сколько модальных глаголов

[ксандр]

What the hell is this?!  -
они во всём виноваты,что песни для целого Света,
что не досталось когда-то, мне пиджака из вельвета!
*я не думал,просто вышло так,по судьбе, не по Злобе*-слова из песни
Форум,простите.

[asil]

Если считать "модальными" глаголами только те, которые не имеют инфинитива и.т.д., то это получится просто группа претерито-презентных глаголов.

English please? No idea what you are talking about, even considering I studied theoretical grammar  at an undergraduate (in Russia) level and post grad level (in Australia)   Anyway, пойду почитаю, просвящусь

И из вашего списка выпадет have to, dare и др.,

Начнем с того, что то что dare - модальный глагол, я в первый раз услышала от Вас.

но присоединится need (т.к. используется без формы 3-го лица ед.ч.).

??????????? He/she/it needS to blah-blah-blah....  

[JaneD]

В древних германских языках существовало 4 группы глаголов, каждая из которых образовывала прошедшее время по-своему. Сильные глаголы меняли гласный корня (ex. give-gave). Слабые присоединяли суффикс (сейчас это -ed). Существовали так же и претерито-презентные глаголы, они выражали результат предшедствующего действия, которое осознавалось как настоящее. Например, греч. oida значило "я узнал"; но раз я узнал,то результатом этого является мое знание, т.е. "я знаю", поэтому греч. oida значит "я знаю".В силу этого старая форма прошедшего времени этих глаголов стала восприниматься и употребляться как форма наст. времени. Понадобилось новое прошедшее время, оно было образовано поздней по образцу слабых глаголов, т.е. при помощи добавления суффикса. [В.Д. Аракин, 2009: 110]
Со временем эта группа распалась на отдельные формы, глаголы изменили значения и потеряли инфинитивы. Это наши любимые can- could, may-might,shall-should,must,ought.

Что касается need, то он является полумодальным, т.е. иногда функционирует как модальный глагол (хотя и не выражает модальности). В основном используется в отрицательной форме needn`t. Ex.: Judges in England need not retire until they are 75. Редко встречается без отрицания, если только в официальных документах и литературе.  Ex.: We need have no fear for Nicole, she can take care of herself. The charges need only be small to make the proposals acceptable. То же самое с dare.

[asil]

В древних германских языках существовало 4 группы глаголов, каждая из которых образовывала прошедшее время по-своему. Сильные ..... .....

I'm sure this is all very exciting but I still fail to understand what it has to do with modal verbs in contemporary English. 
Besides, a quick googling revealed that preterito presente in English is a much more popular notion with Russian grammarians than with the native speaker ones, which is to be expected anyway.

One more thing, I now know why I'd never heard about preterito presente before - this notion has nothing to do with grammar (theoretical or practical for this matter) but rather with the trip down the lane of the development of Germanic languages.

As for 'need' and its modality, again, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove as there's 'need to' with the meaning of 'should' (must do/have), which is an expression of modality and which takes 's' in the 3d person singular.  Why you've decided to limit the use of 'need' to quite an old and formal meaning which is only used nowadays in formal correspondence I don't know. In normal English  'we need have no fear of Nicole' will never be used and will only point to your lack of understanding of how English works. In the worst case scenario you will be taken for an arrogant and snobbish person.
We don't need to worry about Nicole ... /There's no need to worry about Nicole ... But even this will not be popular -> we don't have to worry sounds much more 'normal'!

[Erica Blair]

What about No, you needn’t (in answer to Shall/should I ...?), asil? Is it out, too?

[JaneD]

I'm sure this is all very exciting but I still fail to understand what it has to do with modal verbs in contemporary English. 

Ну, по-моему, это очевидно. Именно претерито-презентные глаголы легли в основу группы модальных. Если не брать в расчет исторический фактор, то эти глаголы получатся аномальными (без инфинитива то).

One more thing, I now know why I'd never heard about preterito presente before - this notion has nothing to do with grammar (theoretical or practical for this matter) but rather with the trip down the lane of the development of Germanic languages.

Это история языка. Она не  exciting, но vital.

As for 'need' and its modality, again, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove as there's 'need to' with the meaning of 'should' (must do/have), which is an expression of modality and which takes 's' in the 3d person singular.  Why you've decided to limit the use of 'need' to quite an old and formal meaning which is only used nowadays in formal correspondence I don't know. In normal English  'we need have no fear of Nicole' will never be used and will only point to your lack of understanding of how English works. In the worst case scenario you will be taken for an arrogant and snobbish person.
We don't need to worry about Nicole ... /There's no need to worry about Nicole ... But even this will not be popular -> we don't have to worry sounds much more 'normal'!
[/quote]

Я прекрасно понимаю, что need чаще всего используется как обычный глагол. Но раз уж мы тут хотим посчитать ВСЕ модальные глаголы, то и need туда войдет.

[asil]

What about No, you needn’t (in answer to Shall/should I ...?), asil? Is it out, too?

In a normal everyday communication? I would never say this. Never. To me it sounds very patronising.

[ксандр]

Посмотрите материалы о модальных глаголах в родственных языках, tharf[1] dürfen, 
 (у меня позднее зажигание)  .знаю ,спрашивать было раньше надо.не могу перевести tharf или лучше об этом забыть. перевод  по dürfen . Многокилограммовый Мюллер под подушкой не оказал помощи , Абби тоже.

[WS aka CE]

Там на странице Wiki есть ссылка на Oxford English Dictionary

tharf:
- obsolete or dialectal, confused with and replaced by dare.
= s.v. †tharf, thar, v. and dare, v.1).

[Erica Blair]

Thanks, asil.
"No, you needn’t " About 5,150,000 results
Then it might be BE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv274.shtml
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/45749-neednt-dont-need.html

In BE, when followed by a verb, I would say that "needn't" is at least as common as "don't need to".

You needn't attend tomorrow's morning.
You don't need to attend tomorrow's morning.

To my ears, as common as each other.

Also, note an ironic use of "needn't".

E.g. "You needn't come home if you're going to be smelling of booze!" (means "don't (dare) come home", "you'd best not come home...").

This wouldn't work with "don't need to".

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=282695

[ксандр]

Там на странице Wiki есть ссылка !-О!многоуважаемый dürfen ! ну а мне остаётся признаться Asil,что вопрос *сколько* был неуместен.при случае сдамся!И как утвержает  один из Ваших обожаемых героев:остерегайся также святой простоты!Для нее нечестиво всё ,что непросто;-это для меня! Merci,a bientot!

[asil]

Thanks, asil.
"No, you needn’t " About 5,150,000 results
Then it might be BE?

Possibly though I don't think so. You see, the examples you've given don't fall under the category of a 'normal everyday conversation'. The first one is quite a formal expression in business dealing perharps? While the second one can be either expression of anger (or other strong feelings), and even I would use 'needn't' in a similar situation, e.g. speaking to a teenage son. It can also be considered ironic or sarcastic. In other situations it is a show of power.
So hardly normal everyday situation. So, back to your question: is it OK to use 'needn't' after a 'should' question. My answer stays at 'no'.

[asil]

Это история языка. Она не  exciting, но vital.

Vital to what? To learning English or to learning about English? 

How does this help us to communicate in English, orally or in written form?

Curious? perhaps. Vital? certainly, not.

Just to make sure we understand each other: I don't consider this vital at all and haven't yet seen anyone whose language development've been assissted by knowing facts like that.

[JaneD]

Я и не утверждаю, что история языка может помочь в процессе общения))) Разговорная речь тем и прекрасна, что требует в большей степени опыта, чем знаний.

[asil]

I'm going to start a staffroom discussion tomorrow. We do have discussions like that from time to time. It would be quite interesting to see how teachers from different 'Englishes' perceive and use 'need'. We have teachers from the following backgrounds: Canadians, Irish, NZealanders, South Africans and of course Brits from different parts of the country (even one who insists on being refered to as 'English'). Did I mention Aussies?

I'll let you all know what answers come up with. But be warned - we usually .... agree to disagree

[asil]

OK, as promised, here are the results of my little 'survey' of English teachers from different backgrounds (all native speakers if you don't  count yours truly )

Only two teachers said that they feel comfortable using 'needn't' in a normal everyday situation, one of them is South African, the other is an Aussie who is quite conservative and formal even in informal situations. Others say they tend to avoid 'need to' anyway as it is too close to the strong 'must' and would opt for 'should'. However, we all agree that 'needn't' has a strong BrE favour to it

I hope this settles our little discussion.

[Erica Blair]

Thanks for your survey, asil.

[asil]

I've just realised I failed to mention that there's no problem with using 'need to' when the subject is 'I', i.e. I need to blah-blah-blah sounds quite OK.