The modal auxiliary verbs adalah kata-kata seperti can, will, shall, may, might, should, ought to, must, could yang digunakan bersama dengan kata kerja dan ditempatkan di depan subyek.
The Modal auxiliary verb dan kata kerja yang mengikutinya tidak mengalami perubahan untuk orang dan jumlah.
The modal auxiliary verb ditempatkan segera sesudah subyek kalimat.
FORM: SUBJECT + THE MODAL AUXILIARY + INFINITIVE
(Positive) They can do it
(Negative) They can not do it
(Questions) Can they do it?
Short Answer Yes, they can/not, they can’t
Conditionals
The preterite forms can also be used in the apodosis in the conditional mood, such as in counterfactual conditionals: "If you bought a bus pass, you could catch as many buses as you liked without worrying about the cost of the fares." "If he were more polite, he might / would be better liked." In each of these cases, the "if" clause has present time reference despite the past tense form, indicating something contrary to fact, and the main clause has present / future time reference. The time reference of the conditional can be shifted back to the past using the modal + "have" construction: "If they had wanted to do it, they would have done it by now."
There is not always an explicit protasis ("if" clause) in this use: "Someone who likes red and hates yellow would probably prefer strawberries to bananas" means the same as "If someone who liked red and hated yellow were offered a choice of fruit, he or she would probably prefer strawberries to bananas." "I could help you with your work" gives a more tentative sense of ability to help than, say, "I can help you with your work" would. The implied protasis could, depending on the context, be along the lines of "If I wanted to".
Shall and will
Shall is used in many of the same senses as will, though not all dialects use shall productively, and those that use both shall and will generally draw a distinction (though different dialects tend to draw different distinctions). In prescriptive English usage, shall in the first person, singular or plural, indicates mere futurity, but in other persons shows an order, command or prophecy: "Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!" It is, therefore, impossible to make shall questions in these persons. Shall we? makes sense, shall you? does not. Conversely, in prescriptive usage will generally indicates futurity in the second and third persons but modality of willingness/determination in the first person.
In dialects that seldom use shall, will has a number of different uses involving tense, aspect, and modality
- It can express aspect alone, without implying futurity: In "He will make mistakes, won't he?", the reference is to a tendency in the past, present, and future and as such expresses habitual aspect, with no modality implied.
- It can express either of two types of modality alone, again without implying futurity: In "That will be John at the door", there is an implication of present time and probabilistic mode, while "You will do it right now" implies obligatory mode.
- It can express both intentional modality and futurity, as in "I will do it."
- It can express futurity without modality: "The sun will die in a few billion years."
As with would, the negative form will not negates the main verb but in the intentional mode may also indicate negative intentionality.
Shall is also used in legal and engineering language to write firm laws and specifications as in these examples: "Those convicted of violating this law shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three years nor more than seven years," and "The electronics assembly shall be able to operate within its specifications over a temperature range of 0 degrees Celsius to 70 degrees Celsius." In both cases, in accordance with prescriptive usage, shall is used in the third person to express determination on the part of the speaker.
| golly!" Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of promise about the subject, as in "This shall be revealed to you in good time." This usage is certainly acceptable in the U.S., although shall is used far less frequently. The distinction between the two is often obscured by the contraction 'll, which is the same for both verbs. In the United States, we seldom use shall for anything other than polite questions (suggesting an element of permission) in the first-person:
(In the second sentence, many writers would use should instead, although should is somewhat more tentative than shall.) In the U.S., to express the future tense, the verb will is used in all other cases. Shall is often used in formal situations (legal or legalistic documents, minutes to meetings, etc.) to express obligation, even with third-person and second-person constructions:
|
Should
Should is commonly used, even in dialects where shall is not. The negation is "should not" (or the contraction "shouldn't").
Should can describe an ideal behaviour or occurrence and imparts a normative meaning to the sentence; for example, "You should never lie" means roughly, "If you always behaved perfectly, you would never lie", so obligatory modality is being expressed. The sentence "If this works, you should not feel a thing" means roughly, "I hope this will work. If it does, you will not feel a thing", so probabilistic modality is being expressed. In dialects that use shall commonly, however, this restriction does not apply; for example, a speaker of such a dialect might say, "If I failed that test, I think I should cry," meaning the same thing as, "If I failed that test, I think I would cry"; here the use of should is for conditional modality.
In some dialects, it is common to replace the subjunctive mood with the modal auxiliary should: "It is important that the law should be passed" (where other dialects would say, "It is important that the law be passed"); likewise "If it should happen, we are prepared for it" or "Should it happen, we are prepared for it" (where early Modern English would say, "If it happen, we are prepared for it," and many dialects of today would say, "If it happens, we are prepared for it" or the subjunctive "If it were to happen, we would be prepared for it.").
Should is usually replaced, nowadays, by would. It is still used, however, to mean "ought to" as in
- You really shouldn't do that.
- If you think that was amazing, you should have seen it last night.
In British English and very formal American English, one is apt to hear or read should with the first-person pronouns in expressions of liking such as "I should prefer iced tea" and in tentative expressions of opinion such as
- I should imagine they'll vote Conservative.
- I should have thought so.
Would
The contracted form of would is 'd as in "I'd go if I could". The negation is either would not or wouldn't.
As indicated above, would can be used for the conditional mood in main clauses: "I would go if I could".
Would can be used in some forms that are viewed as more formal or polite: for example, "I would like a glass of water" compared with "I want a glass of water"; and "Would you get me a glass of water?" compared with the bare "Get me a glass of water."
Would can also be used for the imperfective aspect in past time. In the sentence "Back then, I would eat early and would walk to school...." "would" signifies not the conditional mood, but rather, repeated past actions in the imperfective aspect (specifically, habitual aspect) and one must use care when translating to other languages.
Furthermore, would can be used to shift the time of perspective of a future event from the present to the past: "In 1982 I knew that in 1986 I would graduate from college.
The meaning of the negated "would" form depends on the particular usage of "would". In its conditional usage, the main verb is negated: "I would not go even if I could" means "I would not-go..." = "I would refrain from going...." However, in the future-of-the-past form, "In 1982 I knew that I would not graduate in 1986" means "...I not-would graduate..." = "...It is not that I would graduate...." Likewise, in the past habitual form, "Back then I would not eat early" does not mean "...I would not-eat early" = "...I would fast early" but rather means "...I not-would eat early" = "...it is not that I would eat early...." In the latter two examples either the modal or the entire verb phrase is being negated.
May and might
May and might do not have common negative contractions (equivalents to shan't, won't, can't, couldn't etc.), although mightn't can occur in asking questions. ("Mightn't I come in if I took my muddy boots off?" as a reply to "Don't come in here! You'll get the floor dirty!")
Both forms can be used to express a present time possibility or uncertainty ("That may be."). Might and could can also be used in this sense with no past time meaning. Might and may would carry almost the same meaning in "John is not in the office today, and he could be sick", although may conveys less hesitance (a somewhat higher probability) than do might and could.
May is also used to express irrelevance in spite of certain or likely truth: "He may be taller than I am, but he is certainly not stronger" may mean roughly, "While it is true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference, as he is certainly not stronger." (However, it may also mean, "I am not sure whether he is taller than I am, but I am sure that he is not stronger.") This is the meaning in the phrase "Be that as it may." Might can be used in this sense as well.
May or might can be used in the first person to express that future actions are being considered. "I may/might go to the mall later" means that the speaker is thinking about going to the mall; as such it means the same thing as maybe will.
May and might can indicate permission and mild permission respectively: "You may go now", "You might go now if you feel like it." May or might can be used in a question to ask for permission. One who is saying "May I use your phone?” is asking for permission to use the phone of the person being spoken to. "Can" or "could" can be used instead, although formal American English prefers "may". In both cases the preterite form is viewed as more hesitant or polite.
The meaning of the negated "may" or "might" form depends on the usage of the modal. When possibility is indicated, the main verb is negated: "That may/might not be" means "That may/might not-be" = "That may fail to be true." But when the modality of permission is being used, the modal or the entire verb phrase is negated: "You may not go now" does not mean "You may not-go now" = "You may stay now", but rather means "You not-may go now" = "You are forbidden to go now." Sometimes, though, the main verb is negated by putting stress on both "not" and the main verb: "You may go or not go, whichever you wish."
Can and could
The negation of can is the single word "cannot", occasionally written as two words "can not" or the contraction "can't". The negation of could is "could not", or "couldn't".
Can is used to express ability. "I can speak English" means "I am able to speak English", or "I know how to speak English".
It is also used to express that some state of affairs is possible, without referring to the ability of a person to do something: "There can be a very strong rivalry between siblings" can have the same meaning as "There is sometimes a very strong rivalry between siblings".
Cannot and can't can be used to express beliefs about situations: "He cannot have left already; why would he want to get there so early?" expresses with less certainty the same proposition as "He has not left already" does.
Both can and could can be used to make requests: "Can you pass me the cheese?" means "Please pass me the cheese". Could can be used in the same way, and might be considered more polite.
Informally, can is frequently used to mean may in the sense of permission: "You can go now."
The form could can indicate either the modality of ability in the preterite (past) (= was able to) ("I could swim when I was five years old"), the modality of permission in the past (= was permitted to) ("My mother said that I could go swimming"), the modality of possibility in the present (=maybe) ("It could be raining now"), or conditional modality in the present (= would be able to) ("I could do it if you would let me").
The negative forms virtually always negate the modal or entire verb phrase, and never just the main verb: "I cannot speak English" = "I am not able to speak English"; "You cannot go now" = "You are not allowed to go now"; "He could not do that" implying either permission or ability means "He was not allowed/able to do that." Rarely, the main verb is negated by putting stress on "not" and the main verb: "I could not do that, but I'm going to do it anyway."
Must has no corresponding preterite form. The negation is "must not" or "mustn't". An archaic variant is the word mote, as used in the expression "so mote it be".
Must and have to are used to express that something is obligatory ("He must leave"; "He has to leave"). Must can be used to express a prohibition such as "You must not smoke in here", or a resolution such as "I mustn't make that mistake again".
There is a distinction between "must" and "have to" in the negative forms: "must not" negates the main verb, while "do not have to" negates "have to". In the sentence "You must not go" = "You must not-go", it is being expressed that it is obligatory for the person being spoken to not go; whereas in the sentence "You do not have to go" it is being expressed that it is not obligatory for the person to go.
Must and have to can also be used to express strongly held beliefs (the epistemic rather than deontic use), such as "It must be here somewhere" or "It has to be here somewhere", with the same meaning as "I believe that it's very likely that it is here somewhere."
Ought to and had better
Ought to and had better are used to express an ideal behavior or occurrence or suggested obligation, in a similar way to should. The negations are, respectively, ought not to (or rarely, oughtn't to) and had better not. The "had" in "had better" can be contracted, such as "You'd better shut up." In informal American usage, the had in had better is sometimes omitted. The negative forms negate the main verb: "You ought not to do that" = "You ought to refrain from doing that"; "You'd better not do that" = "You'd better refrain from doing that."
In addition, ought to, like should, can be used to express relatively high probability, as in "It ought to rain today."
Dare and need
Dare and need are not commonly used as auxiliaries nowadays, but formerly they both were. Neither is used in affirmative declarative sentences. An example in an exclamation is "How dare he!", expressing willingness in the face of fear or contrary obligation. The interrogative form "Dare he do it?" or "Need he do it?" is equivalent to the non-auxiliary form "Does he dare to do it?" or "Does he need to do it?"; need, of course, expresses the modality of necessity. In a negative context "He dare not do it" is equivalent to "He does not dare to do it", while "He need not do it" is equivalent to "He does not need to do it". In both cases it is the modal or entire verb phrase, rather than the main verb, that is being negated.
However, in the sentence "He does not dare to lose weight" or "He needs to lose weight," dare or need is not being used as an auxiliary, as (1) it takes the full infinitive "to lose" as the head of the verb phrase rather than the bare infinitive "lose" that occurs in a phrase like "I can lose weight", and (2) the verb following it is conjugated in the third person singular.
Words with a similar function to the modal verbs
Used to
Used to is used to express past states or past actions that were habitual but which are no longer. Hence it expresses aspect and tense rather than modality. For example, "I used to go to college" suggests that the speaker no longer goes to college. Constructions negating the main verb exist in expressions such as "She used to not like me", or if the speaker is trying to avoid the split infinitive, "She used not to like me".
In some non-standard dialects, used to can follow did not (or didn't), as in "She didn't use to like me". Here it is the entire verb form "used to like" that is being negated, to mean "It's not that she used to like me."
Do
As an auxiliary, do is essentially a "dummy"; that is, it does not generally affect the meaning. It is used to form questions and negations when no other auxiliary is present: "Do you want to do it?", "I do not (don't) want to do it." This particular use of do, known as do-support, is attested from around 1400.
It is also sometimes used for emphasis: "I do understand your concern, but I do not think that will happen." Also, do sometimes acts as a pro-verb: "I enjoy it, I really do [enjoy it], but I am not good at it." (Other auxiliaries do this as well: "I can do it, I really can [do it], it just takes me longer"; but it bears particular note that in the case of do, it is often used as a pro-verb when it would be absent if the verb were present.) Because it does not affect the meaning of its verb as regards the attitude of the speaker toward the action, it is not a modal auxiliary. In a sense, it indicates the lack of a modal auxiliary. (Do is also different in that it has a distinct third-person singular form, does, and in that its past tense, did, is used exactly as a past tense, not as a more general remote form).
Going to
Am/is/are/was/were going to is used in some of the same situations as is will: specifically, to indicate imminent futurity ("It's going to rain"), distant futurity ("The sun is going to die eventually"), intentional modality ("I was going to do that, but I forgot"), or a combination of futurity and intentionality ("I'm going to do it tomorrow"). It always implies prospective aspect, combining the present (or past when used with was/were) focus in the main verb am/is/are/was/were going with the futurity of the second verb. Thus, for example, "It's going to rain" combines a present viewpoint of the situation with a description of the future. This feature is analogous to the retrospective aspect of the English present perfect have/has + VERB + -ed, in which past action is presented from the viewpoint of the present.
Am/is/are/was/were going to is not a modal because (1) it has an infinitive form to go, and (2) it requires a helping verb, which conjugates by person/number.
Have to
Have to is used in a similar way to must, as discussed above, except that have to is used either with an impersonal necessity (such as in "It has to be cloudy for it to rain") or a personal obligation ("I have to go to the dentist") while must is used primarily with personal obligations ("I must go to the dentist"). Have to can be used for an ongoing obligation, such as "he has to be careful". Have to is not a modal verb because (1) it has an infinitive form (to have [to]), and (2) it conjugates in the third person singular ("He has to do it").
Double modal
In standard English usage, it is considered incorrect to use more than one modal verb consecutively, as modals are followed by an infinitive, which they themselves lack. They can only be combined with non-modal constructions that have a modal function, such as have to, which in spite of its function is not a modal verb. Thus, might have to is acceptable, but might must is not, even though must and have to can normally be used interchangeably.
A greater variety of double modals appears in some regional dialects. In Southern American English, for example, phrases such as might could or ought to should are sometimes used in conversation. The double modal may sometimes be redundant, as in "I ought to should do something about it", where ought to and should are synonymous and either one could be removed from the sentence. In other double modals, the two modal verbs convey different meanings, such as "I might could do something about it tomorrow", where could indicates the ability to do something and might shows uncertaintly about that ability.
These kinds of double modal phrases are not regarded as standard, although a combination of a modal with a modal-like construction may be used instead. "I might could do something about it" is more often expressed as "I might be able to do something about it", which is considered more standard. Similarly used to could, which appears for example in country singer Bill Carlisle's 1951 song "Too Old to Cut the Mustard":
I used to could jump just like a deer,
But now I need a new landing gear.
I used to could jump a picket fence,
But now I'm lucky if I jump an inch.
is usually expressed as used to be able to. Double modals can also be avoided by replacing one of the modal verbs with an appropriate adverb, such as using probably could or might possibly in place of might could.
• dibagian yang kosong.Tambahlan to dimana perlu, Jika to tidak diperlukan, tulislah
1. I have ... go down tomorrow.
2. Tom can ... play soccer.
3. Could you please ... open the window?
4. The students must ... learn all of the irregular verbs.
5. Sally has ... do her history.
6. I think you should ... take better care of yourself.
7. I ought ... go to the office this afternoon.
8. Would you ... speak more slowly, please?
9. We may ... go to Argentina for our vacation.
10. Will you please ... mail this letter for me?
• Lengkapi kalimat dengan can dan can’t
1. A cat ... climb trees, but it ... fly
2. A fish ... walk, but it ... swim
3. A dog ... bark, but it ... sing
4. You ... buy stamps at the post office, but you ... buy shoes there.
5. A tiny baby ... cry, but it ... talk
6. I ... write with a pen, but I ... write with a paper clip
7. I ... read book by noonlight, but I ... read in sunlight.
8. Trees ... produce oxygen, but rocks ... .
9. Fish ... live in air, but they ... live in water.
10. You ... store water in a glass jar, but you ... store it in a paper bag.
0 comments:
Post a Comment