Among
these is our distinguished critic, Prof. Francis A. March. _May_ denotes
power from without coming from a removal of all hindrance,--hence
permission or possibility. _Can_ denotes power from within,--hence ability.
_Must_ denotes power from without coming from circumstances or the nature
of things,--hence necessity or obligation. _Should, would, might_, and
_could_ are past forms of _shall, will, may_, and _can_.
The auxiliaries take different shades of meaning. In some constructions the
meaning is fainter or less emphatic than in others. To say just how little
of its common or original meaning _may, can, must, shall_, or _will_ must
have to be an auxiliary, and how much to be a "notional," or independent,
verb would be extremely venturesome For instance, _could_ in (6) above
expresses power or ability to do, as does _could_ in (11), yet we are told
that the former _could_ is a mere auxiliary, while the latter is an
independent verb. _May_ in (1) denotes a desired removal of all hindrance;
_may_ in (7) denotes a possible removal of hindrance. It is hard to see why
the former _may_ is necessarily a mere auxiliary, and the latter a
"notional," or independent, verb. These are some of the difficulties--not
to say inconsistencies--met by the student who is taught that there is no
Potential Mode.
Pages:
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509