LL-L "Grammar" 2012.11.11 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 11 November 2012 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================


From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk
heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk<sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2012.11.10 (01) [EN-SCO]

from Heather Rendall   heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk

Sandy wrote
"constructions with modals in the first slot and "have to" in the
second (might have to, would have to) definitely do NOT feel like
double modals..."

... would have to is surely just a future conditional of "to have to
/ must" where 'would' is an auxiliary and not a modal. Future Perfect
Conditional would be " .. would have had to "

And "..might have to"  - isn't this using 'might' non-modally as a
(possible) subjunctive form of possibility of 'have to / must'

best wishes after a long absence following a harrowing year which
cannot come to a close quick enough

Heather

Worcester UK <http://scotstext.org/>


=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html .
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
==========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20121111/df658174/attachment.htm>