There are 4 messages totalling 120 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Double modals in Utah (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 16:02:00 +1200 From: "George Halliday (09)483-9039" Subject: Re: Double modals in Utah Defining Modals Within the context of this thread, modals are assumed to be a small set of verbs defined by both their morphology and syntactic behaviour. Morphologically these verbs lack particples and the third person singular form in -s. Need, and dare are modals in some dialects but not in others. S. Mufwene gives two example sentences showing this variation in need - the sentence with do support not having need as a modal in this sense. Be and have too, are not modals in this sense ever. Although of course the term modal is sometimes used in a semantic sense and in this sense has some cross-linguistic validity. That usage is perfectly legitimate but not the way I understood the term to be used in this thread. Sorry to be so long-winded - a clarification was sought. George Halliday