Editor for this issue: <>
In the discussion of double modals by a couple of linguists recently, there is a question oddly not asked. Using Larry Horn's example: >The maximum number of modals in attested sequences was three, >and 'should' and 'will' were found in addition to the others. Thus, > He'll can come. 'He will be able to come' It would seem we should ask whether "can" here is truly a modal? If it is "be able to" under a different surface form (which it seems semantically to be), then it is not a modal, even though it looks just like what is in other dialects or even other sentences in the same dialects (?) a modal. So we then would not have three in a row (in some other examples) ?? Lloyd AndersonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Tom King says: >Concerning the forms which you did not hear, such as >'may can', 'should could', etc.: 'may' and 'might' are the only elements >which can occur first in a double modal, since they (esp. 'might') have >the strongest sense of expressing possibility as opposed to certainty. >Therefore, they are used to express the subjunctive senses. The second >element can only be 'could' or 'should' since these alone are ambiguous; >'may can' is unlikely, since 'can' only has an indicative sense. Contrary to what the above would seem to imply, `can' does appear as a element in the American South. A contact in Krotz Springs, Louisiana said the following to me over the phone: "I'm not sure if I can help you, but I might can." (I made immediate note of it for a colleague studying double modals.) June 1992. Mike PiconeMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue