Modal verbs

Learn about modal verbs and their different meanings and do the exercises to practise using them.

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: MultipleChoice_MTYzNDI=

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.

Find out more

Hello I have a question. "Luke could/was able to read when he was only three years old" Which one of them is true? Thanks for helping

Hello Mosikvd,

Both forms are possible here and there is no difference in meaning in this context.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

What are the "have to,has to,had to,ought to,be able to ,need,needn't, dare etc are called in grammar? Are they semi-modals?

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! I'd like to seek explanation on the following examples from a book. These pertain to school rules: A. Students MAY bring drinks to school, but we CAN'T drink them during classes. Students CAN'T come to school by motorcycle. We MUSTN'T use mobile phones during classes. We CAN work part-time. We CAN'T get a driver's license. We CAN have lunch at the school yard. B. Students MUST wear their uniform correctly everyday at school. We MUST wear our indoor shoes. QUESTIONS: For the (A) sentences: Is MAY interchangeable with CAN, vice versa? Are CAN'T, MAY NOT, and MUSTN'T also interchangeable? If they are, how can we know which modal verb to use, especially in sentences like these? Does it matter if we use one instead of the other? What implications do they have? For (B): What should be our basis for using whether "MUST" or "HAVE TO"? Hoping to hear your feedback. Thank you so much in advance!

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

Thank you very much! These make it all clear. :)

Hello. Is the following sentence OK? - It is necessary not to play in the street. Does it mean : You must not play in the street. Thank you.

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. Could you please help me? Are two modals OK? - By the ages of five, I (could - couldn't) swim 100 metres. Thank you.

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 How can i use gerund form and to infinitive with go I found out in cambridge dictionary that go is used with ing when we speak about general activities that involve movement And If the activities have a clear beginning and end, then go + to-infinitive is used I also found out on another dictionary that go gurend used with activities and we donnot use go to inf with activities In another dictionary we use go to inf to move ot travel place for a particular purpose and they suggest we use shopping or fishing or dancing with go But why we do use shopping with go ?and not say go to shop or go to dance ot go to watch or go watching can you explain As for me, they are the same, and I do not understand what these dictionaries mean. How do I know to differentiate between them and use them in a correct way

Hi fdrewaserera,

Most of the time when we talk about activities we use [go + verbing]:

I go swimming every Saturday.

I have to go shopping later because we've got nothing to eat!

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:

I have to go to talk to him this afternoon. [=travel to where he is in order to have a chat]

Paul went to watch the film last night. [=travel to the cinema in order to watch the film]

Go to shop is not a phrase we use. However, you could say go to buy something:

Let's meet tomorrow morning and we'll go to buy some new shoes together.

Go shopping (for something) is much more likely, however.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

This is really interesting. Thanks.

Good day! In this section, I`ve read that COULDN`T is the negative form of MUST. In another source, it says CAN`T can also be a negative form of the same modal verb. May I know the difference? When are COULDN`T and CAN`T used? Thank you very much!

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

Thank you so much for your reply. How about these examples? 1. You mustn't wear casual clothes at work. 2. You can't wear casual clothes at work. 3. You don't have to wear casual clothes at work. Thank you, once again, in advance!

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

Candidates may not bring calculators into the examination room. - How is it different from "must not" or "shall not"? And is there any difference between might, may, could when it comes to present/future possibility?

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! I have 3 questions: Question 1) To make the statement “I’m no angel” true, it is neither not necessary nor sufficient that I should not be a member of the set of angels. ---- Why is the meaning of "should" here? Question 2) If it rained last night the match will have been cancelled. ---- How is it different from "must"? Question 3) According to a grammar book, to make confident predictions about the present based on our knowledge or experience, we use will/won’t: It is five o’clock. Janet will be in Paris now (the speaker believes it is true). ---- My question is whether I could we use “must” instead? Is there any difference in meaning?

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 Teacher, I hope you are doing great! Your secretary told me that you would be coming over. Otherwise I should have felt compelled to call you at home - Why is "should have felt..." used instead of "would have felt..." I reluctantly agreed to a postponement on condition that the sale should be completed and the boat handed over by 31st August. Is the use of 'should' here considered a past tense form of "shall"?

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

Hello English Team, "I thought the eclipse was today, but it must be happening tomorrow." Could I say 'will be happening' instead? Thanks.

Hi cms10,

Yes, you could use will be happening in this sentence. But, the meaning is a bit different.

In the original, it must be happening is a deduction (i.e. it's a conclusion that you have made, based on some evidence or information). See this modals of deduction page for more information.
If you say it will be happening, it's simply stating a fact (i.e. it doesn't contain the meaning that you've drawn this conclusion from some evidence).

Does that make sense?

Best wishes,

Jonathan

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello. Can you help me to choose the correct answer? I think that all of them are correct, right? - (Were he - Had he - Did he have) to stay up late, he would have tomorrow off. Thank you.

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 teacher, What is the function of "should" in the following sentence? "We only married in order that the child should be legitimate." Thank you.

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

Hi team, I am very confused about the use of 'Could'. I was watching one of learning videos and I saw the use of below statement : Could you say that again, please? Here in above statement , why we used 'Could'. We can say like : Can you say that again , please?

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

Hi sir, It means I can use - " Can you say that again, Please ?'

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. Could you please help me? Some English teacher are for "have to" but others are for "must". What do you thin? - You (must - have to) get a licence if you want to drive a car. Thank you.

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

Good evening Teachers, i have a couple of questions for you: 1) if i were to go on Holiday i would visit colorado spring next summer; if i was gonna go on Holiday i would visit colorado spring next summer I think they have different meanings , don't they? 2) i was never gonna do that ; i should never have done that. here i guess they have the same meaning instead. thanks in advance.

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! 1. 'gonna' is not formal written English. When you hear this word, people are shortening 'going to'. So you could use your first example, which is correct, OR, change your second example to: if I was going to go... 2. The same applies - i was never going to do that... I hope this helps Paul

Hi. I would like to ask if there can be a modal verb and "was" in the same sentence.

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

Hi! I'm Maria, I would like to know why "ought to" isn't listed, and what is the difference between "should" and "ought to? Thank you!

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

Sir, The rope was so strong that no one could break it or no one was able to break it. These last two sentences mean that everyone tried to break the rope but no one succeeded. But does this sentence 'No one could have broken it' mean anything different ? And what does it mean "I don't think anyone could have done it" ?

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

Sir, Peter, The rope was so strong that no-one could have broken it. Does this sentence mean that no-one could or was able to break it or does it speculate that probably no-one may have broken it ? And what do these two sentences below mean ? 'I think no-one could have done it.' 'I don't think anyone could have saved you' Does the speaker mean that no-one was able to or could do it or does the speaker mean that no-one may have done it ? Likewise in the second sentence, Does the speaker mean that no-one was able to or could save you or do they speculate that no-one may have done it ?

Hello SonuKumar,

The sentence

The rope was so strong that no-one could have broken it

describes a hypothetical situation in the past and has an implied if-clause:

The rope was so strong that no-one could have broken it (even if they had tried)

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:

The rope was so strong that no-one could break it (even if they tried)

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. First, I really appreciate your help. I have benefited so much from all the replies and answers of the members of your team. Now, Which modal is correct or both? Why? Without my glasses I can’t see what that is on the wall, but it (can - could) be a spider. Thank you.

Could any one help me on how to ask past action questions by using "could"(Positive and negative) ?

Hello Chittineni,

We form questions with 'could' through inversion of 'could' and the subject. For example:

He couldn't sleep last night > Couldn't he sleep last night?

She could swim well when she was a student > Could she swim well when she was a student?

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team