LL-L "Grammar" 2012.11.10 (01) [EN-SCO]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 10 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: Sandy Fleming sandy at scotstext.org <mwmbombay at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar!" 2012.11.09 (01) [EN]

From: Mike Morgan mwmbombay at gmail.com
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2012.11.02 (01) [EN]
>
> common double modals in my speech include
> * might could
> * might should
> * might oughta (<ought to)
>
> maybe less commonly:
>
> * might would
>
> and much less common:
> * ought should
>
> 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... and are pretty common throughout the States, not
> limited to the South
> ...all based on intuition not on any actual corpus of my speech ;-)
>
>
> Just to list whatever comes to mind from mine:
>

I'll can...  (I'll be able to)
...winna can...  (won't be able to)
...maun can...   (must be able to ["must" here implies that the fact is
just surmised])
...maunna can...  (mustn't be able to [again, surmise])
...winna could... &c (won't have been able to, &c)
...micht can/could...
...michtna can/could...
...wad can/could...
...wadna can/could...
...should can/could...
...should can/could...

Sometimes triple modals are used:

...micht wad can dae that. (perhaps would be able to do that)
...michtna wad could duin that. (may not have been able to do that)

I'm not sure whether the second modal is limited to can/could. Just
thinking about it it seems to me that they'll get ordered that way
regardless.

I know what you mean by "have to" not feeling like a double modal, though
the syntax at least seems the same.

In the perfectives above there's a "hae" (have) which has been dropped:

should hae could ≡ should could.

In auxiliary usage, the "h" in "hae" isn't pronounced.

Sandy Fleming
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/20121110/8eb778e1/attachment.htm>