As Void says, need (at least for some speakers) is a semimodal, and can be used in both of those ways.
But She need not worry has a very different meaning from She needs to not worry.
She need not worry can be paraphrased as "there is no need for her to worry".
Your second sentence means "There is a need for her to not worry", which is ...
That is fine. Need in that sentence is used as a modal auxiliary and we use the bare infinitive1 after modal auxiliaries. It's called a 'semi-modal' because it can act as both a modal verb (like should, can, might, may) and a normal/lexical verb (as in She doesn't need to worry).
Try replacing the need with another modal auxiliary (for example should):
We can use "can't" to express disbelief about something, or surprise that something is doesn't match your assumptions.
That can't be the train. It isn't due for another 15 minutes.
It can't be a ghost. They aren't real.
You can't be hungry already. = "I assumed that you are not hungry (because you ate recently) but now you want to eat ...
They are both correct, and on one level, they both mean the same thing: it is possible that he could be playing with his friends.
On another level, they mean something different; #1 means "It is a realistic possibility that he might be playing with his friends right now (because I do not know what he is doing)", and #2 means "He could be ...
suggests that John may actually be playing with his friends (as he is not to be found in his room).
suggests that John ought to be playing with his friends (rather than reading in his room).
The second and last sentences of 2. would frequently be joined by when to reinforce this point.
Yes, both are correct.
"Can" is used to say something is possible.
"Can't" is used to say something isn't possible. Although in practice it's often used to express disbelief and it often means something similar to "shouldn't".
"Do" is used to make a statement (roughly speaking). But it is only really included to specifically emphasise that ...
You're parsing the original sentence incorrectly.
In the sentence, the underlying construction is not can to win and can to make money but play to win and play to make money.
So while your rewrite is a grammatical English sentence, it doesn't quite mean the same thing as the original.
Is this answer redundant? Let's try anyway, since the implied message of the two is interesting.
"She need not" is an older phrasing for "She does not need to", it's phrased to imply not needing to do something. It's popular in sales and advice, partly because it gives the client a feeling similar to getting something for nothing, I ...
In this context, "can't" It's part of the same grammar as "might/may/could/must" to express how likely something is; "can't" means it's logically impossible.
In a sudoku puzzle, you might say, "This square might be a 3 or a 5, but it can't be a 7 because there's already a 7 in this row."
Or in answering a multiple ...
The difference between "don't" and "can't" here:
We don't need more sugar: I know for a fact that we have sufficient sugar. (I have just looked in the cupboard).
We can't need more sugar: I think it's likely that we have sufficient sugar. (It's only been a week, so unless someone has been baking cakes without me noticing, then logically ...
"Let's have a drink" is definitely of the hortative mood.
to say "let's do..." in Spanish you use the imperative mood, which as in many languages also covers hortative modality. NB. I'm a native english speaker
"Let me do this" is imperative but that's just the imperative form of let. This isn't "let" as a kind of ...
You could modify the statement with "is reasonable to attribute", but you would be weakening it and making it more verbose at the same time. The phrase "will be reasonable" is even worse in that respect.
The same argument applies to substituting "could" for "can". Where "could" might fit would be in a ...
In terms of grammar, must or has/have to can be used in any of those examples, whether said by someone present or not.
The word must has a more formal, official feeling, and would likely be used in a written notice.
The phrase have to sounds less official, and could be more of a description or recommendation.
(In your example
"Everyone must/have recycle ...
This is not correct.
"Might" in this context indicates a future possibility, but you are tying to your present financial position by saying "if we had more money". It doesn't make sense because buying a bigger house doesn't become possible until you have enough money.
You could say instead:
We might buy a larger house if we have more ...
"She need not worry", or "she needn't worry", is indeed right.
Needn't functions as a modal verb in that sentence (and when it's a modal verb, it doesn't take on -s in third person singular). I'm not sure about the usage though, it seems to only be common in some English-speaking countries, not all (I think a Brit is more likely to say ...
The original sentence has three clauses connected with and that's been reduced by Conjunction Reduction. The boldfaced parts below are what Conjunction Reduction deletes:
People can play for fun, and
people can play to win, and
people can play to make money.
In the first clause, for fun is a preposition phrase used as a purpose adverb -- fun is the reason ...
Past future perfect tense indicates something that has already completed at a point in the future. "would have", "should have".
My future self will wonder what would have happened had I chosen to
stay in my current marriage instead.
If I met him, I would say hello.
That is forward looking and logically conditional. It has the same meaning as
If I meet him, I will say hello.
Notice the sequence of tenses and the parallelism of “would” and “will” (NOT “shall”).
If I had met him, I would have said hello.
That is expressing something that did not happen. It is not a logical conditional....
In other contexts, you could use the past participle of a verb in a hypothetical statement, but not in your example as it is phrased.
For example, you could say:
You could eat the piece of fruit you chose earlier.
Here you are saying you could do something in the future, but it relies on something you already did in the past - you chose a piece of fruit in ...
Your sentences are fine with either can or could. Both would be understood as a suggestion because of the context. It's fairly common to use can/could as synonyms in informal English, especially when the context makes the meaning clear.
However, "roast chicken whole or in pieces" sounds a bit odd to my British ears. It's not wrong and can be ...
All your examples are grammatical. The third and fourth use could have pressed and could have asked not with an infinitive, but with an infinitive clause as complement.
This use can occur with other tenses, too.
He could ask the captain to slow down.
He asked the captain to slow down.
When talking about past situations is it wrong to use "could with an infinitive"
Lets look at your example.
"If I had more time I could have written two reports.
This is past tense as you stated in your introduction, now lets look at the use of "could with an infinitive" bearing in mind that an infinitive takes the base form of a ...
It refers to what is implied in the sentence below but is not actually written.
he would have helped me if necessary.
By the tense used throughout the sentence we can know that it relates to an event in the past. However if the statement had been
he would help me if I asked.
Then this could be a different matter. We often use would to make hypotheses.
"You might have wanted to keep over fire a little bit less", is so indirect that the meaning becomes unclear.
I would say the following instead:
It was a tad overcooked.
*A 'tad' means a little so no need to repeat this by saying it again.
Maybe it was a little overdone.
*overdone means overcooked.
Note that when you say 'it' the person doesn't ...
I suggest you regard I/you would have thought as an idiom, meaning "that is my/your judgment or opinion". It can be used with any tense:
John knew it, I would have thought.
John knows it, I would have thought.
John will be there, I would have thought.
though it doesn't work well with a statement whose truth can be objectively determined:
In brief the answers are
1 is 1 and 2 is 2.
Theoretically as no help has been given yet you could also use 2 in 1 put I am assuming by "now" you really mean "very soon" i.e. I want/need help quickly. .
However I would suggest that you re-phase your sentences.
Situation 1: I need help now.
Situation 2: I need help tomorrow.
want; verb; ...
"The car won't start" - generally a statement of fact (either about the future or, often, effectively about the present).
"I'm trying to start the car, but it won't start." (Or: isn't starting)
"The criminals sabotaged his car. When he returns next month, he'll find that it won't start." (Or: doesn't start)
"The car ...
For Question 1:
When I was young, I could touch a bug with bare hands.
No, you can't use "would be able to" in this sense — 'would be' becomes 'was' here, if it was the simple past tense:
When I was young, I was able to touch a bug with bare hands.
in the sense of: "I know that I could, because I did touch a bug with my bare hands". (...