might see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

NO MODAL MEDIATION or FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It is enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

ZERO CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If / When / As you go EPIC terrestrial, you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

*****

Feel welcome to continue with the language story in Part Three (!)

Part Three can bring
Jill’s library in plain canvas ― the speech part and the determiner manner and matter;
Chantelle’s travel to the Book Cliffs ― verbal nouns and other ways of syntax to the notional time;
Reported speech, the Passive, and many more components of our language landscape.

10.3. WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Envisioning language study as travel in a dimension, we could think about our skill as guarding us against steep slopes. Let us warm up, for some workout.

Exercise 60. We do the exercise in our thoughts, as in the MIND PRACTICE. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time. We regard our linguistic Form Relativity.

Example: If you learned, you knew.
The forms “learned” and “knew” together show there is no linguistic relativity here. Our target grammatical time is the FUTURE.

Answer: If you WILL learn, you WILL know.

1. If you learn, you know.

2. If you WERE ABLE TO learn, you WERE ABLE TO know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know.

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

5. If you learn, you WILL know.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

8. If you learn, you WILL know.

Exercise 61. Let us try “jumping” time extents, as in EXERCISE 55. We provide the arrow cues for the target grammatical time. Our “jumping” symbols are:

“One time extent forward”;

“One time extent backward”.

We can present the flow of time as on a symbolic line.

We can place the question mark, for the Interrogative Expression.

Example: If you learned {?}, you knew.

Answer: DO you learn, if you know?

Example: If you learned, you knew {?}

Answer: If you learn, DO you know?

We can place the letter N for our Negative Expression.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you know.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you DON’T know.

Example: If you learned, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you learn, you DON’T know.

*****
TASK

1. If you learned, you knew {?}

2. If you learn {N}, you know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know {?}

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {N}.

5. If you learn, you WILL know {N}.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know {N}.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

8. If you learn, you WILL know {?}

9. If you learned {N}, you WOULD know.

10. If you HAD learned {N}, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

Exercise 62. We can be back with someone we met in EXERCISE 37. Ms. Seges appeared already in Part One of our grammar course.

We were learning about personal pronouns, then (CHAPTER 1). Now we may think about our time frames, real-time and Modal. We can think about time frames also when the story is fictional.

It is weekend, late morning. Mr. Seges ― he never appeared in our grammar story before ― returns from a literary meeting.

Example: Ms. Seges is home, in her study. Though she had worked most of the night on her new book, she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

Answer: Ms. Seges is home.

Though she had worked most of the night on her new book,

she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

We can view Modal structures as modified real-time phrases
(SUB-CHAPTER 10.1).
Here, the phrase is not about a theory.
In our story, Ms. Seges is in her study, analyzing some old papers.

Let us compare a theory:
There is something very interesting about the old papers.
Otherwise, she would be sleeping.

*****

TASK

1. MR. SEGES: Honey, I’m back. What are you doing?

2. MS. SEGES: I’d be reading horoscopes.
(Ms. Seges never reads horoscopes.)

3. That is…?
(Mr. Seges does not believe she would ever read horoscopes.)

4. This looks like a calligraphic copy of Vespucci’s letters. It was slipping out of our backyard hedge, no covers or front matter.

5. “Hadn’t it sure taken a lot to make such a book, I’d suspect that Babbitt next door.

6. You remember, Bill wrote the book I was looking for was as likely to be obtained as a calligraphic of Vespucci’s originals.

7. And it was the title the Babbitt gave me. It was completely a fairy-tale, Bill even checked with the Freeman’s.”

8. About legends, my favorite Chicago blend is…

9. Honey, I would have remembered about the coffee; but I was so preoccupied…

10. I’m putting that with my records. The coffee is not a fairy-tale. It continues to exist somewhere in Chicago.

*****

From the key: Let us remember about text rich interpretation, as in EXERCISE 55. Babbitt is a character by Sinclair Lewis, an American writer. The Freeman’s is a famous auction house to specialize also in books.

Amerigo Vespucci described his voyages in letters to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de Medici. Calligraphic copies were still quite a habit for most important documents, in Vespucci’s times.

*****

Skimming can encourage effective learning; feel welcome to have a peek into EXERCISE 64, before doing this one.

Exercise 63. Let us focus on Form Relativity with the Progressive. We remember about the earthling proper egoism (please compare SUB-CHAPTER 8.1).

We have the value {IN} next to the verb to go with the Progressive. However, we can stay {ON} our cognitive grounds for qualities, hearts and minds (CHAPTER 7).

Example: {PAST}, he, N 1. (be) extremely busy, 2. (remember) {IN} to bring that brand coffee.

Answer: If he had not been extremely busy, he would have remembered to bring that brand coffee.

Our symbolics:
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME, AND GRAMMATICAL TARGET PAST.

Please think if to use FORM RELATIVITY in example 2. A non-relative form will show a number of activities different from the relative. We can use Modals other than WILL, too.

*****

1. {PRESENT}, she, N read {IN} the calligraphic, she, sleep {IN}.
(She worked on her new book all night.)

2. {PAST}, he, N write {IN}, he, read or talk {IN}.
(The colloquium was very engaging.)

3. {PAST}, he, N hear {IN} from Bill then, {PRESENT}, he, write {IN} him a letter now.

4. {PRESENT}, it, N be {IN} such a good quality, she, think it a mere prank.

5. {FUTURE}, it, N sustain {IN} the quality throughout, it, compare {IN} with the Bodleian Horace and Francis Crease talent.

6. {FUTURE}, they, look in the library, they, get the Medici print.
(Someone most probably made it from the Medici print.)

7. {PRESENT}, it, N be so conscientious, he, throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. {FUTURE}, it, prove necessary, she, have it carbon dated.

9. {PRESENT}, it, be as good as it looks, it, M be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. {PAST} it, N deprive of the front matter, {PRESENT}, it, be {IN} easier to find out who made it.

Feel welcome to some more exercise. We are gradually getting independent of cues. Real-time, we people speak without them.
10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

*****

10.1. THE UNREAL PAST OR CONDITIONAL: REAL TIME

Let us try a few more quotes.

More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today…”
Theodore Roosevelt, American President

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Grammar resources might label the quote from Theodore Roosevelt as the 3rd Conditional, Unreal Past, or even the Past Unreal Conditional, dependent on the grammar approach solely.

Some of those resources would tell we build the 3rd Conditional of the Past Perfect and the Future in the Past.

We would have to recognize the Past Perfect for a potentially Unreal form, then.

Worse still, our “Unreal Past Perfect” would be as good as merely a fancy. Please compare a quote from Gerald Ford.

If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD.

It is not only for our pension plans that we might be unwilling to have the Past Perfect for merely a fancy.

With Perfect tenses overall, our syntactic HAVE helps tell about real time. It has an open, real-time frame. To compare physical space, we might think about paths or routes on real ground.

{TO} is our cognitive variable.
We have the variable to render duration and time spans.

With the Unreal grammatical time or Conditional, HAVE brings hypothetical time. It is not part the real map, then.

It comes with an auxiliary compass for relative time, and closes the frame for the theory. We attach the auxiliary compass to the Modal.

Our cognitive variable is {ON}.

Duration and time span become generalized.
We have called it our Modal Net.

Whether our verb would be to read, to speak, to run, to stop, or to jump, duration becomes non-essential, with a theory closed frame.

The matter is exactly the same with the anchor HAVE in Theodore Roosevelt’s quote. The phrase, “had been alive”, is not concerned with longevity or shortness of life.

The phrase narrates about being alive generally, and we could quote Gerald Ford’s wording, “were alive” for an exact paraphrase.

Naturally, we might note that live people would not be likely staying in their graves, but our thing here is to work grammar for language uses as they are, even if absolutely abstract or humorous.

We may recur to CHAPTER 10. Our example was
“If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it (at some later, but still PAST time)”.

Again, the anchor HAVE pays no heed to the length of time it takes to eat a cookie. It helps mind if the cookie remains, or has been consumed in the course of events.

The syntactic role is narrative, not factual.
We may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.2.
I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(It turned out it was still in place.)

However we know the theory was against fact, we can tell our story with the anchor HAVE.

About stories and their telling, the Conditional or grammatical “unreal time” are often backtrack logic: we look to the consequent, to speculate on the premise.

Let us think if language might transfer features.

We can view the phrase had eaten as a transfer of the syntactic anchor from the consequent.

We may think about a similar transfer for the Passive, where the object becomes the subject and the predicate adapts.

We do not need to view the anchor HAVE as the real-time Past Perfect. For speculation as “had been alive” or “were alive”, the choice is purely stylistic.

Let us try another president quote.

*****

“If I had permitted my failures, or what seemed to me at the time a lack of success, to discourage me, I cannot see any way in which I would ever have made progress.”
Calvin Coolidge, American President

CALVIN COOLIDGE IN 1910, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Grammar resources might label the above as the 2nd Conditional, or view the phrase “I WOULD have made progress” as a Modal modification of a real-time “I HAVE made progress”.

The argument might be, the words definitely refer to a time span, between some time PAST and PRESENT, in which progress has been made.

Let us consider two views to our syntactic structures. We began building our language structures joining the grammatical Person, Time, and Aspect.

Modal verbs have brought form relativity and auxiliary grammatical time. Let us picture these language components.

Let us think where the verb TO HAVE might occur, as an auxiliary or head verb.

For the auxiliary time, we may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.1.
Modality is not indispensable:
We can have auxiliary time without it, too.
I am happy to have exercised;
I was happy to have exercised;
I will be happy to have exercised.

Let us change the verb “to exercise” into the verb phrase “to make progress”.
I am happy to have made progress;
I was happy to have made progress;
I will be happy to have made progress.

Let us modify our infinitive with the Modal form MAY.
I am happy I may have made progress;
I was happy I might have made progress.
I will be happy I may have made progress.

We can view phrases as modified, as well. Our view is likely to depend on the context and word sense, namely, if a phrase looks a theory, or not.

The progress in Calvin Coolidge quote is not a theory.
I cannot see any way in which I would HAVE made progress.

Our symbolics is to help comprehend.
For Calvin Coolidge quote, we can use
MODAL MEDIATION, REAL-TIME OPEN FRAME.

For a theory, we may compare,
But the obstacles, she WOULD HAVE made progress.
But she has not made any progress.
The symbolics to help see the difference can be
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME.

*****

Let us think how the Modal frame closes. With our modified infinitive above, Modality is attached as a subordinate clause. It does not make the main grammatical time.

Let us compare Modality for our main or head, real time.

If someone asked,
“What HAS she BEEN doing?”
An answer as,
“She MAY HAVE BEEN working”,
would close the hypothetical time on the grammatical and real-time PRESENT, just as the question.

Saying, “She MAY HAVE finished by tomorrow”, or “She WILL HAVE finished by tomorrow”, we would close our hypothetical time on tomorrow.

We can use our auxiliary time extent with all grammatical time, but we need to mind the form of the Modal verb alone, for the main time.

PRESENT Modal forms tend towards the grammatical PRESENT or FUTURE.

If we say we CAN or MAY work, the hypothesis goes into the FUTURE a little. Our Modal frame remains open.

Modal shapes we class as PAST tend towards the PAST or PRESENT. It is only with the open frame that we can use PAST Modal forms for the grammatical FUTURE.

We might say,
“We COULD do this tomorrow,”
but without auxiliary HAVE.

For our main time, we would not produce forms as
*She COULD HAVE / MIGHT HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The only exception would be the Modal WILL itself, but it is our regular mapping word for the FUTURE.
She WOULD HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The form “CAN” is quite special. We use it to tell what we are really able to do; we have the skill, or even mastery and finesse. Many grammar resources discourage closing the frame on it in the Affirmative, whatever the grammatical time.

If we are tentative about a future result, we can say
“Maybe it WILL HAVE ended by tomorrow”.
We may view the structure as the real-time Future Perfect, with an open real-time frame.

*****

Language is not a record or chronicle. It does not require absolute certainty about things coming true, or confirmation in events, for the thought to be real and for the structure to be grammatical.

*****

Do we need to resolve between labels as “Unreal Past” or “Conditional”? Let us mark individual verbs for grammatical form, in these words by Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

“No group and no Government CAN (FORM: PRESENT) properly prescribe precisely what SHOULD (FORM: PAST) constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is (FORM: PRESENT) concerned.”

It is obvious there must be a relative interpretation for grammatical from, and the extent for this relativity embraces the verb phrase.

A verb phrase can be one verb, or a verb structure, as with auxiliary HAVE.

Classing entire stretches of language as Conditional or Unreal Past, we might feel lost for the main time. We can stay by terms as “a relative verb form”, or “verb form relativity”.

Verb forms would be relative to the main grammatical time, the reference we make for the real time.

*****

Well, we may have worked out some logic. If we were lazy, we would have been doing something else for the past hour.

For a competent insight into our syntax, let us consider the Progressive. Feel welcome.
10.2. FORM RELATIVITY: THE PROGRESSIVE

*****

CHAPTER 10. FORM RELATIVITY GALORE

With Modal verbs and patterns as the Conditional or Unreal Past, we may feel about language form more as a reflection.

Let us see if we could apply our MODAL TIME FRAME to guidance on the Unreal Past or the Conditional.

*****

There has been much dispute over the Conditional. Some grammarians reject it altogether.

Let us remember that labeling does not change the objective language reality. It cannot decide on how linguistic forms may work within human discourse.

*****

Let us use Conditional patterns, to compare language forms. We mind our target grammatical time, the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE.

We can practice with the verb TO HAVE. It can mean keeping, tolerating, or eating something.

As a syntactic verb, HAVE may provide the auxiliary time for Modal verbs. Let us look to the syntax and negotiation of meaning: how do we eat a cookie and have it?

Our cookie is perfectly digestible. To choose on the word sense, we can underline the “HAVE” to mean keeping, tolerating, or eating.

We look to the premise (if you eat the cookie) and the consequent (you do not have it).

In PRACTICE 9.4. we viewed time as on a symbolic line.

ZERO CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

83. If you eat the cookie, you DO NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you DO {PRESENT} NOT have

*****

1ST CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE FUTURE

84. If you eat the cookie, you WILL NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you WILL {PRESENT} NOT have

We began our journey viewing the verb form “WILL” in the Fields of Time.

We noted there is not really a FUTURE shape for the verb form WILL.
We do not say *will will.

The verb form WILL maps on the FUTURE already in the PRESENT grammatical shape.

We can compare Modal uses of WILL
85. She WILL be reading now.
(I am sure she is reading now.)

*****

2ND CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

86. If you ate the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PAST

If you ate {PAST}, you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

3RD CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST

87. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have had it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD NOT have {ANTECEDENT PAST} had

*****

4TH (MIXED) CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST and PRESENT

88. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST and PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

We have marked our HAVES: If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it then.

The syntactic HAVE is green. The head verb, the notional HAVE is mauve and underlined. It may mean keeping, tolerating, or. . . eating something.

We may compare examples about Chantelle Règle having her extra Larousse, in SUB-CHAPTER 8.1.

Syntax can make us prone to interpret the notional HAVE as keeping something, in examples as 91a―d, though we can eat meals as well as have them.

Do we have to adopt the Conditional, to use Conditional patterns? Let us compare ideas.

Some grammars will say we use the First Conditional when the probability of something is high, and we use the Second for things more probable than those in the Third.

Grammars that reject the Conditional may support structures they name the Unreal Past. Let us consider the probability for saying,

89. If I WERE you, I WOULD . . .
(Please find the comment on the use of WERE also in exercise 62.)

*****

Skimming can be part an effective learning strategy. We can go backward and forward in our study guides, to get a picture of the language itself. The more study guides, the better.

*****

The PROBABILITY to become another human individual literally and ever really is ZERO, for everyone.

90. *I AM you . . . / *You ARE me . . . ?
(There is zero probability, even if someone pretends another person.)

Example 92 could be the Second Conditional or Unreal Past. Regardless of the label, it conveys zero probability, for the PRESENT, PAST, as well as FUTURE.

What would be if he were …

… if he were her … and if she were him …?

Bob says an unreal past could not exist without an unreal present or future, and he really wants to go to the Himalayas.

Alice says there never could be literally such a time as unreal time; just as well, you could try to have a cat for an unreal dog.

She pretends she is seeing bubbles, when it comes to unreal reality, and practices that too, sometimes.

Feel welcome to the GRAMMAR GRAPEVINE.

Chantelle says the world’s worst advice she ever got always came with someone saying, “If I were you…”

She skips the phrase owing to her language economy, also when she listens. She feels different about saying or hearing, “If I were in your shoes…”

“I’d have fresh veg every morning.”

Bob is not thinking about the high Himalaya: he is too small. It is not only in highest mountainous areas we may want to manage, however.

91. If you HAD NOT taken care of it, this handle WOULD HAVE broken off.

Within the probability approach, example 91 is the 3rd Conditional, which tells about the least probable events. The example yet might be telling about a prevented thing.

Let us think about probability a little further.

92. If you take care of this handle now, it still MIGHT work.
(The probability is low.)

We can transform the example and say,

92a. If you take care of this handle now, it WILL work.
(The probability is very high.)

Both 92 and 92a could receive the same label — of the First Conditional — and they differ in PROBABILITY very much.

In 92, taking care of the handle is probable to result in its working.

In 92a, the probability amounts to CERTAINTY. Taking care of the handle is sure to bring a working condition.

PROBABILITY is not going to explain on the use of forms. Let us try LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY.

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American President

Let us sum up. For theory or guesswork, we can use

PRESENT verb forms to speak about the FUTURE,
PAST forms to speak about the PRESENT,
and
ANTECEDENT PAST forms to speak about the PAST.

Feel welcome to
10.1. THE CONDITIONAL OR UNREAL PAST: REAL TIME.

*****

9.4. MODAL RELATIVITY PRACTICE

Exercise 53. We can warm up with arrow cues. Especially for Modal verbs, the cues indicate the target grammatical time, not the verb form. Here, both PRESENT and PAST forms can render a PRESENT grammatical target. For all of this exercise, our Modal time frame remains open.

Example: may

Answer: may be learning, or

might be learning

Exercise 54. We can try other verbs with the task from exercise 53. Let us remember about the stative use of verbs. We can use the variable {ON} for it, regardless of a Progressive cue.

Example: read, may

Answer: may be reading, or
might be reading

1. write; 2. have (a good memory); 3. work; 4. know; 5. love; 6. think; 7. recall; 8. consider; 9. joke; 10. play.

Exercise 55. Let us try “jumping” time extents. We can view the flow of time as on a symbolic line.

Our cues mean,

“One time extent forward”,

“One time extent backward”.

Example: In Washington D.C., you WILL BE ABLE TO visit the Library of Congress.

We give the target time cue and relative frame, for the underlined forms.
Answer: In Washington D.C., you can / may visit the Library of Congress.

1. After a day of a hop-on and hop-off the Washington trolley, you MAY feel you should have bought a two-day ticket.

2. In Washington, we were renting right on the Potomac. The area was lovely. You just HAD TO take a walk along the river.

3. You MUST book your seats in the Lisner Auditorium. The American Air Force jazz ensemble may perform live.

4. You NEED TO give up on wading in the waterfalls of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Park. It is not allowed.

5. You MAY enter the National Gallery of Art on first-come basis.

*****

From the key: natural language happens to involve text rich interpretation. The “Washington trolley” will be the Washington trolley tour, for example.

Kids or adults, students or teachers, everybody uses rich interpretation of text. It would be cumbersome to provide all details every time we speak, whatever the language.

We can learn to check on facts and trivia. Here is a sample search over Google. We just type Washington trolley in the search field.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=Washington+trolley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=Af2dV4bSOqLFgAa-vZrABQ

Example 1 has the Modal phrase “MAY feel” for a nodal reference. The phrase “SHOULD have bought” is a subordinate. We may have a peek at SUB-CHAPTER 10.1.

HAVE TO can be a real-time closed frame and the infinitive. A phrase as, “We had to have worked hard”, would tell about facts, not theory.

Many grammars will tell we can use BE ABLE TO rather than MAY, to refer to the FUTURE. However, if we resolve on example 3 as, “the ensemble will be able to perform”, we imply the ensemble might have difficulty playing, and the matter is about probability, not ability.

We can think about MAY with an open relative frame, to suggest prospect: “(Tomorrow) the American Air Force jazz ensemble MAY perform live”.

In example 5, we talk about permission. We may choose to say, “We will be able to / We will be allowed to…”

Exercise 56. We try “targeting” time extents. Our target time extent is the one in which we “land”.

We can refer for examples to American literature. These here invoke the ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN by Mark Twain. Let us be flexible, especially with examples 3 and 5.

Example: I thought I WOULD behave a while, if I COULD.

Answer: I think I WILL behave a while, if I CAN.

I think I WOULD behave a while, if I COULD.
(We mind the grammatical Relativity.)

1. But how CAN we do it, if we don’t know what it is?

2. The widow rung a bell for supper, and you HAD TO come to time.

3. And more ― they‘VE GOT TO (HAVE TO) waltz that palace around over the country wherever you want it, you understand.

4. It fetched us a dollar a day apiece, all the year round ― more than a body COULD tell what to do with.

5. Well, three or four months run along, and it was well into the winter, now. I had been to school most all the time, and COULD spell, and read, and write just a little, and COULD say the multiplication table up to six times seven is thirty-five, and I don’t reckon I COULD ever get any further than that if I was to live forever.

*****

From the key: The phrases “you understand” (example 3), or “I don’t reckon” (example 5), tell the time of the narrator, the character that tells the story.

Human lives are not just stories, but the narrator time can help comprehend the notional time, the time of the person who speaks.

There is no universal notional time. We have to learn to keep own notional times. We can have our notional time for our psychological time, too.

The phrase “if I was to live forever” is an example of figurative thinking. CHAPTER 10 has more. Part Three expands on parts of speech, as in “three or four months run along”.

*****

Exercise 57. Let us try to choose our Modals. We can stay on associations with Huckleberry for the while.

Example: He MAY / WILL be in the woods now.
(I know that he is in the woods.)

Answer: He WILL be in the woods now.

1. Let us not worry about it. There WILL / CAN be no advantage to it.
(It is certain that there is going to be no advantage.)

2. They HAD TO go / MAY HAVE gone out to the woods.
(The woods are not the only way.)

3. You SHOULD learn / SHOULD HAVE learned the way through the woods.
(Now is the time to learn.)

4. You MAY / WILL get lost in these woods.
(It is certain.)

5. They HAD TO get / MAY HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(We are looking for them. The only way is through the woods.)

6. You SHOULDN’T/ CAN’T get lost in these woods.
(It is impossible. You know the way very well.)

7. He DIDN’T HAVE TO get / COULDN’T HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(He knew the way.)

8. They MUST HAVE / MAY HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(They took the way through the woods.)

9. You MAY / HAVE TO avoid the way through the woods.
(It is not safe.)

10. You WOULD HAVE / SHOULD HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(That was certain.)

*****

From the key: In example 4, the Modal verb WILL tells about CERTAINTY for the PRESENT and the FUTURE. The FUTURE is usually an open context, the way life on Earth has been.

We use WILL when we are sure or resolved about something. We may compare example 3 in Exercise 55, and try to avoid the cumbersome, soothsayer style that would result from using WILL for all FUTURE forms.

*****

Exercise 58. Our story is now about general POTENTIALITY and PROBABILITY, in the grammatical PAST. We do not need the auxiliary time here. Our hypothetical frame remains open.

We can be back with the dayfly from EXERCISE 43. As in exercise 42, we keep our grammatical thinking even when words are unusual.

Example: The dayfly (can think) about physical matter, without butterflies.

Answer: The dayfly was able to think about physical matter, without butterflies.

1. The dayfly (consider) it somewhat rude of the butterfly to make reservations on the wings. They (may differ), but there (be) no reason for the remark. Anyway, now the butterfly (have to be) far away, with its wings.

2. The dayfly (start) to think about infinity. If there (be) infinity, the word “infinite” (can) only denote it. You (need) five letters to write the word. The letters and the word (be) undeniably finite.
(NEED can be a head verb. Compare APPENDIX 1.)

3. There (have to be) some matter to the alphabet, the dayfly thought. Five letters (can make) an eight-letter word (!) You just (need to compose) them.

4. The number of possible words you (can make) with the alphabet (have to be) innumerable. That (be) the closest approximation to infinity the dayfly (may envision).

5. Letters also (can express) numbers. The dayfly (think) about other alphabets.

6. If there (will be) anything universal about all letters in the world, that (can be) the essence of writing. Nothing as universal readily (occur) to the dayfly, however.

7. Letters (may take) various shapes. Only language (may give) writing its matter.

8. The dayfly (start musing) if there (may be) universal thoughts.

*****

From the key: in example 1, the phrase “might differ” tells about holding to an opinion. We can give it an open frame. It is up to our choosing if and what opinions we hold. Further journey has more detail on Modal frames and nodal time.

We can be back with the westerly from EXERCISE 44.

*****

Exercise 59. The westerly is in the mountains. So far, our Modal time frames were ready for us: we only adapted the verb. Now, we have to decide if we open the frame or close it.

Generally, we are in the grammatical PAST. On top of everything, we think about Expression: we learn to manage big, real-life language information pools.

Example: The westerly (can gambol) on the shore a little longer, but it (gather) to go see the future: the mountains.

Answer: The westerly COULD HAVE gamboled on the shore a little longer, but it gathered to go see the future: the mountains.

1. What (will happen) about the present time ? The westerly (can perceive) something indivisible and intermediate about time. Time (be) in a way continuous. It (have to consist) of parts, however.

2. The present (have to border) on the past and the future. The present (be) somehow intermediary between the past and the future. However, how long (will) the present (be)? Sometimes, you (can view) the present as lasting as long as a day. Sometimes, it (will last) a split second.

3. Well, you (can) N (exist) only in the future or only in the past. With this regard, there always (will be) a present moment that (will be) the only present. There (will be) N anything of the past or the future, in the present?

4. The wester (get) to the mountains. They (be) its present now. The wester (can) N (think) about a more beautiful present. It (need) N the ocean to see something beautiful anymore.

5. How these beautiful mountains (can emerge)? The wester (speculate) if winds (may shape) part their structure.

*****

From the key: With example 4, if we say the wester “COULDN’T think about a more beautiful present”, we place the situation in the mountains.

Alternately, if we say the wind “COULDN’T HAVE thought about a more beautiful present”, we close the frame on the time before the wind came to the mountains, when it was on the shore, in exercise 44.

*****

Grammar books will have much advice on Modal verbs with patterns named the Unreal Past or Conditional. For a comparison, let us try a grammar theory of relativity.

Our use of the word “relativity” is not about physics or families. It is linguistic. Feel welcome to CHAPTER 10.

*****

9.3. DETAIL ON MODAL STRUCTURES

Modal Expression, especially the Interrogative or Negative, can give us some trouble, unless we approach the matter as science in a field: we analyze the molecules, see how they are doing, and make a model.

We can recur to CHAPTER 5, as well as compare APPENDIX 4.

54. We CANNOT skip the exercises.

55. We MAY NOT skip the exercises.

56. We WILL NOT skip the exercises.

57. We SHOULD NOT skip the exercises.

58. We OUGHT NOT TO skip the exercises.

59. We SHALL NOT skip the exercises.

60. We MUST NOT skip the exercises.

The form SHALL NOT may imply a conclusion, a decision ― more often in British English than in American, however. American English has the Modal WILL for resolves.

The Modal CAN attracts the particle NOT directly. They become one word, CANNOT. We may come upon the form CAN NOT in historic texts, as the GETTYSBURG ADDRESS.

President Abraham Lincoln gave the speech at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in 1863.

The form “can not” is rarely used today. Feel welcome to read the ADDRESS as well as to do the VOLUNTARY EXTRA PRACTICE.

In the Affirmative, MUST NOT can mean that something is forbidden or strongly discommended. NEED can take on the regular negative. The auxiliary is the verb to do.

61. We DO NOT NEED to memorize dictionaries.

We can use the short form DON’T, when our contexts are not formal.
61a. We DON’T NEED to memorize dictionaries.

NEED can take a Modal negation, too. The Modal form may be more emphatic.

61b. We NEEDN’T memorize dictionaries.
(There is definitely no need to memorize dictionaries.)

HAVE TO takes the regular negative.

62. We DO NOT HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.
62a. We DON’T HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.

Our paths can diverge for NEED in the auxiliary PAST.

63. You DIDN’T NEED to do this.
(Something didn’t need to be done and it was not done.)

63a. You NEEDN’T HAVE done this.
(You did, but you COULD HAVE left it alone ― the thinking is about a hypothesis.)

Let us tackle the Interrogative. This is the Modal to move here.
CHAPTER 5 shows Inversion, along with the Negative Interrogative.

64. We CAN work a lot.
CAN we work a lot?

65. We MAY work a lot.
MAY we work a lot?

66. We WILL work a lot.
WILL we work a lot?

67. We SHOULD work a lot.
SHOULD we work a lot?

68. We OUGHT TO work a lot.
OUGHT we TO work a lot?

69. We SHALL work a lot.
SHALL we work a lot?

70. We MUST work a lot.
MUST we work a lot?

In Negative questions, the linguistic chemistry may depend on the form we use, short or full.

71. CAN we NOT work a lot?
71a. CAN’T we work a lot?

72. MAY we NOT work a lot?
72a. MAYN’T we work a lot?

73. WILL we NOT work a lot?
73a. WON’T we work a lot?

74. SHOULD we NOT work a lot?
74a. SHOULDN’T we work a lot?

75. OUGHT we NOT TO work a lot?
75a. OUGHTN’T we TO work a lot?

76. SHALL we NOT work a lot?
76a. SHAN’T we work a lot?

In questions, MUST NOT may ask about the proper course of things.

77. MUST we NOT work a lot?
77a. MUSTN’T we work a lot?

HAVE TO takes the regular Negative Interrogative.

78. DO we NOT HAVE TO work a lot?
78a. DON’T we HAVE TO work a lot?

Let us catch on to the Modal NEED in the grammatical PAST. It behaves more and more like a regular verb, in contemporary American.

79. DID you NOT NEED to work a lot?
79a. DIDN’T you NEED to work a lot?

Please compare,
80. NEEDN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

Expression 80 would be so rare that an American might consider it incorrect. Why is this? Asking questions involves making hypotheses.

Unless we ask a question for no reason or purpose and expect no answer at all, we make our questions thinking about some PROBABILITY at least.

Beside inversion, we can use the question mark or intonation alone, to make a question.

Let us regard language economy. In a language information pool, we may not need to provide information more than once.

80a. DIDN’T you NEED / HAVE TO work a lot?

An American could consider an alternate incorrect,
80b. *MUSTN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

NEED and MUST express a high degree of CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY. Hypotheses with them might vary from those with other Modals: so many things SHOULD BE DONE, and they never are (!)

With high CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY, we can net the hypothetical time: we have a strong hypothesis in the Modal alone. Here is our model (click to enlarge).

MODAL ECONOMY; CLICK TO ENLARGE

Please compare the absolutely correct in American,
81. SHOULDN’T you HAVE read this all?

There is a structure close to the Modal verbs MUST, NEED, OUGHT TO or SHOULD. It is TO BE (SUPPOSED) TO.

82. You WEREN’T (SUPPOSED) TO get the gizmos.

We can recur to the structure later in the grammar journey. Let us now exercise our brains in
9.4. MODAL RELATIVITY PRACTICE

*****

9.2. THE MODAL TIME FRAME

Neither the Modal verb form alone, as COULD or MIGHT, nor Modal syntax alone, as COULD HAVE or MIGHT HAVE, is capable of telling the target grammatical time.

However, in all natural languages, we always speak or write in context. This means that our linguistic activity always has a cognitive ground.

We may recur to SUB-CHAPTER 6.2. Our example was Madame Règle, coming to lunch between 1.00 and 2.00 p.m., or not showing up at all.
At 1:30, Latimer Sauf might say,

7. I haven’t seen her today.

At 2:30, Monsieur Sauf might say,
7a. I didn’t see her today.

It was his knowledge of the context to give him the cognitive ground.

So far, our verbs have been regular or irregular, but the patterns they made showed the grammatical PRESENT from PAST or FUTURE directly.

We have had green extents to symbolize their target grammatical time.
Very often, the target grammatical time in what we say is the same as real time.
We may recur to SUB-CHAPTER 5.1.

Modal patterns are not so clear. We might say,
46. We have the time, we COULD go for a walk today;
46a. We are going to have the time, we COULD go for a walk tomorrow;
or
46b. We had the time yesterday and we COULD go for a walk.

The pattern alone, “We could go for a walk”, does not tell the target grammatical time and makes no difference for the real-time today, tomorrow, or yesterday.

We can grant Modal forms an extent of a different color. Let it be tea rose.

Let us try a different color also for our time frames. To see how the frames could work with Modal verbs, let us think up a possible context.

Let us say, Jill lives on the West Coast. Her place has a large lounge with a view to the ocean. When you come to visit, you can sit down and look to the Pacific.

Madame Règle has visited Jill a few times so far. We may think about her most recent visit.

47. “You could sit down in the lounge, Chantelle. I‘ll make us some tea”, says Jill, greeting Madame Règle.

(Chantelle is Madame Règle’s first name. We may know she is not a systematic person, also from SUB-CHAPTER 6.2)

*****

The USA is not a monolingual country. Millions of people speak Spanish, Chinese, French, German, and other languages, in America. French is widely spoken in Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, for example. Could Chantelle Règle be an American?
(Names do not prescribe on personalities or citizenships.)

*****

Our Modal time frame is open, though we are not using the auxiliary HAVE, in the phrase “you COULD sit down”.

For our real time, only Perfect tenses have an open frame, and they always use the auxiliary HAVE. We can compare our example above,
7. I haven’t seen her today.

Why have an open frame for the Modal form “COULD”?

We have an open frame for Perfect tenses, as they always make more than one reference to time.

If we have written, the activity started some time before our speaking about it. If we will have written, we expect the activity will be taking place some time before a FUTURE moment.

Modal verbs also make more than one reference to time. Let us focus on the Modal verb CAN.

I CAN see.
(The ability does not belong with the PRESENT, only.)

I CAN see an opportunity for this to be actually working.
(The specific instance does belong with the PRESENT, but the ability to see opportunity does not.)

The Modal form COULD is capable of all grammatical time, as we have noted above:
We COULD go for a walk today, or tomorrow;
If we were able to find some time yesterday,
We COULD and DID go for a walk.

Let us view the real-time and Modal frames together. The main time is the PRESENT. Our green frame is closed on the PRESENT.

We can think about the open Modal frame for things generally offered, allowed, or possible, also in the PAST.

48. When you visited Jill, you always could sit down in the lounge and look to the ocean.

The Modal form is the same for the PRESENT and the PAST.

Let us focus on the auxiliary HAVE and the frame, open or closed.
We can think about a phrasing as,
“You might have learned”.

We might view the above as correspondent with the Present Perfect,
Maybe you have learned;
our open time frame.

Our theory would look the same about a phrase as
Maybe you learned,
a Past Simple form,
our closed time frame.

There is no difference in the Modal form,
“You might have learned”,
whether we view it as corresponding with the phrase,
“maybe you have learned”
(PRESENT Perfect),
or the phrase
“maybe you learned”
(PAST Simple).

Modal forms do not tell what actually happened, has happened, happens, or is going to happen. They give theory, guesswork, or hypotheses. Their time is not the real-time. It is the theory time.

To compare the Perfect Aspects, the auxiliary HAVE can help map and talk like about real paths and environments.

For theory, we do not have to come up with “theoretical paths”. We can think about the hypothesis open or closed time frame. The syntactic HAVE can work as a time anchor, then.

49. I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(I was not there. It turned out it was still in place.)

The time frame for the hypothesis is closed.

Our syntactic HAVE will look still more of a device, when we think about knowledge of what happens.

50. You COULD HAVE been more careful with the handle.

We could be looking at a broken handle and hear,

50a. I was. Someone else MUST HAVE broken it off.

To recur to our examples with a walk: if we close a Modal frame, we may suggest that something did not happen.

51. We had the time yesterday, and we COULD go for a walk; it was lovely.

51a. We COULD HAVE gone for a walk yesterday, we had enough time, but Jim came in, and we stayed to study.

However, we cannot have Modal syntax for merely equivalent with the Negative, and there is no universal rule for Modal frames.
We also could say,

51b. We had plenty of time yesterday, and we COULD go to the movies, we COULD go for a walk, or we COULD go see Jill.

But Jim came in and brought those books we didn’t have, and we stayed in to study. Jill joined in.

*****

Modal verbs do not tell what really happens, has happened, happened, or is going to happen. Their forms may not differ for real-time today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

We can say their time is relative to real time, and economize on our real-time cognitive variables.

52. Maybe we HAVE learned something good. {TO}

52a. Maybe we learned something good. {ON}

A Modal phrase as
52b. We MIGHT HAVE learned something good,
does not tell between the real-time variables {TO} and {ON}.

Modal phrases yet will tell our value {IN}.

53. Maybe we were learning something good. {IN}
53a. Maybe we HAVE been learning something good. {AT}

We can make a hypothesis:
53b. We MIGHT HAVE been learning something good.

The Modal phrase retains the variable {IN}.

For relative time, we may just balance the variables {ON} and {IN}, and mind if our relative time frame is open or closed: hypothetical time anyway cannot the same as real duration.

We can call this our Modal net. We net (nullify as non-essential) the Perfect, our variable {TO}, for Modal forms. Our Modal phrases will become much simpler to make, and we remain correct according to classic grammars (!)

This is why we had all the practice with the word “handle”, in SUB-CHAPTER 9.1. We cannot be “fixed” on word forms. We need to learn to net them, sometimes.

Part Four has the nodi of time. Jemma says it is vital to have good gimmicks to make those, and the Modal net with relative frames is such a good gizmo.

Please note that our devices are linguistic tools. We do not follow the term of the “language acquisition device”, for human brains. We stay with human language faculties.

We keep our auxiliary HAVE always green, whether it brings an open or closed time frame. We retain only the basic distinction between auxiliary and head verbs. Grammar anyway requires thinking, and it would not be a good idea to get dependent on crayons.

Let us get to a few details on Modal structures, before we exercise.
9.3. DETAIL ON MODAL STRUCTURES

*****

9.1. MODAL SYNTAX, GRAMMATICAL PRESENT OR PAST

Let us think about the two clocks pictured above. They show different hours. Let us say we ask what has happened, trying to explain why the clocks show different times.

Forms as below might address the question,
“What has happened?”
The question is in the grammatical PRESENT, and the target grammatical time of the responses also is the PRESENT.

Let us say both clocks should have a small handle at the back.

38. The handle MAY HAVE broken off.

38a. It MIGHT HAVE broken off.

39a. It COULD HAVE broken off.

*****

We may wonder if a form as “the handle can have broken off” would be possible as well. CHAPTER 9 shows the Modal verb CAN for objective and general contexts.

23. Bald eagles CAN fly above clouds.

A form as CAN HAVE and in a context as particular as here might be awkward, in American. The form MAY HAVE would be natural.

23b. It MAY HAVE been a bald eagle.

*****

Which of the above forms might address a question in the grammatical PAST, as “What happened?”

38. The handle COULD HAVE broken off.

39a. The handle MIGHT HAVE broken off.

This means that forms as 38a and 39a can address both the grammatical PRESENT and the grammatical PAST.

Let us compare some more Modal syntax, PRESENT or PAST.

CERTAINTY

40. The handle MUST HAVE broken off.

CONTINGENCY

41. You SHOULD HAVE checked on the handle.
42. The handle OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN checked.

43. You NEEDN’T HAVE manipulated the handle.

Well, the verb TO HAVE can be quite a handle itself. Not only in American English, the verb TO HAVE may occur with Modal patterns, the Passive, and the infinitive.

To work out the verb TO HAVE, we may begin visualizing the infinitive and the head time. Our head time is mauve. The infinitive is underlined.

44. I remember to exercise.

If we recall our exercise as something prior, ANTECEDENT, we might say:

44a. I remember to have exercised.

With the verb TO HAVE, our main grammatical time could be the PAST, PRESENT, as well as FUTURE. Let us think about the effect of our exercise on ourselves. The exercise makes us happy.

MAIN GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT
I am happy to have exercised;

MAIN GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE FUTURE
I will be happy to have exercised;

MAIN GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST
I was happy to have exercised.

Would the auxiliary HAVE generally make an antecedent reference in time?

If we say we have learned something, we say we began learning some time before speaking about it, that is, the PRESENT.

If we will have learned, or we had learned something, respectively, we begin learning some time before a FUTURE or PAST time.

*****

Whether a thing is fact or theory, the verb TO HAVE brings an antecedent reference to grammatical time, and it does not mean the time is PAST.

*****

Let us recur to our main grammatical time and syntax.

45. Where is the handle? It MAY HAVE broken off.
(Finding the handle is much of an open question.)
Would oranges have handles?

45a. I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(Finding the handle was not much of an open question, in the case.)

Let us focus on the Modal form alone.

45b. The handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.

Finding the handle
IS NOT
or
WAS NOT
much of an open question.

The Modal form alone does not give enough guidance. We need the main grammatical time or the context, to tell the target grammatical time.

We can venture our time frames. Feel welcome.
9.2. THE MODAL TIME FRAME

*****

CHAPTER 9. TO TELL THE FASHION IN VALUABLE TIME

With Modal verbs, our view on time may become as with two hour glasses. Modal verbs do not narrate the real time. Their manner is relative to real time.

We also could say that Modal verbs mediate between the grammatical Time and Aspect. The name “modal” comes from the Latin word “modus”, meaning an extent or measure.

In CHAPTER 2, we viewed the verb form “will” in our Fields of Time. The form did not belong clearly with the grammatical PRESENT, PAST or FUTURE. The same is true about all Modal verbs.

The PRESENT form of the verb WILL can map on the FUTURE.

The PAST form can tell about the PRESENT, as well.

“We will be hiking” (FUTURE);
“We would like to have some tea now” (PRESENT).

Some grammars will have Modals for defective verbs. They do not have all the three forms. Let us compare other verbs.

REGULAR VERB: TO TRAVEL
INFINITIVE to travel
1ST FORM travel 2ND FORM traveled 3RD FORM traveled
DYNAMIC PARTICIPLE traveling STATIVE PARTICIPLE traveled

IRREGULAR VERB: TO WRITE
INFINITIVE to write
1ST FORM write 2ND FORM wrote 3RD FORM written
DYNAMIC PARTICIPLE writing STATIVE PARTICIPLE written

MODAL VERB FORMS:

MAY
1ST FORM may 2ND FORM might

CAN
1ST FORM can 2ND FORM could

SHALL
1ST FORM shall 2ND FORM should

NEED
1ST FORM need 2ND FORM (needed) 3RD FORM (needed)

MUST
1ST FORM must 2ND FORM (must)

WILL
1ST FORM will 2ND FORM would

*****

Modal verbs can be truly unlike other verbs.

They do not have infinitive forms.
We do not say * “to may”.

They do not have participle forms.
We do not say * “mayed” or * “maying”.

They do not use will for their grammatical FUTURE.
We do not say * “will may”.

Their forms can have more than one grammatical time reference.
We could say,
“You might think about reading this all”.
MIGHT is the PAST form of the verb MAY, yet it refers to the grammatical PRESENT here.

We also could say,
“As children, they loved the old library,
where they might read as well as play.”

MIGHT is the PAST form of the verb MAY,

and it refers to the grammatical PAST.

We may envisage Modals in logical categories.

POTENTIALITY PROBABILITY CONTINGENCY CERTAINTY

POTENTIALITY:
Our potential is what we are actually able to do, or something we have real prospects to become able to do. Something potential is something that actually might come into existence.

PROBABILITY:
It belongs mostly with guesswork. Humans happen to consider probability in theory making. Possibility is a close synonym. We can have it for equivalent with probability, in grammar.

Let us think about Madame Règle. She has the potential to have lunch at Latimer Sauf’s restaurant every day. He always has a table for his friends, and she has enough money.

However, her work with Paris haute couture designers happens to keep her over the lunchtime. Her coming to lunch is probable, but not certain.

CERTAINTY:
It requires both potentiality and probability. Let us think about Monsieur Sauf’s birthday. Madame Règle WILL come to meet him. It is certain.

CONTINGENCY:
Some books will have something contingent for something likely, and some will say it is something unlikely to happen. We tend to tell likelihood by how often something takes place.

Madame Règle has a resolve here. Words have etymologies. The adjective “contingent” comes from the Latin words “tangere, tangens”. The words meant “to touch”, “touching”.

Madame Règle has contingency for something touching on, dependent on something else. Let us mind that cause and effect may not depend on simple factors.

*****

Contingency needs a potential for something to happen. What is certain has to be probable.

When we speak about own POTENTIAL, we mostly say what we are able to do. To tell own resolves, we most often use the verbs CAN or MAY.

We are able to do things only in probable circumstances, even if our abilities are outstanding. CAN and MAY are our most prominent words for PROBABILITY, too.

MAY is going to sound a bit more formal. CAN is going to be more colloquial. CAN happens to express probability greater than MAY.

CONTINGENCY may require that we adapt own resolves to circumstances. Our Modal verbs to express the extent of that requirement are NEED, SHOULD, OUGHT TO, and HAVE TO.

We always use OUGHT TO with the infinitive: “we ought to learn”, “we ought to work”.

American English differs from British much, on the verb SHALL. In American, the verb serves to prefigure resolves for potential circumstances:

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Feel welcome to
GRAMMAR NOTES ON THE US CONSTITUTION.

We are not likely to use the Modal verb WILL for CONTINGENCY, if we love independence (!)

We people yet can be CERTAIN about own perception and volition. The Modal verbs WILL and MUST can express a strong prediction or resolve.

*****

Let us now think about Modal verbs and the grammatical time. So far, all our contexts allowed second forms, as COULD or MIGHT, to work for the PAST grammatical time.

However, is it enough to put a Modal verb into its second form, to express the grammatical PAST?

21. You MIGHT use the phone;
(a tentative suggestion in the PRESENT.)

21a. You COULD use the phone;
(a tentative suggestion in the PRESENT.)

Modal second forms may express polite offers and yet stay in the grammatical PRESENT.

*****

Modal forms generally, PAST or PRESENT, influence the language register. The register concerns the styles we use when we speak or write on various occasions. In simple words, it has a lot to do with being polite.

CAN is very colloquial in its register for suggestions. It could be rude for a suggestion, when we directly address someone we do not know.

Let us imagine we ask,
22. CAN I open the window?
The answer might be
22a. You certainly are capable of that,
but you are not allowed to.

CAN is not offensive when we simply state on POTENTIAL or provide information — in other words, we talk about an objective circumstance, rather than a subjective resolve.

23. Bald eagles CAN fly above clouds.

We might use the verb can as in example 23, during formal talks. Modal mediation is important in American English.

If we want to negotiate or provide guidance, we should not misinterpret Modal verbs for uncertainty or passiveness.

Modal verbs are a matter of good style, tact, and logic, not only in business talks. When we say something would not work for us, we are as assertive as when we say it is not going to work.

Please mind, content as here is not a form of address: I am not writing specifically to any person or persons.

Let us see how Modal verbs can make us sound more objective.

23a. Bald eagles fly above clouds.
(We would be likely to say this about a specific area where bald eagles live and fly above clouds, and most likely when we are in that area.)

24. Modal verbs CAN express varying degrees of potential, probability, contingency, and certainty.
(The guidance applies generally, about whatever Modal context).

In American as well as British English, we mind the Negative Interrogative. Requests with forms as CAN’T or COULDN’T imply that consent is expected.
(We would not readily assume approval from someone like a never-possibly-happy-person, would we?)

25. COULDN’T I use your car?
(I expect you are going to allow it.)

When someone is not a never-possibly-happy-person, we can ask,
26. COULD I use your car (please)?

*****

PAST forms may change the degree of Modality we express. Let us mark this degree in cubes. We can think about mountaineering.

27. Careful with this handle, it MAY break.

27a. Careful with this handle, it MIGHT break.

28. Careful with this handle, it CAN break.

28a. Careful with this handle, it COULD break.

*****

We could name the handle in the picture above a quickdraw. We yet can use the examples here to learn flexibility. Modal forms will require that we are flexible.

We can begin with simple words. There are multifarious handles in this world. We may need one to break a can of food open, when hiking.

A can, the noun, may mean a metal container. The verb to can may mean putting goods in cans. The auxiliary can is a Modal verb form.

Words always can have more than one meaning.

*****

Let us compare other Modal verbs for their degrees of CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY, respectively.

29. The can WILL / HAS TO / MUST break open.

30. The can SHOULD / OUGHT TO break open.

31. The can NEEDS to break open.

*****

Modal forms HAVE TO and MUST differ in sense, not in degree of Modality.

32. You HAVE TO take care of the handle;
(such are the circumstances).

33. You MUST take care of the handle;
(my common sense says so).

Colloquial American English has phrases as
GOTTA TO
HAVE GOT TO
or
HAS GOT TO,
for CERTAINTY as well as CONTINGENCY.

Let us remember that colloquial uses are colloquial because they depart from the standard. We have a note on human mental lexicons in SUB-CHAPTER 6.3. We keep away from informal uses in official contexts.

If we are not in a formal situation, and we want to talk common sense, we can say,

34. You GOTTA take care of the handle.

Common sense does not mean we should not have any sense of humor.

34a. That HAS TO / GOTTA be the handle.

Colloquial language is mostly banned from schools. We may need some acquaintance with it to comprehend everyday speech, however.

Informally, the word “stuff” may mean “talk”, “matter”.

34b. We HAVE TO / GOTTA learn to handle the Modal stuff.

*****

Much of the above is a strong challenge on our arrow cues: how do we use them with Modal verbs?

We can think about the target grammatical time.
35. Alice COULD read when she was five.

36. Ten years ago, he got a loan, and COULD start his new business.

For the target grammatical time, we think about the context, not only the language forms. Linguistically, our time reference can be tacit.
Please compare SUB-CHAPTER 6.2.

7. I haven’t seen her today.

7a. I didn’t see her today.

The time reference is tacit, as the word “today” does not decide on grammar.

*****

American English, as any natural language, allows paraphrase. Let us see our target time and frame with paraphrased Modal verbs.
35a. She was able to read.
36a. He was able to open his new business.

*****

What strategy can we develop for the Modal PAST? We can use syntactic structures. Feel welcome.
CHAPTER 9.1. MODAL SYNTAX, GRAMMATICAL PRESENT OR PAST

*****

8.2. PRACTICE FOR ALL ASPECTS

Exercise 45. We can warm up, merging our symbolic cues. As for our MIND PRACTICE, we may just think and visualize.

Example:
The plain arrow symbolizes the variable {ON}. Pointed up or down, it cues for the grammatical FUTURE or PAST. Horizontally, it indicates the PRESENT. We may refer to SUBCHAPTER 5.1.

We can merge the plain arrow, let us say for the variable {IN}, within the same grammatical time. Here, it is going to be the PRESENT.

Answer:
A. Before the merger:
Jemma smiles.

{ON}, the PRESENT
the Present Simple

B. After the merger:
Jemma is smiling.

{IN}, the PRESENT
the Present Progressive

*****

We are not practicing behaviorist reflexes. We are working on flexible habits. We may think about Jemma, as well as Bob or anyone, including ourselves, and with various verbs. It is important that we learn to merge features for grammatical variables and time.

*****

THE TASK

Exercise 46. We merge features as above and think about Expression. We just think and visualize.

Answer:
A. Before the merger
Does Bob worry?

{ON}, the PRESENT
the Present Simple

B. After the merger
Is Bob worrying?

(His dad is wearing a horrible tie.)

{IN}, the PRESENT
the Present Progressive

Exercise 47. Let us practice deciding {ON} our cognitive extents. We complete the structures and arrow cues.

Not everyone fancies speaking about feelings and thoughts. However, it is important that we try to represent them in language. We may think about time and change.

*****

When we are able to put words together well, our words represent our notions and thoughts in language. We can name this ability representation, as there is always more than one way to put words together and make sense.

*****

Example: I love …

Answer: I love language.
(We can answer without telling anyone;
we remember the MIND PRACTICE.)

1. I hate …

2. I thought that … was pretty.

3. I remembered … then.

4. I considered … important.

5. I want …

6. I hated … when I was a child.

7. I think that … is stupid. [TABOO]

8. I remember …

9. I consider … important.

10. I wanted … when I was a child.

Exercise 48. It is natural to follow what is good for us. Therefore, let us try to “trade” language features. We merge the features in the wording with symbolics.

Example: I love …

Answer: I have (always) loved language.

Again, we can give our answers in our thoughts, envisioning situations for which we might use the phrases.

1. I think (about) …

2. I concluded …

3. I like …

4. I keep …

5. I sensed …

6. I thought (about) …

7. I feel … (always, that)

8. I was thinking (about) …

9. I learned …

10. …means a lot to me.

Exercise 49. The Perfect Progressive Aspect makes three tenses, PRESENT, PAST and FUTURE. It has an open time frame.

Let us practice our linguistic gravitation: we close the time frame, when we are {ON} a cognitive ground (please compare SUB-CHAPTER 6.1).

We have part the mapping cues and stay with the Affirmative. We may not want much to do, in one go.

Example 1: have breakfast
EVERY DAY, 8:00 ― 10:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: 18:00 P.M.

Answer: I had breakfast.

Example 2: have breakfast

EVERY DAY, 8:00 ― 8:30 A.M.
TIME NOW: 8:15 P.M.

Answer: I have been having breakfast.

1. work

MONDAY ― FRIDAY, 9:00 ― 17:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: Monday, 10:00 P.M.

2. work
MONDAY ― FRIDAY, 9:00 ― 17:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: Saturday, after 19:00 P.M.

3. read

EVERY DAY, 22:00 ― 24:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: 23:00 P.M.

4. read

EVERY DAY, 22:00 ― 24:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: 00:15 P.M.

5. go to the gym
TUESDAYS 19:00 ― 20:00 A.M.
TIME NOW: Wednesday, after 21:15 P.M.

Exercise 50. Let us practice our earthling proper egoism (please compare SUB-CHAPTER 8.1). In conversation, we cannot merely follow on grammar.

We decide {ON} our language extents. We ignore the cue that would not be properly egoistic.

Example: She (cherish) her friends.

Answer: She has cherished her friends.

1. The book set (consist) of five parts.

2. She (sound) like under a bad impression.

3. Yesterday afternoon, he (recall) his school years with friends.

4. She just (recognize) the handwriting now.

5. He (agree) to the new conclusion just now.

6. Now, she (appreciate) the ancient manuscript for an hour.

7. He (want) to go to the Arctic before he went to the Antarctic.

8. The house (belong) to the family for 10 years.

9. He usually (respect) other opinions, but not that time.

10. This time tomorrow, she (see) her brother.

*****

From the key: example 7 shows we always should consider the entire utterance, to make out the grammatical time. The verb form “went” places the stretch of speech in the PAST.

We also can think about the alternate language forms.

In example 3, a phrase as “*yesterday afternoon, he will recall his school years with friends”, could not work with our cognitive map for YESTERDAY.

In example 8, a phrase as “*the house will have been belonging to the family for 10 years”, would go against natural human possessiveness: we place property {ON} cognitive maps.

Grammar is not only about style. It is also about logic and sense.

*****

Exercise 51. In natural language, our real-time present allows combining the time reference. We can talk about events that took place TODAY with a PAST grammatical reference. For events that are to take place, we can use the FUTURE.

We remain with our healthy egoism: we stay {ON} cognitive extents, for hearts and minds, regardless of any cues.

Example:
TODAY, PRESENT; he, know the answer

Answer: He knows the answer. {ON}
(We ignore the dot, the Progressive symbolics.)

1. YESTERDAY, the PAST; she, believe it

2. TODAY, the PRESENT; she, work

3. TODAY, the PAST; they, see each other

4. TOMORROW, the FUTURE; he, live here for ten years

5. YESTERDAY, the PAST; she, speak with them

6. YESTERDAY, the PAST; he, write for an hour

7. TOMORROW, the FUTURE; you, work here for five years

8. TODAY, the PAST; we, hike in the mountains

9. TODAY, the PRESENT; she, exercise for an hour already

10. TOMORROW, the FUTURE; he, watch television, at this hour

Exercise 52. SAMSON THE AGONIST is a story of a hero who had magic hair that gave him power. Naturally, we do not have to believe everything we read, online either.

Our “Observations as by a grain of sand” are to help us keep grammar even against unusual wording, like in EXERCISE 42. We have only part the cues: we practice independent language skill.

We first put our verbs into the grammatical PAST, and then into the PRESENT. We mind our Expression: the Affirmative, Negative, and Interrogative.

Example: The grain of sand, with its power to stay on the shore and in the sea, 1. (think) about a proper measure for own composition.

Answer: The grain of sand, with its power to stay on the shore and in the sea, was thinking about a proper measure for own composition.

A. Length N 2. (seem) to give granularity the right proportion. A modicum N 3. (be) the argument to the grain of sand: it 4. (bring) to mind limitation rather than weight.

B. The grain of sand 5. (think) about wisdom. What wisdom 6. (be) ?

C. It 7. (may be) a grain of wit and manhood well resolved, but the grain of sand N 8. (consider) going into a drama like that of Samson the Agonist really necessary.

D. The grain usually 9. (rest) close to the shoreline, not entirely by own will, but by the way of life it 10. (practice) since its earliest years.

E. Owing to this lifestyle, it 11. (decide) to devote part its time to necessities of cognition.

F. Thinking about own format as a potentiality by another, it 12. (deliberate) whether it 13. (be), as a grain of sand, a fruit of ability or mere industriousness.

G. It 14. (can be) up to itself to conclude on own structuring. For that chance, it 15. (spend) half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the evening, to ponder on composite phenomena strictly.

H. It 16. (do) its daily dose of reckoning for about fifteen minutes, when a westerly 17. (arrive) to the shore. Its habitual way, the wind 18. (make) a little eddy on the shoreside.

I. The grain of sand 19. (think) if that 20. (be) wise.

*****

Obviously, wits cannot be something we grow on our heads.

Let us now put the story into the grammatical PRESENT. Our grammar journey has had some dramatic narrative already, in EXERCISE 44.

Answer: The grain of sand, with its power to stay on the shore and in the sea, is thinking about a proper measure for own composition.

A1. Length does not seem to give granularity the right proportion. A modicum is not the argument to the grain of sand: it brings to mind limitation rather than weight.

B1. The grain of sand thinks about wisdom. What is wisdom?

C1. It may be a grain of wit and manhood well resolved, but the grain of sand does not consider going into a drama like that of Samson the Agonist really necessary…

*****

Our sense for distance and time may encourage altering the word “that” from the grammatical PAST into the word “this”, for the grammatical PRESENT.

Modal verbs can challenge our logic. Feel welcome to CHAPTER 9.

*****

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: