Unit 13. Modal verbs
‘Will to Truth’ do you call it, you wisest ones, that which impels you and makes you ardent?
Will for the thinkableness of all being: thus do I call your will!
All being would you make thinkable: for you doubt with good reason whether it can already be thought.
A dependent clause (in English and other languages) is, roughly speaking, a sentence fragment that cannot stand on its own, but nevertheless contains a verb and possibly some other parts such as a subject, objects or adverbials. We have already seen dependent clauses in passing (‘I want to hear Socrates’, ‘a man speaking to a child about elephants’). Here are some more examples:
- Jacopo may write about his trumpet.
- I want Jacopo to write about his trumpet.
- I see Jacopo writing about his trumpet.
- I see/assume that Jacopo is writing about his trumpet.
- I know who is writing about a trumpet.
- I didn’t see when/why/how that happened.
- I know which of you has stolen the poodle.
- He is in the habit of helping people.
- This is the man who has stolen the poodle.
- He found whatever I wanted.
Dependent clauses are also called subordinate clauses, but we will reserve the term ‘subordinate’ for Lemizh sentence grammar (Rules One and Two).
Depending on the grammatical form of the verb, we distinguish non-finite and finite clauses. Non-finite clauses are formed with infinitives (‘[to] write’), gerunds (‘writing’) or participles (‘speaking, spilt’); finite clauses are introduced with conjunctions (‘that’), relative or interrogative pronouns (‘who’), or relative or interrogative adverbs (‘when, why’).
We will start the last quarter of this tutorial with a discussion of a type of verbs that frequently employs non-finite clauses, namely the modals (‘can, may, shall, will, must’). The next three units are dedicated to non-finite clauses, clauses introduced with conjunctions, and those introduced with pronouns or adverbs, respectively.
Overview of the modals
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a modal verb in Lemizh. The grammar treats the verbs ‘can, may, shall, must’ just like all others. Nonetheless, the five verbs discussed here were chosen with some care: they translate the most important English modals, as well as ‘want’, which plays a similar role. Even more importantly, they merit some discussion because their translation depends on their nominative object. To be accurate, it depends on the relationship between their nominative object and their dependent verb’s (in Lemizh, their accusative object’s) agent:
|Verb||Gloss||Describes||Translation. Nominative object is|
|a. the same as the agent of the accusative object||b. someone else||c. undefined|
|màqk.||opportunity||opportunity, chance||I give myself the chance to …||You give me the chance to …||I can / have the opportunity to … (Ital potere)|
|kmà.||allow||permission||I allow myself to …||You allow me to …||I am allowed to / I may …|
|làxt.||want||wish||I want to …||You want me to …||People want me to …|
|Ràks.||should||recommendation, suggestion||I should … (in my opinion)||You recommend/suggest me to …||I should …|
|dàxt.||must||necessity||I must / have to … (in my opinion)|
[‘A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do’]
|You command/order/tell me to …||I must / have to / It is necessary for me to …|
The sender is the one who gives the opportunity, who gives/utters the permission, who utters/thinks the wish, who utters/makes the suggestion, who makes something necessary … Well, you should already have a pretty good idea of how the nominative works. The recipient of the wish, the suggestion, etc., is of course in the dative, and the wish or suggestion is in the accusative.
|the one who wishes something||the wish||the recipient of the wish|
However, it is often clearer to include the recipient in the accusative object, as we will see in a moment.
A long time ago we learned that infinitives correspond to the inner factive, just like the main verb in most sentences (unless there is a reason to topicalise some other case, but let’s start simple). This comes in handy now, because we can translate the dependent verb, which is an infinitive (‘I can do …’, ‘I have to do …’), with an inner factive, and the dependent clause like a whole (finite) sentence.
The accusative object of a modal verb isn’t necessarily an action; it can also be a thing or living being as in ‘Zarathustra wants wine’.
a. The nominative object is the same as the agent of the accusative object
It is usually enough to name the nominative object. Rule Six allows us to omit the agent of the accusative object (who is the same person) most of the time. An agentive of the modal verb indicates an intention of the sender, in contrast to a non-agentive form.
|láxt zaraqyhtè dràwy.||Zarathustra wants to dance. [It is his decision.]|
|want-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a dance-fact-acc2.|
|dàxt veè wàxy.||I must speak in my opinion. [I haven’t got any choice.]|
|must-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2 speak-fact-acc2.|
If the agent might be someone else, we can use a pronoun.
|láxt ftnykè kráxy vèe.||The eagle wants to scratch someone.|
|want-fact1 eagle-acc-nom2a scratch-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-nom3a.|
|láxt ftnykè kràxy vèi.||The eagle wants to be scratched.|
|want-fact1 eagle-acc-nom2a scratch-fact-acc2 PIn−2-nom-dat3.|
b. The nominative object is someone else
|With the eagle as the agent of the accusative object:|
|láxt zaraqyhtè qáxky ftnÌky zèU.||Zarathustra wants his eagle to fly.|
|want-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a fly-fact-acc2 eagle-acc-acc3a PIn−3-nom-ben4.|
|With the eagle as the recipient of the wish:|
|láxt zaraqyhtè qaxkÌ ftnÌki vèU.||Zarathustra wants flying of his eagle.||Zarathustra wants his eagle to fly.|
|want-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a fly-fact-acc2 eagle-acc-dat2 PIn−2-nom-ben3.|
Naming the eagle as the recipient makes the second phrasing more personal: Zarathustra addresses his wish to the eagle. On the other hand, while this phrasing is unambiguous here, it cannot in general express differences in case, as in ‘Zarathustra wants his eagle to give him something’ vs. ‘Zarathustra wants his eagle to take something from him’. A pronoun can combine the two types if necessary.
c. The nominative object is undefined
The English modal verbs – ‘can/could, may/might, shall/should, will/would’ and ‘must’ – are most commonly translated like this. Since the modal verb has no other objects besides its accusative, we can easily form a compound. These constructions might remind you of the negators and other weighting numerals, which are formed the same way, and for exactly the same reason.
|dàxt wáxy zèe. ⇒ waxdáxt vèe.||I must speak. It is necessary for me to speak.|
|must-fact1 speak-fact-acc2 PIn−3-nom-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact-must-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a.|
|Ràks nàty jmÌsy. ⇒ natRàks jmÌsy.||Someone should open the door. The door should be opened.|
|should-fact1 open-fact-acc2 door-acc-acc3. ⇒ open-fact-should-fact1 door-acc-acc2.|
According to Rule Six, the missing nominative only indicates that information about the sender is absent, not necessarily that he is undefined. The first example might also mean ‘You ordered me to speak’, but only if it is clear from context that you issued the order. On the other hand, if I say ‘You must do this’ and mean ‘I order you to do this’, the nominative object is me; and unless this fact is clear from context or irrelevant, this sentence has to be translated with construction b.
Verbs of certainty
These verbs behave similarly to the modals. With the nominative object given, they correspond to situation b above, otherwise to situation c. When only the dative object is given, the receptive translation is usually superior, especially if the consecutive case is topicalised (i.e. in the perfect). Situation a translates as ‘I assure myself’ etc.
|Verb||Gloss||Describes||Translation. Given objects and topicalisation:|
|b. nominative (and optionally dative)|
|c. only dative (receptive)|
|dnàs.||certain||certainty||I assure / convince / make someone certain||I am sure / certain||It is certain|
|khàv.||evident||evidence||I present evidence to someone||I consider it evident||It is evident|
|swnàt.||believe||belief||I make someone believe||I believe*||It is believed*|
|ràtx.||hope||hope||I give someone hope||I hope*||It is hoped*|
|tàp.||assume||assumption†||I lead someone to the assumption||I assume||It is to be assumed|
|kfràjd.||claim||claim||I claim||I am / have been told||It is said to|
* Receptive ‘believe’ and ‘hope’ can be phrased as a perfect (‘having been made believe, having been given hope’) or untopicalised (‘being made believe, being given hope’) to describe a person’s belief or hope either as a state or as an activity. The untopicalised phrasing is less likely for the other verbs.
† what is typically the case under such circumstances; what seems to follow from the present circumstances
The modal verbs above more or less express deontic modalities (how the world ought to be, according to the sender), while the verbs of certainty express epistemic modalities (how the world may be, according to the sender’s judgement). Again, this is not a grammatical distinction but just a way of describing or organising words.
The fuzziness of English modals
Think before you translate an English modal verb (and don’t take it for granted that the following table is complete).
|English modal||Meaning||Example||Lemizh translation(s)|
|can||opportunity, permission (Ital potere)||I can come tomorrow.||màqk. opportunity-fact1. kmà. allow-fact1.|
|ability (Ital sapere)||I can dance. (= I am able to dance.)||gwìlt. teach-cons1.*|
|could||possibility||This could be right.||dnilsbvìl. certain-cons-1/2-cons1.†|
|wish, suggestion||We could as well go.||làxt. want-fact1. Ràks. should-fact1.|
|opportunity||We could go now.||màqk. opportunity-fact1.|
|may||permission||You may go now.||kmà. allow-fact1.|
|or similar meanings as ‘could’ (‘This may be right’, ‘We may as well go’, ‘May he come soon!’)|
|might||recommendation||You might help me.||Ràks. should-fact1.|
|or weaker variant of ‘may’†|
|shall||necessity||You shall not pass!||dàxt. must-fact1.|
|recommendation, suggestion||Shall we go?||Ràks. should-fact1.|
|future (first person)||I shall come tomorrow.||— prÌaR. … front-acc-temp2.|
|should||weaker variant of ‘shall’ (‘You should go now’)†|
|will||wish, (self-)recommendation, decision||Will you open the door? I won’t go there again. I’ll help you.||làxt. want-fact1. Ràks. should-fact1. wàv. decide-fact1.|
|belief, supposition†, assumption||That will be my eagle.||swnàt. believe-fact1. tàp. assume-fact1.|
|future||My eagle will come tomorrow.||— prÌaR. … front-acc-temp2.|
|would||polite wish†||Would you open the door?||làxt. want-fact1.|
|decision in the past||He wouldn’t tell us.||wàv — prilkÌaR. decide-fact1 … front-cons-opposition-acc-temp3.|
|repetition in the past||I would drink my coffe black back then.||nàjw — prilkÌaR. habit-fact1 … front-cons-opposition-acc-temp3.|
|must||necessity||You must speak.||dàxt. must-fact1.|
|evidence, assumption||That must be my eagle.||khàv. evident-fact1. tàp. assume-fact1.|
* ‘having been taught something (= know how to = can)’, a receptive perfect.
† To express finer differences, as ‘This could be right’ vs. ‘This might be right’ or ‘Would you open the door’ vs. ‘Will you open the door’, these verbs can be weighted. In addition, placing the recipient of a modal in the dependent clause makes the phrasing more detached and less personal, which sounds more polite.
|laxtbvá veè náty ziè jmÌsy.||I half-want you to open the door.||Would you open the door?|
|want-fact-1/2-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a open-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a door-acc-acc3.|
|natRaksdmá viè jmÌsy.||You should really open the door.||Will you open the door!|
|open-fact-should-fact-3/4-fact1 PIn−2-dat-nom2a door-acc-acc2.|
|dnilscrìl piltÌ vèi.||I am a bit certain about the correctness (abstract noun).||This might be right.|
|certain-cons-1/4-cons1 correct-cons-acc2 PIn−2-nom-dat2.|
|piltdnilscrìl.||The correctness is a bit certain.|
Negation of modals; neg-raising
Often there are two ways to combine negators with modal verbs, either by negating the modal itself or by negating its accusative object. This difference can (but need not necessarily) influence the choice of the modal. The modal generally has to be negated with the opposition verb kà., as laxtnà. want-fact-not-fact1. merely means ‘be indifferent about’, and kmanà. allow-fact-not-fact1. means ‘not (explicitly) be given permission’.
|kmakà wáxy zìe. ⇒ waxkmaká vìe.||You are forbidden to speak.||You must not speak.|
|allow-fact-opposition-fact1 speak-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact-allow-fact-opposition-fact1 PIn−2-dat-nom2a.|
|dàxt waxnáy zìe. ⇒ waxnadáxt vìe.||You must do something that is not speaking.|
|must-fact1 speak-fact-not-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact-not-fact-must-fact1 PIn−2-dat-nom2a.|
The second example contains a modified object and, taken literally, only demands that the addressee do something that is not speaking (which theoretically could be doing nothing, or doing something besides speaking). This is a polite way to tell someone not to speak and is called neg-raising. Neg-raising is a cross-linguistic phenomenon: compare English ‘I don’t want to speak’, which is understood as, and more polite than, ‘I want not to speak’. If you need to be explicit, you have to use the first phrasing.
A short but very close look at the mechanism of modified objects: inverting and uncompounding the second example gives nà wáxy ziè dÌxta. not-fact1 speak-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a must-acc-fact3. ‘It is not true that you speak forcedly’. Together with ‘You must do something’, which follows from Rule Seven applied to the original sentence, we get the meaning ‘You must do something that is not speaking’. By comparison, dàxt này wáxy cìe. must-fact1 not-fact-acc2 speak-fact-acc3 PIn−4-dat-nom4a., with the negator as the object of the modal, literally means ‘It is necessary for you not to speak’, but has no advantage over the first example.
To express that something is not the case although it is desired, would have been possible, etc., we negate the content of the modal verb, resulting in an accusative bracket from which we form a compound. Also note the different ways to mark the past tense in the third and fourth examples.
|nà lýxty zaraqyhtè dràwy. ⇒ lyxtná zaraqyhtè dràwy.||(The wanted action, the dancing, doesn’t exist.)||Zarathustra wants to dance (but he doesn’t).|
|not-fact1 want-acc-acc2 Zarathustra-acc-nom3a dance-fact-acc3. ⇒ want-acc-not-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a dance-fact-acc2.|
|lyxtná veè wáxy zìe.||If only you would speak!|
|want-acc-not-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a speak-fact-acc2 PIn−3-dat-nom3a.|
|lyxtná veè wìlxy.||I wish the consequence of speaking existed.||I wish I had spoken.|
|want-acc-not-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a speak-cons-acc2.|
|myqknà veì lacwÌ prilkÌaR.||In the past I had the opportunity to help him.||I could have helped him.|
|opportunity-acc-not-fact1 PIn−2-nom-dat2 help-fact-acc2 front-cons-opposition-acc-temp2.|
Adjectives of ability, necessity and predilection
Adjectives in -able and -ible derived from verbs, including Latin ones, (‘understandable, thinkable, regrettable, visible, edible’) are translated as compounds with gwìlt. teach-cons1., Ràks. should-fact1. or dàxt. must-fact1..
|gwìlt dmàty. ⇒ dmatgwèt.||something that someone has been taught / is able to see||visible|
|teach-cons1 see-fact-acc2. ⇒ see-fact-teach-nom1.|
|kaxkRÌks.||something that should be regretted||regrettable|
|kaxkdÌxt.||something that must be regretted|
A number of adjectives expressing predilection (‘warlike, helpful [wanting to help]’) are similar constructions with làxt. want-fact1..
|nagclèxt.||someone wanting to make war||warlike|
Object vs. predicate
‘I’ll gladly speak’ means ‘I want to speak’, but additionally claims reality of the speaking. So all we need is an inversion.
|láxt veè wàxy.||I want to speak.|
|want-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a speak-fact-acc2.|
|⇔ wáx veè lÌxta.||(pronoun moved to first verb in sentence)||I’ll gladly speak.|
|speak-fact1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a want-acc-fact2.|
Note the parallelism to the adverbial adjective in ‘He behaves strangely’. That sentence was translated with exactly the same pattern of cases – most importantly a factive bracket –, although we arrived there by a different reasoning. This is also a good example of how to confer reality: while the inversion puts the wanting below the speaking (at second level, that is), the bracket makes sure that the sentence still claims the wanting.
On the other hand, adverbs such as ‘certainly, possibly, hopefully’ cause a sentence not to claim reality of the English verb, so we need to translate it as a second-level word and the adverb as the predicate with an undefined nominative object.
|dnilsbvìl wáxy zaraqÌhte. ⇒ waxdnilsbvá zaraqÌhte.||Zarathustra will possibly speak.|
|certain-cons-1/2-cons1 speak-fact-acc2 Zarathustra-acc-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact-certain-cons-1/2-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a.|
Factive vs. affirmative
Sentence adverbs (adverbs that modify a whole sentence) are arguably better translated with the affirmative case (al, fact). We will elaborate on the difference between factive and affirmative in unit 15. Watch the degrees of reality.
|láxt venè wáxy zaraqÌhte.||We want Zarathustra to speak.|
|want-fact1 PIn−2-partnom-nom2a speak-fact-acc2 Zarathustra-acc-nom3a.|
|⇔ wáx zaraqyhtè lýxta(l) zène.||(translated as object: The action / the fact of speaking is a wanted thing.)||Luckily for us, Zarathustra speaks.|
|speak-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a want-acc-fact/aff2 PIn−3-partnom-nom3a.|
|là xlyjà spÌjal.||(translated as object)||Sadly [enough], he is behaving strangely.|
|do-fact1 strange-acc-fact2 sad-acc-aff2.|
|dnilsbvà wá(l)xy zaraqÌhte. ⇒ wa(l)xdnilsbvá zaraqÌhte.||(translated as predicate)||Possibly, Zarathustra will speak.|
|certain-cons-1/2-fact1 speak-fact/aff-acc2 Zarathustra-acc-nom3a. ⇒ speak-fact/aff-certain-cons-1/2-fact1 Zarathustra-acc-nom2a.|
Similar adverbs translated as affirmative or factive objects include ‘admittedly, mercifully, oddly, regrettably’. The latter, in contrast to the adjective ‘regrettable’ above, expresses actual regret (‘Regrettably, Zarathustra will not be able to speak’) instead of recommending regret and is therefore not a compound with a modal verb.
Modified objects and topics
If a modal verb or adverb that reduces the degree of reality only refers to a single object, we modify this object with a modal verb. Recall that the accusative object of a modal can be a thing: Ràks crURÌjgy. should-fact1 vitamin-acc-acc2. ‘There should be vitamins’ ⇒ crURyjgRÌks. vitamin-acc-should-acc1. ‘something that should be vitamins’.
|àv crURyjgRÌksOl.||She eats it because of what should be vitamins. (modified object)||She should eat it because of the vitamins [and not just because of the taste].|
|àv crURyjgdnilsbvÌOl.||She eats it because of what are possibly vitamins. (modified object)||Maybe she eats it because of the vitamins [and not …].|
|But don’t do this with adverbs that are translated as objects:|
|àv crURÌjgOl lÌxty.||She eats it because of the wanted vitamins. (not a modified object as the vitamins have a higher degree of reality)||Luckily she eats it because of the vitamins [and not …].|
|eat-fact1 vitamin-acc-psu2 want-acc-acc3.|
The latter type of construction readily accepts objects of the modal (‘Luckily for me, she eats it because of the vitamins’). To express objects of the modifier in a modified object (‘I recommend her to eat it because of the vitamins’), we need weak linking, which we will learn in unit 15.
We can now also modify topics with modals.
|Ràks ganìRy. ⇒ ganiRRàks.||She should stop singing.|
|should-fact1 sing-egr-acc2. ⇒ sing-egr-should-fact1.|
‘enough’ and ‘too’
‘enough’ is translated as a (typically partitive) bracket with various modal verbs. If necessary for context, rÌw. ‘amount’ can be used to specify.
|dÌxt xìlcgyn.||what is necessary of the light (brightness)||enough light|
|lýxt (veè) xìlcgyn.||what is wanted of the light||enough light (for me)|
|want-acc1 (PIn−2-nom-nom2a) light-cons-partacc2.|
|lÌxt rÌwy cOÌcyn.||the wanted amount of people [as opposed to those who are wanted of the people]||enough people|
|want-acc1 amount-acc-acc2 human-acc-partacc3.|
|lýxt veè fìltyn Ìhwe.||There is what I want of the horse’s speed.||The horse is fast enough for me.|
|want-acc1 PIn−2-nom-nom2a fast-cons-partacc2 horse-acc-nom3.|
‘too much/many’ is a comparative. (See the adjectival usage of the verbs of comparison.)
|tÌcd xilcgÌ RÌksym.||more light than the recommended one||too much light|
|more-acc1 light-cons-acc2 should-acc-qualacc2.|
|tÌcd cOycÌ lýxtym (zèe).||more people than the wanted ones||too many people (for me)|
|more-acc1 human-acc-acc2 want-acc-qualacc2 (PIn−3-nom-nom3a).|
|filttìlcd yhwè lÌxtem.||The horse is faster than a wanted one.||The horse is too fast.|
|fast-cons-more-cons1 horse-acc-nom2 want-acc-qualnom2.|