0

What I understand is that Defective verbs do not inflect.
Am trying to understand what the difference is between being defective and not inflecting - from reading the below wiki extract I cannot see the distinction.

Also - with modals like can/could and will/would etc - is "could" not a inflected form of "can"? (Inflection via base change to express past tense) How is that not inflection?

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs The verbs customarily classed as modals in English have the following properties:

  • They do not inflect, except insofar as some of them come in present–past (present–preterite) pairs. They do not add the ending -(e)s in the third-person singular (the present-tense modals therefore follow the preterite-present paradigm).
  • They are defective: they are not used as infinitives or participles (except occasionally in non-standard English; see Double modals below), nor as imperatives, nor (in the standard way) as subjunctives.
6

The first is a statement about their morphology: forms such as *canning and *wills do not exist (in those senses).

The second is a statement about their syntax: modals cannot fit into sentence frames like I want to X or I was Xing.

These overlap, in the sense that forms in -ing are both lacking morphologically and unacceptable syntactically. But the lack of a distinct third-person singular form is purely morphological, while the lack of an infinitive is purely syntactic.

| improve this answer | |
0

The first statement is about the fact that a form exists but it bears no inflectional marks.

The second statement says that some forms don't exist at all (e.g. there is no gerund for CAN).

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.