17

BE + going to - Lindsay is going to fly to New York next week. Forms with BE + going to possibly originated in such utterances as: 1. We are going to meet Andrea at the cinema, uttered when we were literally going, i.e. on the way, to the meeting. At the moment of speaking there was present evidence of the future meeting. This use has become extended ...


5

That is correct. Dare can't make up its mind whether it's a full modal, taking a bare infinitive, or a lexical verb taking a marked infinitive catenate. My impression (it's no more than that) is that in speech the modal use with the bare infinitive is more common in negative expressions (Don't you dare eat that apple) and the lexical use with the marked ...


4

It's an ingenious idea, and it has some historical support. When the idiom first arose (see OED 1,4,b), what is now the subject was a dative and the sense was It would be better for you, and you could certainly understand that as: It would be better for you if you bloody well told them ... But I don't think it works. I think you have to understand what ...


4

I'm afraid not. This is actually a ‘fossilized’ expression with a long and complex history, summarized by OED 1 as follows: In the idiomatic I, we, you, he, etc. had better, the original construction was me, us, etc. were betere (or bet) = it would be more advantageous for me, etc. [...] The dat. pronoun was subsequently changed into the nominative, I, we,...


4

Did you mean to change it to a question, or to ask if the following is sensible? I'd be better to get a quart. If you said that to me I could respond by making a quizzical face and say: "I'd be better to get a quart?" (...as a challenge to the fact that I didn't understand what you just said, because it sounds weird.) Yet it could pass for old-timey ...


3

Jennifer's eight, and she doesn't know what she's going to do. One day she says she's going to be a dancer, and the next she says she's going to work with animals. I don't think that the construction going to carries with it a sense of determination so steadfast that one cannot change one's decision the next day. A child is especially likely to change their ...


3

Phew, what an example... Let's use a shorter example with less tech speak. I'd rather my Mom cook dinner tonight. or I'd rather my Mom cooked dinner tonight. Pattern: Subject 1 - would/'d rather - subject 2 - verb - .... This is a slightly more complex pattern that the would rather - phrases with the same subject (subject - would/'d rather - verb in ...


3

Both 'will' and 'to be going to' are correct in these phrases. They are both referring to a future action. While 'will' is sometimes used to enforce more certainty and determination ("I will do that"), both of those phrases are correct and either could be used. we use 'to be going to do something' when we have already decided to do something This isn't ...


3

As MARamezani points out, had better is used to warn the hearer of some threat, and to suggest a way of avoiding it. The threat may be posed by the speaker or by some external agency. The exact nature of the danger may be expressed with either an if clause or a coordinate clause conjoined with or + a negative or with unless: You had better unplug the ...


3

To need and need Any grammar will tell you that the verb to need is a normal or full verb. But as the modality "necessity" is so often used in spoken language speakers often use it as a genuine modal verb and add the infinitive without to. It is your choice which variant you prefer to use. See the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary at need modal verb. The ...


3

had better takes the base form (infinitive without to). The construction had better remember is correct. The subjunctive is not required. It's enough to say: She had better remember that she has to leave the city soon. Replacing has by had shows no coherence with the first part since the construction had better takes the base form and not the past ...


3

Personally, I have trouble reading "be going to" as semi-modal in those sentences, and a cursory Google search seems to confirm my suspicions that for most native speakers, it cannot be semi-modal in that context either. My initial reading of: She must be going to tell him the truth. is that "She must be going to where he is to tell him the truth". ...


3

As a British speaker I would expect: Nobody needs to hurry, do they? However, and in response to your comment, we could also say Nobody need hurry, need they? The second option sounds strange but is also correct (in my opinion). My understanding is that if you use 'need' and 'to' you are using need as a main verb, not as a semi-modal verb. (Source: https://...


2

"Needs be made", in the context of your first quote, is just wrong, and most likely a typo in the comment. You're right, it should be "needs to be made". However, "need be made" in the other three quotes is correct, albeit more formal and fairly rarely heard. Depending on the context, it can be equivalent to "needs to be made", "needed to be made" or "need ...


2

I used to study at Cambridge School. This sentence discusses an action that happened entirely in the past. I was studying at Cambridge School. That would be past continuous. To be used to something is a special phrase that means being habituated. For example, "I am used to eating spicy foods, so this dish tastes bland." Therefore, I am used to ...


2

There is no continuous construction in either of these sentences. Rather, the used to collocation has two distinct meanings, taking two distinct sorts of complement. A. SUBJECT used to VERBINFINITIVE. Here used to is employed as a pseudo-modal verb expressing a past habit or state. Like true modals it takes the infinitive form of a lexical verb as its ...


2

I agree with HostileFork, especially the pirate comment, but if you feel a burning desire to use "be better" you would say: It would be better to get a quart. That is, it would be better {for me and all concerned} to get a quart. Someone who knows how much your friends like to drink might say: You would do well to get a quart, not a pint.


2

There's a bit of difference in meaning between the 2, and I don't think the 2nd is something you'd be likely to hear. I'd better get a quart. It's preferable that I get a quart under the given circumstances (whatever they happen to be). This may prevent some unforeseen negative consequence in the future that could affect anybody. I’d be better to ...


2

To answer the question in the title, yes, in {you had better + bare infinitive} there is an insinuation that to do|not to do something will have (hmmmm... let's say unpleasant) consequences. Cf. Harry Truman, 1951. P.S. In the most neutral terms, "you'd better" is a prediction. There need be no malice or insinuation of harm, only a choice between two ...


2

Although seemingly synonimous, these two uses can have different meanings. In your examples, the first sentence expresses planning while the second one shows a general expectation/ promise. First example: Mary thought John was going to invite her to the party -> She thought he planned to invite her; she was on his guest list. Mary thought John would ...


2

My guess is that the progressive aspect is used due to the presence of one phrase. I will mark it in bold: When he talks of "enemies of the people", the analogies with Stalinist Russia and other 20th-century regimes are so glaring that you have to keep reminding yourself that the French Revolutionaries were having to make everything up as they went along, ...


2

SUPPLEMENTAL to CopperKettle's answer In the comments to this answer, Bart-leby asks whether as they went along should be cast in the progressive, as they were going along. GO, by itself, is what linguists call an 'activity' verb: it is atelic, having no 'endpoint' built in to its sense. Consequently, in contexts like as they went along, it is inherently ...


2

The word have in have to X is not modal - have when followed by to {infinitive} has a separate meaning distinct from have {object}, or have when used as an auxillary verb. You usually don't need a modal like must, should, need - the ones that indicate obligation - because have to X itself means required to do/obligated to do X - the meaning is "built-in." ...


2

Although I'm not a native speaker, in all of my years of experience, I've never seen they oughted to work harder. I don't think the past tense form of the verb ought even exists. Just like there's no past tense form of the modal must. I'd say that if you want to express ought in the past, you would simply say had. And to be perfectly honest, ought is not ...


2

Wouldn't have is hypothetical. Won't have is real. "I can't believe I got the final question in the pop quiz wrong." "I wouldn't have known the answer either." The first person took the quiz, and they can't believe they got the final question wrong. The second person would have gotten the question wrong too if they had taken the quiz (instead of the ...


2

In modern English, this kind of construction uses only auxiliary verbs - So do I; So is he; So should you and so on.


2

Your sentence is not correct. According to Collins When dare is used as a modal verb in a positive statement, there must be a word of negative meaning in the same clause. This word can be outside the verb phrase and may be a word with a negative sense, such as only, never, hardly. No sensible driver dare risk that chance. In your sentence there is no ...


2

a) To apply for the job, the candidate must have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000. Correct. b) To apply for the job, the candidate has to have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000. Correct, although (a) is perhaps easier to read. c) To apply for the job, the candidate had to have been born on or before 1st Jan. 2000. Wrong: the tense implies that it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible