Definition of "Auxiliary" and "Modal"

Question

HelloI`ve a question about the definition of the words auxiliary and modal. I think there are some discrepancies in the definitions!?1. OED defines "auxiliary" as:"A verb used to form the tenses,moods, voices, etc. of other verbs"Ok, now i look up what the auxiliaries are:the internet and my grammarbook say, that there are three principal auxiliaries!they are: to be, to have, and to do.the others like shall, will, must, ought and so on are the modal auxiliaries!Now i look up what the definition for "modal" is:2of or pertaining to the mood of a verb." other definitions say, that the modals express necessity or possibility!Now my problem: if auxiliaries form moods, tenses and voices etc. and all auxiliaries exept for To be, to do, to have are modals, which only formmoods (by the definition), just the three (to be, to do, to have) are there to form voices and time and the rest??I dont understand that, because the modal "shall" for example foremes the future and so it should be not only a modal, because modals show moods!Is the future tense a mood?Can someone please bring light in this problem??ThanksJan

Usenet · Accepted Answer

Jan Brede wrote on 15 Jun 2004:
[nq:1]2of or pertaining to the mood of a verb." other definitions say, that the modals express necessity or possibility! Now ... future and so it should be not only a modal, because modals show moods! Is the future tense a mood?[/nq]
Technically, there is no future tense. "Shall" is the present tense, as is "will".
[nq:1]Can someone please bring light in this problem??[/nq]
Don't look for linguistic definitions in a dictionary that specializes in the history of meanings and usages of the words it includes. Go to a grammar book that explains things at your level.
Be advised that there is no universal agreement on linguistic terminology, grammatical categories, or even the functions of all the parts of speech. What you read in one source might be contradicted by another. What you hear from one person might be contradicted by another. Who is right? Unless you are a professional linguist, it doesn't matter. If your teacher is going to be asking you questions about this stuff on tests, then ask your teacher. Whatever your teachers says is right. That's a universal rule. Even when the teacher is wrong.
Best advice: Find an explanation you like because it makes sense to you (which means that you think you understand it). When you feel the urge to talk to anyone about these abstruse points, tell your listener(s) that "according to Geoffrey K. Pullum and Rodney Huddleston, authors of The Cambridge Grammar of English ,
"Auxiliary verbs
"Auxiliary verbs are distinguished syntactically from other verbs (i.e. from lexical verbs) by their behaviour in a number of constructions, including those illustrated in:
"(3) auxiliary verb lexical verb
"i a. I have not seen them. b.*I saw not them. "ii a. Will you go with them? b. *Want you to go with them?

"Thus auxiliary verbs can be negated by a following 'not' and can invert with the subject to form interrogatives, but lexical verbs cannot. To correct (ib/iib) we need to insert the dummy (semantically empty) auxiliary 'do': 'I did not see them' and 'Do you want to go with them?' It follows from our syntactic definition that 'be' is an auxiliary verb not only in examples like 'She is working' or 'He was killed' but also in its copula use, as in 'They are cheap' (cf. 'They are not cheap' and 'Are they cheap?').
"Our analysis of auxiliary verbs departs radically from traditional grammar in that we take them to be heads, not dependents. Thus in 'She is writing a novel', for example, is 'is' a head with 'writing a novel as its complement'; the constituent structure is like that of 'She began writing a novel'. Note, then, that 'is writing' here is not a constituent: 'is' is head of one clause and 'writing' is head of a non- finite subordinate clause."
If you don't like what they have to say, find something you do like.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Now my problem: if auxiliaries form moods, tenses and voices etc. and all auxiliaries exept for To be, to do, ... a modal, because modals show moods! Is the future tense a mood? Can someone please bring light in this problem??[/nq]
Cyber has given a much more thorough answer, but,
taking the simplest possible interpretation of your question, the answer is No. "Shall" and "will" express mood because not only do they serve to place an action in the future, but they can also express "determination" or strong will with regard to the action. You can read all about that by looking up "Shall/will" in a comprehensive dictionary or grammar.

You are correct, though, that they do not express only mood they also express futurity. However, some grammarians say that there is no true "future tense" in English. Some disagree.

As Cyber suggests, the dictionary is not the best place to get an understanding of concepts like mood and
tense.

Michael West
Melbourne, Australia

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Now my problem: if auxiliaries form moods, tenses and voices ... a mood? Can someone please bring light in this problem??[/nq]
[nq:1]Cyber has given a much more thorough answer, but, taking the simplest possible interpretation of your question, the answer is ... As Cyber suggests, the dictionary is not the best place to get an understanding of concepts like mood and tense.[/nq]
Thank you both!
so if i take the sentence "i will go to london" then i can interprete the function of will in two ways?
one is the determination to go to london and the other is the futurity of the sentence?
in the first sense it would be the "modal" function. what is the second?
if "will" is a modal and modals show mood but "will" also indicates the future then the definitions are wrong?

Definition of "Auxiliary" and "Modal"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬