3) Making suggestions

=> CAN, COULD, SHALL(, SHOULD)

(58) What about Monkey Rock? […] Why don’t we take that hike? We could go
tomorrow. Your dad could come, too. We could take the whole day. What do
you say? (extract from
Safe by Susan Shaw, 2007)

(59) Shall we? (often used for ‘On y va ? / On commence ?’)

4) Expressing a capacity (or lack of capacity) or characteristic of the S
=> CAN, COULD, WILL
- inherent capacity of the S:
(60) “The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger can lift more than you is largely due
to the amount of training that he's put in.” (from reddit.com)
If NOT is used with CAN, the negative applies to the modal and not the P (ex: he
CAN’T sing : ‘incapacité à chanter’ et non ‘capacité à ne pas chanter’)
- hypothetical capacity of the S:
(61) “I still think Jean-Claude Van Damme could beat a T-Rex in a fist fight (if he
had to).”
(From: https://robparkerauthor.com/2014/02/03/the-making-of-the-baby-and-the-brandy/)

=> COULD, like WOULD or SHOULD can express the conditional when it contains
modal –ED (distance from reality)
 CAN/COULD transcribing the S’s ability can be glossed by: be able to

- general/permanent characteristic of the S:

(62) … animal behaviorists know that infanticide is often practiced by animals.
African wild dogs bite and kill infant dogs. Male lions will slay the offspring of a
neighboring pride…
(https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/17/science/infanticide-animal-behavior-scrutinized-for-clues-to-humans.html)

=> WILL enables to describe the S’s typical behaviours/reactions

- occasional or theoretical characteristic of the S:

(63) Husbands can be annoying sometimes.
5) Expressing (the absence of) obligation or necessity
 MUST / (HAVE TO) / OUGHT TO / SHALL + SHOULD / NEED / BE TO
• MUST: absolute obligation/necessity
(64) Remember that when I give anything away in the evening while drunk,
you must give it back to me in the morning.
(From: Jeppe on the Hill or, The Transformed Peasant; a Comedy in Five Acts, by Ludvig Holberg, 2013)

usually, speaker involved in the obligation process

• contrary to: HAVE TO, which usually expresses an obligation/necessity
whose origin is not specified:
(65) You have to wash new clothes before you wear them because of the
chemicals they may be coated with.
=> The main difference between the two in fact lies in their negative
versions:
Compare :
(66) You mustn’t keep it to yourself. => Tu ne dois pas le garder pour toi.
(glose : il faut que tu le dises à qqn)
To (66’) You don’t have to keep it to yourself. => Tu n’es pas obligé de le
garder pour toi. (glose : tu peux le dire à qqn si tu veux).

See Grammaire Explicative de l’anglais, Larreya & Rivière (pp.106-107) for

more details.
• SHALL : specifically in questions with 1st person (I/we):
(67) Shall I tell him you’re here? => Dois-je lui dire… / Voulez-vous que je lui
dise… ?
(68) What shall we do to help him out? => Que faut-il qu’on fasse…? / Que
doit-on faire… ?
 gloss: Do you want me/us to…?

SHALL to express rules

(69) No student, in any manner
whatsoever, shall deface the
inside or outside of
any building.
(http://www.mubs.edu.lb/en/academics_mubs/rules/5812.aspx )
• SHOULD ( SHALL + - ED) : the obligation expressed in SHALL is toned down by
–ED (distance from reality to transcribe the speaker’s doubt) :
(70) (Trip advisor review) “You are thieves! You should be in jail!”
(https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/FAQ_Answers-g60763-d12379030-t6187384-You_are_thieves_You_should_be_in_jail.html)