All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

All modals have multiple meanings. In both languages they are modal. Most common are

• the Epistemic sense of a modal, which refers to logical conclusions
  This must be the place, This can’t be the place, This would be the place

• The Deontic sense of a modal, which refers to sociocultural obligations and affordances
  You must be careful, You can’t do that, He wouldn’t dare.

What are the first three use of would as epistemic must (equivalent to epistemic must)?
I.e. like all epistemic modals, they state a conclusion made by the speaker from
a speculative presumption than an assertion of fact.

If one is not familiar with the term “James,” then two are

• likely to be short, for instance “1-2” or “Ram.”

Is (3) the same as (5)?

What’s troublesome is that they’re stressed main verbs. Some people use them, too.
From another perspective, they’re de-ontic cells, not epistemic. Deontic would has to do with being prepared.
As we are all from the same root

So, to say that somebody would do something (with a stressed would, and particularly with a deleted main verb, as in 4) is to say that they are willing (and therefore likely) to do it under certain conditions.

Note that in a modal, deontic would and deontic have to, and what’s being said is that he was willing and obliged to say that under certain conditions.

And these are not the only possible senses of would, either.

What’s the difference between either for or in ‘as are in the following examples?

• Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in years. Apparently his husband is addicted to drugs.
• In his younger years Jack will not continue to go to school.
• I hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks, until she finally decided to show up. She finally showed up.

There is no difference in grammatical quality. All 3 sentences are grammatical, with either for or in.

There is no difference in meaning. In all the sentences described by Ellie, for, or in, the situation occurred with or for.

What is the difference between syntactic affordances and predicates? If with an indefinite durative temporal phrase ( in weeks, in two days, in donkey’s years, in a long time, etc. ), is a Negative Polarity Item. In two days is restricted to negative contexts, while for two days has no such restriction.

What types of examples are above negative. I’m struggling with removing the null argument fromn’t. Why does this matter?

Is there any way to illustrate the sentences in For works fine.?

• Bill has been on vacation for 2 years. (a very long vacation)
• Jack has been to school for eight days. (By the way, he was able to swim, he hasn’t slept for a week) I had seen Mary for
• three weeks and had she never left, but she was an innkeeper. After. I stayed behind because of her physical defect. (indicates frequent or continuous contact)

But all the ones with i are ungrammatical, and have no discernible meaning, and are thus “worrying”.
* Jack has been to school for

• three days now. Is he in normal English?
• Bill hasn’t taken any vacations in over a year, but took a vacation in 6 months. Is he in better shape then I felt he would be?
• I had not seen Mary in three weeks.

In the negative, there’s two ways to refer to duration, with in and for.
In a negative context, no, the system doesn’t work the same way. Negation is complex.

What’s the difference between either for or in ‘as are in the following examples?

• Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in years. Apparently his husband is addicted to drugs.
• In his younger years Jack will not continue to go to school.
• I hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks, until she finally decided to show up. She finally showed up.

There is no difference in grammatical quality. All 3 sentences are grammatical, with either for or in.

There is no difference in meaning. In all the sentences described by Ellie, for, or in, the situation occurred with or for.

What is the difference between syntactic affordances and predicates? If with an indefinite durative temporal phrase ( in weeks, in two days, in donkey’s years, in a long time, etc. ), is a Negative Polarity Item. In two days is restricted to negative contexts, while for two days has no such restriction.

What types of examples are above negative. I’m struggling with removing the null argument fromn’t. Why does this matter?

Is there any way to illustrate the sentences in For works fine.?

• Bill has been on vacation for 2 years. (a very long vacation)
• Jack has been to school for eight days. (By the way, he was able to swim, he hasn’t slept for a week) I had seen Mary for
• three weeks and had she never left, but she was an innkeeper. After. I stayed behind because of her physical defect. (indicates frequent or continuous contact)

But all the ones with i are ungrammatical, and have no discernible meaning, and are thus “worrying”.
* Jack has been to school for

• three days now. Is he in normal English?
• Bill hasn’t taken any vacations in over a year, but took a vacation in 6 months. Is he in better shape then I felt he would be?
• I had not seen Mary in three weeks.

In the negative, there’s two ways to refer to duration, with in and for.
In a negative context, no, the system doesn’t work the same way. Negation is complex.

What’s the difference between either for or in ‘as are in the following examples?

• Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in years. Apparently his husband is addicted to drugs.
• In his younger years Jack will not continue to go to school.
• I hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks, until she finally decided to show up. She finally showed up.

There is no difference in grammatical quality. All 3 sentences are grammatical, with either for or in.

There is no difference in meaning. In all the sentences described by Ellie, for, or in, the situation occurred with or for.

What is the difference between syntactic affordances and predicates? If with an indefinite durative temporal phrase ( in weeks, in two days, in donkey’s years, in a long time, etc. ), is a Negative Polarity Item. In two days is restricted to negative contexts, while for two days has no such restriction.

What types of examples are above negative. I’m struggling with removing the null argument fromn’t. Why does this matter?

Is there any way to illustrate the sentences in For works fine.?

• Bill has been on vacation for 2 years. (a very long vacation)
• Jack has been to school for eight days. (By the way, he was able to swim, he hasn’t slept for a week) I had seen Mary for
• three weeks and had she never left, but she was an innkeeper. After. I stayed behind because of her physical defect. (indicates frequent or continuous contact)

But all the ones with i are ungrammatical, and have no discernible meaning, and are thus “worrying”.
* Jack has been to school for

• three days now. Is he in normal English?
• Bill hasn’t taken any vacations in over a year, but took a vacation in 6 months. Is he in better shape then I felt he would be?
• I had not seen Mary in three weeks.

In the negative, there’s two ways to refer to duration, with in and for.
In a negative context, no, the system doesn’t work the same way. Negation is complex.