How to explain modal verbs

Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì · February 15, 2011, 06:20:33 PM

I know the words that are modal verbs (tsun, fmi, zene, etc), but I realized that I don't know how to explain what they are and their function in sentences. If someone asked me "What's a modal verb?" all I'd be able to tell them is the words. As a teacher of the Na'vi language I'd like to be able to explain what exactly a modal verb is and its function in a sentence, so can anyone help me out with this?

-Txonä Rolyu

Nìwotxkrr Tìyawn · February 15, 2011, 07:37:44 PM

The way I understand it is that modal verbs are special verbs that modify another verb to have more intention, that's probably the simplest way to put it I think.

This site explains it better than I can.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-modal-verb.htm

Carborundum · February 16, 2011, 02:42:36 AM

This really bothers me as well. While it is easy to recognize modal verbs in English, I do not understand why these verbs are modal.

For example, can is modal because it uses modal syntax (I can run), and it uses modal syntax because it is modal.

Similarly, it is easy to see that intend is not modal in English, because it does not use modal syntax (I intend to run), but I don't understand why it isn't modal.

I also have problems with the way modality carries over between languages. As previously mentioned, intend is modal in Swedish and Na'vi, but not in English. Want is modal in Swedish and Na'vi, but not in English. Might is modal in English, but not in Swedish or Na'vi.

So yeah, I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain modal verbs.

Ikran Ahiyìk · February 16, 2011, 04:27:15 AM

Make a sentence (clause) to contain more than one verb?

Tswusayona Tsamsiyu · February 16, 2011, 01:39:36 PM

I'm just a begginer so I'm not sure, but I think a modal verb is a verb that is followed by a verb it modifies, instead of a noun (I see a tree) or an adjective (she seems angry).
example: I can run.
might is not a modal because it is achieved with the infix <ats>.

Carborundum · February 16, 2011, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: Tswusayona Tsamsiyu on February 16, 2011, 01:39:36 PM
I'm just a begginer so I'm not sure, but I think a modal verb is a verb that is followed by a verb it modifies, instead of a noun (I see a tree) or an adjective (she seems angry).
example: I can run.
might is not a modal because it is achieved with the infix <ats>.

I still think that's circular logic; a modal verb is a verb that is followed by a verb it modifies, and this is possible because the verb is modal. Perhaps I'm just over thinking things, but I don't like it.

I guess what I'm really after is a rigorous definition of a modal verb, and if possible some kind of explanation of why the same verb can be modal in one language but not in another.

Also, Swedish doesn't have either might or <ats>.

Ataeghane · February 16, 2011, 03:22:00 PM

What about "modal verb is a verb that needs another verb after it"? I can say "I see a tree", but I can't say "I see go". I can say "I can go", but I can't "I can tree".

Don't you agree?

Carborundum · February 16, 2011, 03:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ataeghane on February 16, 2011, 03:22:00 PM
What about "modal verb is a verb that needs another verb after it"? I can say "I see a tree", but I can't say "I see go". I can say "I can go", but I can't "I can tree".

Don't you agree?

But in Na'vi, I can say oel syuvet new.

...or can't I?

Nyx · February 16, 2011, 04:50:33 PM

New can be used both modally and not in Na'vi, if I'm not mistaken. But I'm with Carborundum, none of the explanations I've found give any real definition. Unless "they modify another verb" is the definition... Hmm...
And now that we're here anyway, what's the difference between modal and auxiliary verbs? They're both "helper" verbs in a way, right?

Oh and during my google spree, I found this on wikipedia:

QuoteA modal verb (also modal, modal auxiliary verb, modal auxiliary) is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality. The use of auxiliary verbs to express modality is a characteristic of Germanic languages.

Who wrote that? Tautology club?

Txonä Unil Stä'nìyu Rolyusì · February 16, 2011, 09:21:28 PM

Hmm....perhaps someone can ask K. Pawl about this? He might know.

-Txonä Rolyu

wm.annis · February 16, 2011, 09:30:39 PM

Ok. In Na'vi it is very important to distinguish true modal verbs from verbs with modal syntax. So, new is a modal verb, but sngä'i is not, even though they follow the same syntax (one verb is controlling another verb which is marked with the subjunctive).

Modal verbs mark modality, that is, instead of making a simple proposition about a state of affairs:

I go to the store

a modal evaluates a state of affairs according to various schemes: possibility (tsun), obligation (zene), desire (new), etc. When I say "I must go to the store" I am not actually saying that I'm going to the store — I'm making an evaluation of the idea "I go to the store." Notice how this is distinct from a verb with modal syntax: "I start to go to the store" is not an evaluation, but is a simple state of affairs, namely that I have actually begun the action of going to the store.

Finally, note that modality can be indicated in many different ways, even in the same language. In Na'vi we have separate verbs, verb infixes and adverbs which do various modal things. So does English (well, no infixes, but adverbs and verbs).

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä · February 16, 2011, 10:42:47 PM

Of the 'modal' verbs Na`vi has, which are true modals, and which use modal syntax?

Carborundum · February 17, 2011, 04:10:54 AM

Thank you wm.annis for that explanation. I now have a few more questions, however.

If a verb can have modal syntax without being modal, can the opposite also occur? Is, for example, want modal in English after all? "I want to go to the store" seems to be an evaluation of the idea "I go to the store" just much as "I can go to the store", but it doesn't use the same syntax.

Also, is there a specific term for verbs with modal syntax that are not modal?

Tswusayona Tsamsiyu · February 17, 2011, 06:50:01 AM

So basically, in Na'vi a modal is a verb that controls another one or evaluates it, and there's no distinction between true modals (zene, new, tsun) and verbs with just modal syntax (sngä'i). Am I right?

wm.annis · February 17, 2011, 08:09:28 PM

Quote from: Tswusayona Tsamsiyu on February 17, 2011, 06:50:01 AM
So basically, in Na'vi a modal is a verb that controls another one or evaluates it, and there's no distinction between true modals (zene, new, tsun) and verbs with just modal syntax (sngä'i). Am I right?

From the standpoint of syntax, so far we have seen no structural difference between modals and other control verbs (that is, verbs that take other verbs as arguments).

Quote from: Carborundum on February 17, 2011, 04:10:54 AMIf a verb can have modal syntax without being modal, can the opposite also occur? Is, for example, want modal in English after all? "I want to go to the store" seems to be an evaluation of the idea "I go to the store" just much as "I can go to the store", but it doesn't use the same syntax.

Right. Modality is about meaning, not necessarily the syntax.

wm.annis · February 17, 2011, 08:11:42 PM

Quote from: Tswusayona Tsamsiyu on February 17, 2011, 06:50:01 AM
So basically, in Na'vi a modal is a verb that controls another one or evaluates it, and there's no distinction between true modals (zene, new, tsun) and verbs with just modal syntax (sngä'i). Am I right?

At the moment, I would only name tsun, new, zene/zenke and kan as true modals.