Level: beginner
The modal verbs are:
| can may must shall will |
could might should would |
We use modals to show if we believe something is certain, possible or impossible:
My keys must be in the car.
It might rain tomorrow.
That can't be Peter's coat. It's too small.
We also use them to do things like talk about ability, ask permission, and make requests and offers:
I can't swim.
May I ask a question?
Could I have some tea, please?
Would you like some help?
- Modal verbs
Average
Do you need to improve your English grammar?
Join thousands of learners from around the world who are improving their English grammar with our online courses.
Hello Mussorie,
There is no difference in meaning here. In this and similar constructions you can use either the object pronoun or the possessive adjective with the -ing form. Both are in common use and are acceptable but I think the form with the object pronoun (me) is more informal and less likely to be used in formal contexts.
You can read a brief discussion of the topic here:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/515247/my-ing-possessive-form-ing-vs-me-ing-object-form-ing
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mussorie,
In both 1 and 2, you are reporting that the thing you imagined has been confirmed, but the verb form in 1 suggests that someone else was doubting your supposition.
In the other sentence, 'will have started' is used because the time reference point is the present time (6:00). We use 'would' to speak about the future from the perspective of the past, but the time reference point here is present. The beginning of the match in the past is suggested, but not stated.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevı,
No, I'm afraid that doesn't work. Normally the verb forms in reduced relative clauses replace non-modal verbs, usually in the present continuous, present simple or past simple.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Hemam,
'would' (and 'wouldn't') can be used to express unwillingness, in other words, the idea that someone or something doesn't want to do something. So in the first sentence, the idea is that the car didn't want to start. Most people don't actually believe that a car has desires, but sometimes when we feel we are unlucky, we speak this way to show the feeling of being unlucky. Other than this, these two sentences mean the same thing.
The sentence about Reddington could mean that we think he would never tell us this in any circumstance (here 'would' refers to hypothetical situations) or, if it's speaking about the past, it could mean that Redding refused to tell us. Which meaning it has depends on the context.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Ahmed Imam,
Might is the correct option. Might means there is some uncertainty about whether he will help you or not, and we know that the speaker is uncertain since he/she says 'I am not sure'.
Will doesn't fit here, because it means the speaker is certain.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Both sentences look fine to me and I don't see any difference in formality. Without any context there's no way to say which would be more suitable.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nuro,
1) Yes, you could add a phrase with by to the sentence:
2) Active voice does not work here as the donations are the object of the verb offset. The person paying tax offsets the donations.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
I think have to is the most likely choice here as the question is about an external rule rather than a self-imposed obligation.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nuro,
Both forms are possible here. If you imagine what Tina said then both don't forget and won't forget are possible:
It may seem strange to use the present simple (don't forget) with future meaning here, especially when 'will' is used in the first clause, but there are certain contexts in which this is possible: in sentences like the one above and after the phrase 'in case', for example.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Nuro,
It's actually a common feature of English. Remember that English does not have a grammatical future tense, but rather uses different grammatical structures to express future time: present forms (simple and continuous), modal verbs (including 'will'), going to and even past forms (for hypothetical futures).
You can read more about expressing future time on this page:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/talking-about-the-future
And you can read about verbs used in time clauses here:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/verbs-in-time-clauses-and-if-clauses
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Ahmed Imam,
Yes! It is possible to use hasn't got to for this meaning, and your sentence is correct. But, hasn't got to is less commonly used than doesn't have to.
In questions, that's right - we can use Has she got to ... instead of Does she have to ... .
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello meylin,
They're similar but a bit different. You can read a bit more about 'must' and 'mustn't' in the Obligations section of our Suggestions and obligations page, but basically they express the idea that it is necessary to do something ('must', e.g. 'You must wear a mask on the bus') or that it is necessary not to do something ('mustn't', e.g. 'You mustn't be late'). Notice that it's not clear whether we actually do the action that is considered necessary (or not necessary) -- the rule is that we wear a mask on the bus, but maybe we don't actually do that.
A sentence with causative 'make' is similar in that it expresses obligation, but it also shows that the action was performed. For example, 'I must do my homework' means I need to do my homework, but it doesn't mean that I did it. But 'My father makes me do my homework' clearly shows that I do my homework.
Does that help?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mosikvd,
Both forms are possible here and there is no difference in meaning in this context.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Noor Muhammad,
The principal modal auxiliary verbs in English are can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will and would. They are sometimes called full modals as they have all of the characteristics of modal verbs in terms of meaning (expressing modality) and form (they have no inflection, no infinitive form, no participle form, are negated by the addition of 'not' and form questions by inversion rather than with another auxiliary verb).
The verbs you mention, plus others such as had better, are characterised by having some of the elements of full modal but not all of them. Thus, they may express modality but have inflections in the third person present simple, for example (you need > he needs). These are sometimes called semi-modals, quasi-modals or pseudo-modals.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Timmy Ferrer,
I believe that all of your questions about the (A) sentences are answered on the Permission and Suggestions and obligations pages in this section. Please have a look there and if anything is still not clear after that, you are welcome to ask us again.
'you have to do something' means it is necessary to do it or that you are obliged to do it. 'you must do something' has a similar meaning, but it used more often in written rules and instructions (particularly in British English -- this use is less frequent in American English) and is also used to express your opinion about an action. For example, if we are speaking about a new film and I tell you 'You must see it', this doesn't mean you are obliged to see it -- it's a way that I can express my opinion -- in this case in the form of a strong recommendation.
So in the (B) sentences, both 'must' and 'have to' are possible. 'must' would be particularly common in writing, especially in British English, and 'have to' works as well and has the same meaning.
Hope this helps you make sense of it.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
In general, yes, it means that. It's slightly awkward to say 'It is necessary not' to do something, though, because it means you should do something, but that something is not doing something.
I'd suggest using your sentence with 'must' or 'You are not allowed to play in the street' instead.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Only could is possible here. The phrase by the age of suggests a change and an achievement; not being able to swim is simply a continuation and certainly not an achievement.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi fdrewaserera,
Most of the time when we talk about activities we use [go + verbing]:
It is possible to use [go + to verb] but it generally has a meaning involving travelling to a place in order to perform an action:
Go to shop is not a phrase we use. However, you could say go to buy something:
Go shopping (for something) is much more likely, however.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Timmy Ferrer,
Modal verbs have multiple uses and there is no one-to-one correlation between them in terms of which modal is used to express the negative meaning of another verb. The opposite of must in one context might be can't; in another it might be mustn't; in another it might be don't have to.
If you want to check whether two modals have opposite meanings then we'll be happy to help, but you need to put the modals into sentences so we can see which use is relevant.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Timmy,
It's important to distinguish between the grammatical negative, which is simply the addition of 'not' to the modal verb, and expression of the opposite meaning, which may be expressed by grammatical negation or may require a different modal verb. My answers below describe the most likely options for expressing the opposite meaning.
1. The opposite of mustn't wear (negative obligation) could be must wear (positive obligation) or don't have to wear (lack of obligation).
2. The opposite of can't wear (no permission or no ability) could be may wear (permission) or can wear (permission or ability).
3. See my answer to 1 above. You could also use have to wear here with a similar meaning to must wear.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sunyoung1005,
You can express prohibition in various ways in English: may not, can not, are not allowed to, shall not, should not, must not can all express prohibition. There may be preferences of style or preferences dependent on particular contexts, but all are possible.
Could, might and may are all used to express present/future possibility and I don't think there are any distinctions between them.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello LilyLinSZ,
1) This use of should is a variant on the present subjunctive, used for expressing things that we wish for, assume or imagine. You can read more about the subjunctive in English here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive
2) In this sentence, will expresses a firm belief or certain knowledge; must expresses a strong expectation based on existing knowledge, deduction or experience. Will expresses certainty on the part of the speaker; must expresses strong expectation, but is still speculative.
3) The explanation here is the same as for the second question. Both will and must are possible, with the differences in meaning noted above. You could also use might, may, could and should). If you change by now to yet then the negative forms of the modals are also possible.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi hyunjoo76,
In the first example, using should sounds more formal or official in style than would.
For the second example, yes! Should here has the meaning of shall in the past tense. It's another example of should to make a statement sound official.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team