View/Open - University of Zululand Institutional Repository

DISTAl FORMS OF THE ROOT MODAlS
Could expresses past or conditional ability e.g.
I could easily run 10 kilometres last year.
Might expresses a past or conditional absence ofa barrier:
I might see him.
Ought to and must can either be used for the present or past because they have
no morphologically distinct forms. Sweetser illustrates with the following sentences:
He thinks he can / ought to....
He thought he could / ought to ....
Should is the distal form of ought to because: "whatever a speaker is willing to
assume responsibility for 'should'. is also something the speaker might conditionally
agree was morally appropriate or obligatory 'ought'."(Sweetser 1990:56)
Had to is the distal form of must although its meaning is not really that of a
distal must. According to Sweetser have to and need to have past forms but their past
forms are not conditionals in main clauses. Would have to and would need to are the
conditionals, except in if-clauses.
Would is the distal form ofboth the future will and volitional-force will.
Sweetser finally says: ''whatever modal forces or barriers the present form of a
modal verb expresses, the distal form ofthe verb will express those forces conditionally
or in the past". (Sweetser 1990:68.)
101