Representing modality

[bradrn]

I’m already aware that modality can be represented by using auxiliary verbs (as in English), or using verbal affixes to represent mood (as in Nenets). However, as far as I’m aware, the former method is mainly used in SAE languages (although please correct me if I’m wrong), and extensive systems of the latter are mainly present in Samoyedic languages. (Latin etc. also has modal affixes, but only with three or four moods, so it must additionally use some other method of representing modality.) So my question is: what other systems exist for classifying modality, and which systems are particularly common?

To clarify, I’m asking about modality as in the following sentences:

• I can throw the ball.
• He must be coming.
• I should go.
• You have to see this.

[Linguoboy]

Osage also uses auxiliary verbs for both epistemic and deontic modality. I'm not sure if that's true of Siouan languages generally, but it appears to be the case for Lakota as well.

Korean uses auxiliary verbs (often with nominal elements), e.g.:

나는 공을 던질 수있어.
I TOP ball OBJ throw-PRSP ability exist-INF
I can throw the ball.

그는 오나 봐.
MED TOP come-SEQ see-INF
He must be coming.

나는 가지 않으면 안돼.
I TOP go-DUB NEG-COND NEG-become-INF
I should go. [Lit. "If I do not go, it will not become"]

너는 이것을 봐야 해.
you TOP MED.thing-OBJ see-INF-? do-INF [I'm not sure of the best gloss for the element -야 here]
You have to see this.

[Kuchigakatai]

(Latin etc. also has modal affixes, but only with three or four moods, so it must additionally use some other method of representing modality.)

Latin has only one of such affixes (the gerundive). It mostly uses a combination of regular English-style auxiliary verbs, impersonal verbs (so always found in the 3SG form and taking a clause as a complement), and impersonal constructions (cf. English "it is necessary for you to...").

pīlam possum iacĕre
ball-ACC can-1SG throw-INF
'I can throw the ball' (regular auxiliary verb)

mē exīre oportet
1SG-ACC go.out-INF should-3SG
'I should go (out)/leave.' (impersonal verb)

necesse est tē hoc vidēre
necessary be-3SG 2SG-ACC this-ACC see-INF
'You have to see this.' (Literally "it is necessary for you to see this".) (impersonal construction)

The gerundive is basically a participle that behaves purely as an adjective (if distinguished from the morphologically identical "gerund") and expresses somewhat strong moral necessity (unless used in a few particular constructions).

hoc tibi est videndum
this-NOM 2SG-DAT be-3SG see-GERUNDIVE-NEUT.NOM
'You have to see this.' (Literally "this is must-be-seen-ful to you".)

So my question is: what other systems exist for classifying modality, and which systems are particularly common?

Languages usually use a variety of strategies, combining two or more of:
- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)
- a copula with an adjectives and a subclause complement ("I am able to do...")
- impersonal verbs (Latin oportet '(impersonal "should")', Arabic وجب wajaba 'it is necessary for sb to...')
- impersonal constructions with an existential and a noun ("there's a chance that he did...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and an adjective ("it is necessary for you to do...", "it is necessary that you do...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (Arabic min al-waajib an, literally "it's from obligation that [you do...]")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a noun ("it is our obligation to ensure this")
- clauses described with a noun ("ensuring this is our obligation", "ensuring this is a must"; Egyptian Arabic zamaan 'must (epistemic certainty)' literally "time", e.g. zaman-ha tirga3 'she must be coming back' lit. "her time is she's coming back", kaana zamaan-ak gu3t 'you must have been hungry' lit. "your time was you got hungry")
- clauses described with an adjective ("ensuring this is necessary")
- clauses described with a prepositional phrase ("ensuring this is on us")
- adverbs ("maybe she did...", "she didn't necessarily do...")
- prepositional phrases ("for sure, for certain")
- verbal particles (Mandarin 得了 -deliǎo 'can')
- sentential particles (Cantonese 啩 gwaa3 'maybe (epistemic uncertainty)')

These are the ones I just came up with, so I don't claim this is an exhaustive list either.

[Vardelm]

Languages usually use a variety of strategies, combining two or more of:
- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)
- a copula with an adjectives and a subclause complement ("I am able to do...")
- impersonal verbs (Latin oportet '(impersonal "should")', Arabic وجب wajaba 'it is necessary for sb to...')
- impersonal constructions with an existential and a noun ("there's a chance that he did...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and an adjective ("it is necessary for you to do...", "it is necessary that you do...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (Arabic min al-waajib an, literally "it's from obligation that [you do...]")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a noun ("it is our obligation to ensure this")
- clauses described with a noun ("ensuring this is our obligation", "ensuring this is a must"; Egyptian Arabic zamaan 'must (epistemic certainty)' literally "time", e.g. zaman-ha tirga3 'she must be coming back' lit. "her time is she's coming back", kaana zamaan-ak gu3t 'you must have been hungry' lit. "your time was you got hungry")
- clauses described with an adjective ("ensuring this is necessary")
- clauses described with a prepositional phrase ("ensuring this is on us")
- adverbs ("maybe she did...", "she didn't necessarily do...")
- prepositional phrases ("for sure, for certain")
- verbal particles (Mandarin 得了 -deliǎo 'can')
- sentential particles (Cantonese 啩 gwaa3 'maybe (epistemic uncertainty)')

These are the ones I just came up with, so I don't claim this is an exhaustive list either.

Good list!

More lists like this (general, quick surveys of what existing languages do) would be useful for a wide variety of items, especially when syntax is the primary means of expressing something, as opposed to morphology.

[Linguoboy]

Languages usually use a variety of strategies, combining two or more of:
- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs ("we are required to do...")
- impersonal verbs (Latin oportet '(impersonal "should")', Arabic يجب yajibu 'it is necessary for sb to...')
- impersonal constructions with an existential and a noun ("there's a chance that he did...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and an adjective ("it is necessary for you to do...", "it is necessary that you do...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (Arabic min al-laazim an, literally "it's from obligation that [you do...]")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a noun ("it is our obligation to ensure this")
- clauses described with a noun ("ensuring this is our obligation", "ensuring this is a must"; Egyptian Arabic zamaan 'must (epistemic certainty)' literally "time", e.g. zaman-ha tirga3 'she must be coming back' lit. "her time is she's coming back", kaana zamaan-ak gu3t 'you must have been hungry' lit. "your time was you got hungry")
- clauses described with an adjective ("ensuring this is necessary")
- clauses described with a prepositional phrase ("ensuring this is on us")
- adverbs ("maybe she did...", "she didn't necessarily do...")
- verbal particles (Mandarin 得了 -deliǎo 'can')
- sentential particles (Cantonese 啩 gwaa3 'maybe (epistemic uncertainty)')

You reminded me that Welsh, despite following the general SAE tendency to use modal verbs, does have at least one common impersonal form: BE rhaid i SUBJ. E.g.:

Mae rhaid i ti weld hynny.
be.3S.PRS.DECL need to 2S see this.
"You have to see this."

This can also be used epistemically:

Mae rhaid iddo fod yn mynd.
be.3S.PRS.DECL to.3Sm be LINK come
"He must be coming."

Welsh normally doesn't allow the deletion of existential verbs, but there's an exception for this construction in the declarative present:

Rhaid i ti weld hynny.
Rhaid iddo fod yn mynd.

Irish is even more fond of the copula than Welsh and all of the original examples can be expressed copulatively:

Is féidir liom an liathróid a chaitheamh.
COP.PRS possible with-1S the ball to throw-VN

Ní foláir nó go bhfuil sé ag teacht.
COP.PRS.NEG excess or that be.3S.PRS he at come-VN

Ba chóir dom dul.
COP.COND proper to.1S go-VN

Ní foláir duit seo dh'feiscint.
COP.PRS.NEG excess to.2S this to see-VN

Non-copular equvialents exist and exhibit considerable dialectal variance. E.g., for the first example:

(Munster) Féadaim an liathróid a chaitheamh. [auxiliary verb]
(Munster) Táim ábalta an liathróid a chaitheamh. [predicate adjective]
(Connaught) Tá mé in ann an liathróid a chaitheamh. [prepositional phrase]
(Ulster) Tig liom an liathróid a chaitheamh. [impersonal verb + prepositional subject, i.e. "It comes with me to throw the ball"]

[Salmoneus]

A good list!

Since you've got English examples for most of the options, I thought I'd add another:

- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)

English "we need to..."

These are the ones I just came up with, so I don't claim this is an exhaustive list either.

Another one I'd add in English is copula+preposition. So in addition to your "ensuring this is on us", we have "it's on me to..." and "it's up to me to...". Apparently these may be calques from Celtic, where this is much more widespread.

Irish:
Tá orm bainne a ól - I must drink milk. (lit. "(it) is on me milk to drink").
Tá uaim fuisce a ól - I want to drink whiskey (lit. "(it) is from me whiskey to drink")
Also preposition modifying a substantive:
Is ceart do Shéan a theacht - Sean should come (lit. "(it) is right to Sean to come")*
And with a substantive within the prepositional phrase, and a dummy pronoun:
Tá sé ar mo chumas é a dheanamh - I can do it (lit. "is it on my ability it to do"). No, I've no idea why the (first) pronoun is needed here when it isn't in the others, Irish is just baffling.


*put me out of my misery, gaeilgeorí - is it "is" instead of "tá" because "ceart" here is secretly a noun, not an adjective? So it would more literally be "it is justice", rather than "it is right"?

[Kuchigakatai]

In terms of attestation, Standard Arabic uses:
- personal active verbs with a subclause (استطاع istaTaa3a 'can')
- impersonal active verbs with a subclause (وجب wajaba 'have to', أمكن amkana 'can')
- impersonal passive verbs with a subclause (سُمح sumiHa 'be allowed [that...]', ألزم ulzima 'be obligatory [that...]')
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (من المرجح أن min al-murajjaH an 'might (epistemic uncertainty)', من المفروض أن min al-mafruuD an 'should')
- an impersonal construction with an existential, a noun and a subclause (لا بد laa budda [an...] 'it is necessary [to...]', at least etymologically: budd doesn't mean anything these days but "laa budda" looks like a negated existential even if it's grammaticalized)
- clauses described with a noun (المطلوب منك مغادرة al-maTluub min-ka mughaadara 'you have to leave' lit. "the asked-thing from you is to leave")
- adverbs (ربما rubbamaa 'maybe')
- prepositional phrases (بدون شك bi-duuni shakk 'without any doubt')
- a sentential particle (لعل إن la3alla inna 'maybe', always sentence-initial, cf. French peut-être que...)

Meanwhile, Mandarin uses:
- regular auxiliary verbs (必須 bìxū 'have to', 一定 yídìng 'for sure')
- verbal particles combined with a resultative verbal complement (得了 -deliǎo 'can (finish) [doing]' where 了 liǎo is 'finish', 不了 -buliǎo 'cannot (finish)'; 聽懂 tīngdǒng 'understand (something spoken)' lit. "listen-understand", 聽得懂 tīng-de-dǒng 'can understand' lit. "listen-get-understand", 聽不懂 tīng-bu-dǒng 'cannot understand' lit. "listen-not-understand")
- impersonal constructions with an existential, a noun and a subclause (沒有必要[做...] méiyǒu bìyào [zuò...] 'there's no necessity to...')
- clauses described with a clause, similar to clause description with an adjective in other languages (是必要的 shì bìyào de 'be necessary', 是不得已 shì bùdéyǐ 'have no choice but to do it' lit. "be not-get-already")
- adverbs (也許 yěxǔ 'maybe', 想必是 xiǎngbìshi 'certainly')

[Linguoboy]

Irish:
Tá orm bainne a ól - I must drink milk. (lit. "(it) is on me milk to drink").
Tá uaim fuisce a ól - I want to drink whiskey (lit. "(it) is from me whiskey to drink")
Also preposition modifying a substantive:
Is ceart do Shéan a theacht - Sean should come (lit. "(it) is right to Sean to come")*
And with a substantive within the prepositional phrase, and a dummy pronoun:
Tá sé ar mo chumas é a dheanamh - I can do it (lit. "is it on my ability it to do"). No, I've no idea why the (first) pronoun is needed here when it isn't in the others, Irish is just baffling.

It could be a relic of where these examples were culled from. There's dialectal variation in how acceptable it is to drop sé in impersonal expressions, with Munster speakers being by far the most likely to do this. (See Ó Siadhail, Modern Irish, p. 308.) As you know, Munster is my chosen variety and FWIW I've never come across bheith ar chumas used by Munster speakers for "can". (I googled it and it seems to be quite literary; most Ghits were for Bible passages. So it could be as much a register difference as anything.)

*put me out of my misery, gaeilgeorí - is it "is" instead of "tá" because "ceart" here is secretly a noun, not an adjective? So it would more literally be "it is justice", rather than "it is right"?

Is can be used with both adjectives and nouns. (Ó Dónaill gives the example Is ceart an Béarla atá aige "He speaks really good English".) FWIW, Ó Dónaill lists the modal usage under the adjectival entry. The nominal usage he gives demands a different construction, i.e. Is é do cheart labhairt leis "You should speak to him."

[Xwtek]

- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)

Just asking, what is the difference between them.

[Kuchigakatai]

- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)

Just asking, what is the difference between them.

There are languages where there is a distinction between a verb complex with an auxiliary finite verb and a verb in some particular form (an infinitive, gerund or such) on the one hand, and on the other hand a main finite verb with a subclause (containing a full finite verb and maybe a subordinator, often with a different subject inside). Compare "She can do it" vs. "She said that they finished early". In some languages like Arabic, the equivalent of "she can do it" looks a lot like the verb + subclause construction.

tastaTii3u an taf3ala-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3SG.FEM.SUBJ-it
'she can do it' (lit. "she can that she do it")

turiidu an taf3ala-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3SG.FEM.SUBJ-it
'she wants to do it' (lit. "she wants that she do it")

turiidu an yaf3aluu-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3PL.MASC.SUBJ-it
'she wants them to do it' (lit. "she wants that they do it")



English is an interesting example as the most basic modals (may, might, must, can, could, should, have to /hæftə/) are used in very minimal constructions with the bare infinitive, in a manner similar to negation (don't do, didn't do), the future (will do, won't do, shall do, gonna do, would do), interrogatives (did he do so? when did he do so?) and emphasis (did do), and so the category of "auxiliary" verbs comes to be. But less basic verb sequences, which often allow changing the subject of the second verb, are built connecting the verbs via the preposition "to", which is common enough to make the notion of the "to-infinitive" useful. This creates a range of verbs depending on how tightly they associate it with the bare infinitive or the to-infinitive.

1.
we will do it, we must do it, we dare do it

2.
we need to do it (as mentioned by Salmoneus), we are required to do it, we intend to do it, we try to do it
(*we need we do it, *we try we do it)

3.
we got used to do it
~ we got used to us doing it

4.
we promise to do it ~ we promise we'll do it
we decided to do it ~ we decided we'd do it
we threaten to do it ~ we threaten we'll do it

5.
(*we say to do it)
we say we do it

The topic of verb sequences in English is more complicated though, since then there's also the likes of "begin doing" and "keep on doing", and then these need to be compared to the ones that are so syntactically and semantically indirect they require a reflexive pronoun when the verbs share the same subject ("I let myself do it", "I make myself do it", "I help myself (to) do it", "I dare myself do it"; and in a more distant category, "I tell myself to do it", "I get myself to do it"...).

In other words, when I talk about "regular auxiliary verbs" I have something like category 1 in mind (or Latin possum facere can-1SG do-INF, or the like), while "active/passive verbs with a subclause" is more like categories 4 or 5.



While we're at it, curiously, in some languages, for example Mandarin, a non-basic verb sequence can perfectly have different subjects for each verb without stating the change of subject at all.

他應該這麼做 tā yīnggāi zhème zuò
3SG should thus do
'He should do so.'

他說會這麼做 tā shuō huì zhème zuò
3SG say will thus do
'He says he'll do so.' ~ 'He says we'll do so.' ~ 'He says somebody will do so.'

[Salmoneus]

Irish:
Tá orm bainne a ól - I must drink milk. (lit. "(it) is on me milk to drink").
Tá uaim fuisce a ól - I want to drink whiskey (lit. "(it) is from me whiskey to drink")
Also preposition modifying a substantive:
Is ceart do Shéan a theacht - Sean should come (lit. "(it) is right to Sean to come")*
And with a substantive within the prepositional phrase, and a dummy pronoun:
Tá sé ar mo chumas é a dheanamh - I can do it (lit. "is it on my ability it to do"). No, I've no idea why the (first) pronoun is needed here when it isn't in the others, Irish is just baffling.

It could be a relic of where these examples were culled from. There's dialectal variation in how acceptable it is to drop sé in impersonal expressions, with Munster speakers being by far the most likely to do this. (See Ó Siadhail, Modern Irish, p. 308.)

They're all from the same online grammar page, so dialect probably isn't the answer. [It's reassuring to hear that this isn't just another inbuilt random thing, though]
However...

As you know, Munster is my chosen variety and FWIW I've never come across bheith ar chumas used by Munster speakers for "can". (I googled it and it seems to be quite literary; most Ghits were for Bible passages. So it could be as much a register difference as anything.)

That could be. It could be that the guy instinctively included the pronoun because he was giving an example of a more formal register. [he doesn't present this as the default, I just went with it because it demonstrated a different structure]

*put me out of my misery, gaeilgeorí - is it "is" instead of "tá" because "ceart" here is secretly a noun, not an adjective? So it would more literally be "it is justice", rather than "it is right"?

Is can be used with both adjectives and nouns. (Ó Dónaill gives the example Is ceart an Béarla atá aige "He speaks really good English".) FWIW, Ó Dónaill lists the modal usage under the adjectival entry. The nominal usage he gives demands a different construction, i.e. Is é do cheart labhairt leis "You should speak to him."

... so why IS it 'is' and not 'tá', then? I was happy with the "one's for nominal equation, one's for non-nominal predication" idea that intros cite, that seemed to make sense...
...that's probably where I should have realised it couldn't be true.

But thanks for being helpful. My brain just isn't good enough.

[bradrn]

Wow, thanks for all the replies everyone! I’ve learnt a lot — in particular, that auxiliary verbs are widespread outside SAE as well, and that impersonal constructions are widely used for modality too.

I do still have a few questions/comments though:

So my question is: what other systems exist for classifying modality, and which systems are particularly common?

Languages usually use a variety of strategies, combining two or more of:
- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)
- a copula with an adjectives and a subclause complement ("I am able to do...")
- impersonal verbs (Latin oportet '(impersonal "should")', Arabic وجب wajaba 'it is necessary for sb to...')
- impersonal constructions with an existential and a noun ("there's a chance that he did...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and an adjective ("it is necessary for you to do...", "it is necessary that you do...")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (Arabic min al-waajib an, literally "it's from obligation that [you do...]")
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a noun ("it is our obligation to ensure this")
- clauses described with a noun ("ensuring this is our obligation", "ensuring this is a must"; Egyptian Arabic zamaan 'must (epistemic certainty)' literally "time", e.g. zaman-ha tirga3 'she must be coming back' lit. "her time is she's coming back", kaana zamaan-ak gu3t 'you must have been hungry' lit. "your time was you got hungry")
- clauses described with an adjective ("ensuring this is necessary")
- clauses described with a prepositional phrase ("ensuring this is on us")
- adverbs ("maybe she did...", "she didn't necessarily do...")
- prepositional phrases ("for sure, for certain")
- verbal particles (Mandarin 得了 -deliǎo 'can')
- sentential particles (Cantonese 啩 gwaa3 'maybe (epistemic uncertainty)')

That will be really helpful for me! I’ll have to look through this really carefully to learn more about these methods…

More lists like this (general, quick surveys of what existing languages do) would be useful for a wide variety of items, especially when syntax is the primary means of expressing something, as opposed to morphology.

I completely agree with this — lists like these are really helpful in learning about syntax. (In fact, I mainly asked this question because I couldn’t find any of these lists online.) There are places where you can find lists like these though; in particular, the WALS chapters have lots of these lists, with examples of each item. Wikipedia can have these as well; I highly recommend its page on relative clauses in particular.

You reminded me that Welsh, despite following the general SAE tendency to use modal verbs, does have at least one common impersonal form: BE rhaid i SUBJ. E.g.:

Mae rhaid i ti weld hynny.
be.3S.PRS.DECL need to 2S see this.
"You have to see this."

I’m not quite sure if I understand this right. To check, could an approximate English calque be ‘It is needful for you to see this’?

Mae rhaid iddo fod yn mynd.
be.3S.PRS.DECL to.3Sm be LINK come
"He must be coming."

Is this gloss correct? The Welsh sentence has six words, but the gloss only has five elements.

Is féidir liom an liathróid a chaitheamh.
COP.PRS possible with-1S the ball to throw-VN

Ní foláir nó go bhfuil sé ag teacht.
COP.PRS.NEG excess or that be.3S.PRS he at come-VN

Ba chóir dom dul.
COP.COND proper to.1S go-VN

Ní foláir duit seo dh'feiscint.
COP.PRS.NEG excess to.2S this to see-VN

How do the second and fourth sentences work here? In particular, what does does foláir ‘excess’ have to do with the English translation of ‘must’ or ‘have to’? (Presumably this is some sort of gramaticallization, but I can’t see how ‘excess’ turns into ‘must’.) And in the second sentence, what is the purpose of nó ‘or’?

- impersonal active verbs with a subclause (وجب wajaba 'have to', أمكن amkana 'can')
- impersonal passive verbs with a subclause (سُمح sumiHa 'be allowed [that...]', ألزم ulzima 'be obligatory [that...]')
- impersonal constructions with a copula and a prepositional phrase (من المرجح أن min al-murajjaH an 'might (epistemic uncertainty)', من المفروض أن min al-mafruuD an 'should')
- an impersonal construction with an existential, a noun and a subclause (لا بد laa budda [an...] 'it is necessary [to...]', at least etymologically: budd doesn't mean anything these days but "laa budda" looks like a negated existential even if it's grammaticalized)
- verbal particles combined with a resultative verbal complement (得了 -deliǎo 'can (finish) [doing]' where 了 liǎo is 'finish', 不了 -buliǎo 'cannot (finish)'; 聽懂 tīngdǒng 'understand (something spoken)' lit. "listen-understand", 聽得懂 tīng-de-dǒng 'can understand' lit. "listen-get-understand",
- regular auxiliary verbs (必須 bìxū 'have to', 一定 yídìng 'for sure')

Could you give some examples of sentences using these?

- clauses described with a noun (المطلوب منك مغادرة al-maTluub min-ka mughaadara 'you have to leave' lit. "the asked-thing from you is to leave")
- clauses described with a clause, similar to clause description with an adjective in other languages (是必要的 shì bìyào de 'be necessary', 是不得已 shì bùdéyǐ 'have no choice but to do it' lit. "be not-get-already")

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. In particular, what does it mean to ‘describe a clause’? Again, example sentences would also help.

English is an interesting example as the most basic modals (may, might, must, can, could, should, have to /hæftə/) are used in very minimal constructions with the bare infinitive, in a manner similar to negation (don't do, didn't do), the future (will do, won't do, shall do, gonna do, would do), interrogatives (did he do so? when did he do so?) and emphasis (did do), and so the category of "auxiliary" verbs comes to be. But less basic verb sequences, which often allow changing the subject of the second verb, are built connecting the verbs via the preposition "to", which is common enough to make the notion of the "to-infinitive" useful. This creates a range of verbs depending on how tightly they associate it with the bare infinitive or the to-infinitive.

1.
we will do it, we must do it, we dare do it

2.
we need to do it (as mentioned by Salmoneus), we are required to do it, we intend to do it, we try to do it
(*we need we do it, *we try we do it)

3.
we got used to do it
~ we got used to us doing it

4.
we promise to do it ~ we promise we'll do it
we decided to do it ~ we decided we'd do it
we threaten to do it ~ we threaten we'll do it

5.
(*we say to do it)
we say we do it

That’s a really interesting way of looking at this! A corollary I noticed is that as you go down the sequence here, it becomes less permissible to remove ‘to’. ‘Will do it’ is perfectly grammatical, ‘need do it’ is highly formal, ‘got used doing it’ is just about grammatical (albeit highly colloquial) for me, and ‘promise do it’ and ‘say do it’ are ungrammatical.

[Vijay]

... so why IS it 'is' and not 'tá', then? I was happy with the "one's for nominal equation, one's for non-nominal predication" idea that intros cite, that seemed to make sense...
...that's probably where I should have realised it couldn't be true.

Does this help? https://corkirish.wordpress.com/2011/09 ... ifference/

[Kuchigakatai]

Could you give some examples of sentences using these?

Arabic impersonal active verb with a subclause.

يجب أن تراني
yajibu an taraa-nii
have.to.3SG.MASC SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have to see me.' (Literally, "it.has.to that you.see-me".)

Arabic impersonal passive verb with a subclause.

يلزم أن تراني
yulzamu an taraa-nii
compel.3SG.MASC.PASS SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have the obligation to see me.' (Literally, "it.is.compelled that you.see-me".)

Arabic impersonal construction with a copula and a prepositional phrase.

كان من المفروض أن تراني
kaana min al-mafruuD an taraa-nii
be.3SG.MASC.PAST from the-ordered.GEN SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You should have seen me.' (Literally, "it.was from the-ordered that you.see-me".)

Arabic impersonal construction with an existential, a noun and a subclause.

لا بد أن تراني
laa budda an taraa-nii
not.PRES escape(noun).ACC.CONSTRUCT SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have no choice but to see me.' (Literally, "[there is] no escape that you.see-me".)

Mandarin verbal particle combined with a resultative verbal complement.

你聽懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Do you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽得懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-de-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-get-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Can you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-can-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽不懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-bu-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-not-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'So you can't understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-not-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

Mandarin regular auxiliary verbs.

你必須來看我。 nǐ bìxū lái kàn wǒ
2SG have.to come see 1SG
'You have to (come and) see me.'

你一定來看了我。 nǐ yídìng lái kàn-le wǒ
2SG for.sure come see-PRF 1SG
'You must have (come and) seen me.' (Literally, "you certainly came-saw me".)

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. In particular, what does it mean to ‘describe a clause’? Again, example sentences would also help.

I am ignorant of a good term to refer to predicates that consist of a copula and its complement, or the closest equivalent of that when there's no copula (often involving a "zero copula", or a "stative verb", or a pronoun or adverb with copula-like properties, or a topicalization particle...). What I'm talking about is having a subclause on one hand as a subject-like thing, and on the other hand a copula-and-complement-thing or a close equivalent of that saying something about the former. So things that are literally "that you may leave immediately is a must" or "what is necessary is you leaving immediately".

Arabic clause described with a predicate with a noun.

المطلوب منك مغادرة فورًا
al-maTluubu min-ka mughaadara(tun) fawran
the-asked.thing.NOM from-2SG leave.INF.NOM.INDEF immediately
'You are being asked to leave immediately.' (Literally, "the-asked-thing from-you [is] to leave immediately".)

Mandarin clause described by a predicate.

你立刻走開很必要。 nǐ lìkè zǒukāi hěn bìyào
2SG immediately leave very be.crucial
'It is crucial that you leave immediately.' (Literally, "you immediately leave [is] crucial." 很 hěn 'very' here is a grammaticalized copula-like adverb.)

你立刻走開是必要的。 nǐ lìkè zǒukāi shì bìyào de
2SG immediately leave be be.crucial REL
'(id.)' (Literally, "you immediately leave is what is crucial".)

[Salmoneus]

... so why IS it 'is' and not 'tá', then? I was happy with the "one's for nominal equation, one's for non-nominal predication" idea that intros cite, that seemed to make sense...
...that's probably where I should have realised it couldn't be true.

Does this help? https://corkirish.wordpress.com/2011/09 ... ifference/

Eventually - not so easy with a text so old that it thinks "Thade" is a valid English name.

It seems to be that it's "is" because "tá" can only be used with an actual concrete noun, and any sort of abstract or less-than-nominal expression requires "is". Except that, leaving aside that it's not obvious why this should be, it doesn't explain why "bainne a ól" is considered "a substantive" while "do Shéan a theacht" is considered only a "mode". Maybe it's because the actual "substantive" is just "bainne"? I don't know.

[Xwtek]

- auxiliary verbs ("we should do...")
- passive verbs with a subclause ("we are required to do...")
- active verbs with a subclause (Arabic istaTa3a 'can' which is followed by a subordinator and a subclause with a subjunctive verb)

Just asking, what is the difference between them.

There are languages where there is a distinction between a verb complex with an auxiliary finite verb and a verb in some particular form (an infinitive, gerund or such) on the one hand, and on the other hand a main finite verb with a subclause (containing a full finite verb and maybe a subordinator, often with a different subject inside). Compare "She can do it" vs. "She said that they finished early". In some languages like Arabic, the equivalent of "she can do it" looks a lot like the verb + subclause construction.

tastaTii3u an taf3ala-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3SG.FEM.SUBJ-it
'she can do it' (lit. "she can that she do it")

turiidu an taf3ala-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3SG.FEM.SUBJ-it
'she wants to do it' (lit. "she wants that she do it")

turiidu an yaf3aluu-hu
can.3SG.FEM SUB do.3PL.MASC.SUBJ-it
'she wants them to do it' (lit. "she wants that they do it")



English is an interesting example as the most basic modals (may, might, must, can, could, should, have to /hæftə/) are used in very minimal constructions with the bare infinitive, in a manner similar to negation (don't do, didn't do), the future (will do, won't do, shall do, gonna do, would do), interrogatives (did he do so? when did he do so?) and emphasis (did do), and so the category of "auxiliary" verbs comes to be. But less basic verb sequences, which often allow changing the subject of the second verb, are built connecting the verbs via the preposition "to", which is common enough to make the notion of the "to-infinitive" useful. This creates a range of verbs depending on how tightly they associate it with the bare infinitive or the to-infinitive.

1.
we will do it, we must do it, we dare do it

2.
we need to do it (as mentioned by Salmoneus), we are required to do it, we intend to do it, we try to do it
(*we need we do it, *we try we do it)

3.
we got used to do it
~ we got used to us doing it

4.
we promise to do it ~ we promise we'll do it
we decided to do it ~ we decided we'd do it
we threaten to do it ~ we threaten we'll do it

5.
(*we say to do it)
we say we do it

The topic of verb sequences in English is more complicated though, since then there's also the likes of "begin doing" and "keep on doing", and then these need to be compared to the ones that are so syntactically and semantically indirect they require a reflexive pronoun when the verbs share the same subject ("I let myself do it", "I make myself do it", "I help myself (to) do it", "I dare myself do it"; and in a more distant category, "I tell myself to do it", "I get myself to do it"...).

In other words, when I talk about "regular auxiliary verbs" I have something like category 1 in mind (or Latin possum facere can-1SG do-INF, or the like), while "active/passive verbs with a subclause" is more like categories 4 or 5.



While we're at it, curiously, in some languages, for example Mandarin, a non-basic verb sequence can perfectly have different subjects for each verb without stating the change of subject at all.

他應該這麼做 tā yīnggāi zhème zuò
3SG should thus do
'He should do so.'

他說會這麼做 tā shuō huì zhème zuò
3SG say will thus do
'He says he'll do so.' ~ 'He says we'll do so.' ~ 'He says somebody will do so.'

Thanks. So basically auxiliary verb forms a verb complex.

[Linguoboy]

You reminded me that Welsh, despite following the general SAE tendency to use modal verbs, does have at least one common impersonal form: BE rhaid i SUBJ. E.g.:

Mae rhaid i ti weld hynny.
be.3S.PRS.DECL need to 2S see this.
"You have to see this."

I’m not quite sure if I understand this right. To check, could an approximate English calque be ‘It is needful for you to see this’?

"[There] is need to you [to] see this."

Mae rhaid iddo fod yn mynd.
be.3S.PRS.DECL to.3Sm be LINK come
"He must be coming."

Is this gloss correct? The Welsh sentence has six words, but the gloss only has five elements.

Obviously rhaid should be glossed "need" here as well.

Ní foláir nó go bhfuil sé ag teacht.
COP.PRS.NEG excess or that be.3S.PRS he at come-VN

Ní foláir duit seo dh'feiscint.
COP.PRS.NEG excess to.2S this to see-VN

How do the second and fourth sentences work here? In particular, what does does foláir ‘excess’ have to do with the English translation of ‘must’ or ‘have to’? (Presumably this is some sort of gramaticallization, but I can’t see how ‘excess’ turns into ‘must’.)

Remember, the matrix sentence is negative: "[Is] is not too much to you to see this" = "You have to see this." I would consider that a form of rhetorical litotes. (Viz. English "Is it too much to ask that you call me once in a while?" = "I request/demand that you call me occasionally".)

And in the second sentence, what is the purpose of nó ‘or’?

Grammarians consider it a pleonastic usage. I don't know how it originated, just that certain idioms demand it.

[Linguoboy]

It could be a relic of where these examples were culled from. There's dialectal variation in how acceptable it is to drop sé in impersonal expressions, with Munster speakers being by far the most likely to do this. (See Ó Siadhail, Modern Irish, p. 308.)

They're all from the same online grammar page, so dialect probably isn't the answer. [It's reassuring to hear that this isn't just another inbuilt random thing, though]

Gramadach na Gaeilge, nach ea? He does pull his examples from various dialects, often without labeling them as such. (Ó Siadhail is much more conscientious about this.)

However...

As you know, Munster is my chosen variety and FWIW I've never come across bheith ar chumas used by Munster speakers for "can". (I googled it and it seems to be quite literary; most Ghits were for Bible passages. So it could be as much a register difference as anything.)

That could be. It could be that the guy instinctively included the pronoun because he was giving an example of a more formal register. [he doesn't present this as the default, I just went with it because it demonstrated a different structure]

Ó Siadhail presents a fuller discussion of the use of proleptic pronouns on pages 271-5. In particular, he points out that it's an innovative usage; insofar as it eschews them, colloquial Munster actually represents the earlier state of affairs. So Tá orm bainne a ól might be better glossed as "Milk to drink is on me", with the exceptional position of orm (usually a final element) explained by the rightward movement of a heavy NP subject[*]. But having the subject immediately follow the verb is such a powerful default in Modern Irish that speakers perceive a gap here and plug it with sé.

Why is it perceived as more necessary to do this in a sentence like Tá sé ar mo chumas é a dheanamh than a sentence like Tá orm bainne a ól ? I would venture that the complexity of the intervening adjunct has something to do with it. That is, ar mo chumas is three words whereas orm (bzw. uaim) is one. The presence of a pronominal object in the nominal clause could also be a factor.

It seems to be that it's "is" because "tá" can only be used with an actual concrete noun, and any sort of abstract or less-than-nominal expression requires "is". Except that, leaving aside that it's not obvious why this should be, it doesn't explain why "bainne a ól" is considered "a substantive" while "do Shéan a theacht" is considered only a "mode". Maybe it's because the actual "substantive" is just "bainne"? I don't know.

The author seems to be using "mode" to cover all non-nominal predicates and adjuncts, including adjectives and prepositional phrases. Well, what is do Shéan a theacht if not a prepositional phrase? The answer is two of them, actually, a being simply a variant form of do. Bainne a ól, by contrast, is a substantive (bainne) followed by a prepositional phrase (a ól), i.e. "milk to drink". The two complexes don't have the same internal syntax, so it shouldn't be surprising that the respective matrix sentences handle each of them differently.

[*] There's also a mismatch here between syntactic function and semantic role comparable to what you find in, e.g. Spanish me gusta la leche "I like milk", which is only compounded by the fact that the logical consequence of Tá orm bainne a ól is Tá mé ag ól bainne (with "I" now both the agent and the grammatical subject and "milk" the patient and grammatical object).

[bradrn]

Could you give some examples of sentences using these?

Arabic impersonal active verb with a subclause.

يجب أن تراني
yajibu an taraa-nii
have.to.3SG.MASC SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have to see me.' (Literally, "it.has.to that you.see-me".)

Arabic impersonal passive verb with a subclause.

يلزم أن تراني
yulzamu an taraa-nii
compel.3SG.MASC.PASS SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have the obligation to see me.' (Literally, "it.is.compelled that you.see-me".)

How do you know whether to use the active or passive? Is it determined by the modal verb used (e.g. wajaba is always active, ʾalzama is always passive), or are there other conditions?

Arabic impersonal construction with a copula and a prepositional phrase.

كان من المفروض أن تراني
kaana min al-mafruuD an taraa-nii
be.3SG.MASC.PAST from the-ordered.GEN SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You should have seen me.' (Literally, "it.was from the-ordered that you.see-me".)

Arabic impersonal construction with an existential, a noun and a subclause.

لا بد أن تراني
laa budda an taraa-nii
not.PRES escape(noun).ACC.CONSTRUCT SUB see.2SG.MASC.SUBJ-1SG
'You have no choice but to see me.' (Literally, "[there is] no escape that you.see-me".)

Would this construction be similar to the Welsh example Linguoboy gave?

Mandarin verbal particle combined with a resultative verbal complement.

你聽懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Do you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽得懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-de-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-get-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Can you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-can-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽不懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-bu-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-not-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'So you can't understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-not-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but where exactly is the resultative here?

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. In particular, what does it mean to ‘describe a clause’? Again, example sentences would also help.

I am ignorant of a good term to refer to predicates that consist of a copula and its complement, or the closest equivalent of that when there's no copula (often involving a "zero copula", or a "stative verb", or a pronoun or adverb with copula-like properties, or a topicalization particle...). What I'm talking about is having a subclause on one hand as a subject-like thing, and on the other hand a copula-and-complement-thing or a close equivalent of that saying something about the former. So things that are literally "that you may leave immediately is a must" or "what is necessary is you leaving immediately".

Arabic clause described with a predicate with a noun.

المطلوب منك مغادرة فورًا
al-maTluubu min-ka mughaadara(tun) fawran
the-asked.thing.NOM from-2SG leave.INF.NOM.INDEF immediately
'You are being asked to leave immediately.' (Literally, "the-asked-thing from-you [is] to leave immediately".)

Mandarin clause described by a predicate.

你立刻走開很必要。 nǐ lìkè zǒukāi hěn bìyào
2SG immediately leave very be.crucial
'It is crucial that you leave immediately.' (Literally, "you immediately leave [is] crucial." 很 hěn 'very' here is a grammaticalized copula-like adverb.)

你立刻走開是必要的。 nǐ lìkè zǒukāi shì bìyào de
2SG immediately leave be be.crucial REL
'(id.)' (Literally, "you immediately leave is what is crucial".)

To me, these look like headless relative clauses (which is then nominalised in the Arabic example).

[Vijay]

Mandarin verbal particle combined with a resultative verbal complement.

你聽懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Do you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽得懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-de-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-get-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'Can you understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-can-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

你聽不懂我意思嗎？ nǐ tīng-bu-dǒng wǒ yìsi ma?
2SG listen-not-understand 1SG meaning Q?
'So you can't understand what I mean?' (Literally, "you listen-not-understand my meaning [yes/no-question]?".)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but where exactly is the resultative here?

From what I understand, it would be 懂 dǒng 'understand' (in these examples, understand as a result of listening).