Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:52:17 -0700 From: Dan Moonhawk Alford Subject: Re: Double/Multiple Modals A great discussion! Kudos to all. I remember talking to James Sledd in the summer of 1971, where he taught summers at Montana State University, Bozeman. I was fresh out of Chomskyan UCLA training, and couldn't figure out this old coot, a dyed-in-the-wool structuralist who would have nothing to do with this new-fangled transformational stuff. And guess what?! He pointed to the existence of double modals as an Achilles heel for TG -- which I guess today would extend to GB and others as well. Little did I know then that I was a year away from flushing it all down the toilet in the face of an American Indian language, Cheyenne, in which a word can be a sentence -- LONG on morphology and short on syntax. Whatever happened to morphosyntax anyway? On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Bethany Dumas, UTK wrote: > The constructions like "might could" are called double modals or multiple > modals. There are several good article or parts of articles, all of which are > cited in my not quite published article. There can also be three of them > if one allows in quasi-modals. Ex: might should oughta. > > The best comment I have ever heard about them cam from Bill Labov in > an Institute talk one year. He discussed the form (and every grammar book I > have ever examined says categorially, "modals cannnot be combined in > English"), then exaplained their distribution in SOuthern English and > concluded, "Standard English may be considerd a subset of Southern > English. Southern English allows a wider range of variations then > Standard English." > > I am trying to get bothe my double modal paper and my a-prefixing paper > finished and to journals RIGHT NOW. > > Bethany > dumasb[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE] >