Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: English verbal miscellany
Message-ID: <131@spar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 21:13:53 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.131
Posted: Mon Feb 17 21:13:53 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 07:04:16 EST
References: <10132@tardis.UUCP> <771@spar.UUCP> <130@calma.UUCP> <879@h-sc1.UUCP> <117@uvacs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Artificial Research, CA
Lines: 66

>> ||    What necessary machinery does English lack?
>
>Infinitives for the auxiliary verbs (can, will, &c.).
>
>You have to use circumlocutions (to be able to, to be going to, ...) or bad
>grammer (might could, ...). - Alex Colvin

    English's auxiliaries {can, will, may, shall} are indeed quite odd. 
    For instance, note that, in addition to lacking infinitives, participles
    gerunds, imperatives, (and passives, which would seem to have little use) 
    they also lack -s in the 3rd person singular. As Alex pointed out, we
    must get by with circumlocutions to express the defective forms.

    I believe that, historically, these verbs were `preterite prsents',
    which means they were originally the past tenses of verbs whose present
    tense fell into disuse. Note that english never has had such a thing as
    past infinitives, participles, etc., and that past tenses do not suffix
    -s in the 3rd singular. The `new' past tenses {could, would, might, should}
    were subsequently formed analogy with other classes of verbs (the `l'
    in `could' does not really belong there). 

    If I am not mistaken, these verbs likewise present irregularities in
    german as well, but not as great as in English, since german has gone
    farther to `normalize' them {eg: they have infinitives koennen, moegen,
    wollen, sollen}. I do not know about the scandinavian development of
    these verbs.

    Why would these auxiliaries derive from a past tense? Good question.
    I believe that `can' meant `learn' in its original present tense.
    (`uncouth', which is related, meant `unlearned'); thus, one who has
    learned to do something can do it. I have read similar explanations for
    the others (which I cannot recall). I suspect that the verb `must' 
    (which has failed to produce even a new past tense) and, more recently,
    `ought' (whose original present `owe' is still with us) have had
    a similar development. 
    
    Admittedly, these verbs represent a glitch in the english language.
    However, they hardly represent `lacking machinery', since we, in
    fact, get along quite well forming the defective forms as below:

	{to be, being, having been} able to	         {can}
		     "		    about/going to       {will, shall}
		     "		    allowed/permitted to {may}

    ========================================================================

    One frequently overlooked feature of english that is quite powerful is
    its generalized treatment of {intransitive verb} + {preposition} as a
    compound transitive in passive transformations. I know of few languages
    which allow such flexibility.

    For example, note the similarity between:

	John sees Mary
	Mary was seen by John
	Mary was the one (whom) John saw
	Mary was the one seen by John

    and

	John looked up the answer
	The answer was looked up by John
	This answer was the one (which) John looked up
	This answer was the one looked up by John

-michael