quasimodals?

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I'm not sure why the presence or absence of "to" is indicative of modality.
My memroy is that such constructions as FIXIN' TO are usually considered
quasimodals. Given that there are verbs such as HELP and (for some speakers)
ASSIST and HELP for which the TO is dead optional, the presence or absence of
the infinitival marker would seem to me to be just a minor surface-structure
phenomenon that has little to do with more "profound" grammatical
characterization. Not that I am an expert on theoretical syntax by any
means--just wondering what the basis is for interjecting the term "modal"
into this set of data.

In a message dated 2/5/2002 1:14:25 PM, pmcgraw at LINFIELD.EDU writes:

<< My original post, which started this thread, didn't address the presence or
absence of "to" to link "help" or "have" with the infinitive of another
verb.  The apparent innovation I was calling attention to was the extension
of the "to-less" pattern beyond a very small closed list of verbs
(including have, let, help, make), viz.:

"Here's a conversational gambit: Seems to me that there are fewer potential
funders now than a few years ago for programs that assist first-generation
college aspirants prepare for and succeed in post-secondary education."

My own internal grammar allows only that very small list to be linked
directly, modal-fashion, to a following infinitive without a linking "to".
So for me, "help...to prepare" and "help...prepare" are both perfectly
grammatical.  I guess I'd call "assist...to prepare" marginal, with
"assist...in preparing" much more natural.  *"Assist...prepare," however,
is impossible. >>