LearnEnglish Hub
In our new Learning hub, you can put your language into practice. Take part in the activities and practise your English skills by writing comments, recording yourself speaking and sharing photos with descriptions.
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?
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
Hi cms10,
Yes, you could use will be happening in this sentence. But, the meaning is a bit different.
Does that make sense?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Both Were to and Had he are possible answers and both refer to hypothetical futures. Did he have is not possible as it would be only used in a question.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi patph0510,
The phrase '...in order that the child shoud be...' means the same as '...so that the child would be...'
This use of should is very formal and rather archaic. It is highly unusual in modern English.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello nitishpandey9814,
Both 'can' and 'could' are often used to make requests, ask permission and for many other reasons. 'could' is generally a bit more polite than 'can' but otherwise means exactly the same thing here.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello nitishpandey9814,
Yes, that's fine. Both are polite, but perhaps could is a little more polite. That said, how polite the setnence is really depends more on how you say it.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Both forms are possible here. It entirely depends on how the speaker sees the situation: more as a legal requirement or more as something a person should (morally, sensibly) choose to do.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello rosario70
The first two sentences you ask about mean pretty much the same thing, though the second one is very informal and the second is slightly more formal.
There is a difference between the second pair of sentences you ask about. The first one doesn't make it clear whether you did the action or not -- it expresses the idea that you didn't have the intention of doing something, but doesn't state whether you actually did it or not. The second one makes it clear that you did carry out the action and that you regret it.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Pana Elena,
Yes, you can. You could have them in separate clauses, for example. However, that does not mean that the examples you are thinking about are correct. Perhaps you could tell us the example(s) you have in mind, and we'll better understand what you are really asking about.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello mlherrera
Most grammars consider 'ought to' a 'semi-modal', that is, a verb that is in some ways like a modal and in other ways like a main verb. In the Cambridge Dictionary grammar, there is a good explanation of the difference between 'should' and 'ought to'.
Please let us know if you have any other specific questions.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello SonuKumar,
If we say no-one could break it then we could be speaking generally (it was not possible) or specifically (people tried and failed).
If we say no-one was able to break it then we are speaking specifically (people tried and failed). To use able to with a general meaning we would need to say no-one would be able to break it.
If you say no-one could have broken it then the possibility of breaking it must be in the past and not in the present. For example, the rope may no longer exist, or it may now be not accessible. The meaning of your last sentence is similar. The speaker is speculating about a past situation, not one which is still current.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello SonuKumar,
The sentence
describes a hypothetical situation in the past and has an implied if-clause:
The act of breaking is in the (hypothetical) past. If you wanted to talk about the present or future then you would use a different form:
Note that the first verb (was) does not change as, presumably, the sentence comes from a narrative.
Both of the other sentences describe ability (no-one was able to / anyone was able to).
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Chittineni,
We form questions with 'could' through inversion of 'could' and the subject. For example:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mina Mantzorou
We use many modal verbs quite often, so I would say that it's important to recognise them and know their main uses and meanings. It's probably better to concentrate on just a few modals at a time, as each one has different meanings and uses and it can take time to learn to really use them.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello rosario70,
The first sentence is rather odd. If you use did not drive then you are taking about Mr. Neal's general ability (that he knows how to drive) rather than what he did in a particular case. Therefore had not driven (talking about what Mr. Neal did on one particular journey) makes more sense.
In the second sentence you should use if I let rather than if I would let. We very rarely use would or will in the if-clause of conditonal sentences.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
The sentence describes an external obligation rather than something we impose on ourselves, so 'have to' is a more natural choice. However, the distinction between 'must' and 'have to' is a subtle one and I would not say that 'must' is wrong here.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team