Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 June 1

= June 1 =

Complementary distribution of the allophones of /θ/
G'day friends. I think it is relatively accurate to say that [θ] and [ð] are allophones in English? As a native speaker I think of them as the same sound and they cannot (as far as I can think) be used to distinguish words, eg there is no word such that replacing one with the other will result in a different word (excepting the case /loʊθ/ vs /loʊð/, where they are in free variation). However the other criterion for two sounds to be allophones of the same phoneme is that they occur in complimentary distribution but the complimentary distribution of [θ] and [ð] is either very complex or very imperfect; it seems both can occur at the beginning/end, before a consonant/vowel, etc. My question is, how does the complimentary distribution of these two sounds in English work? THanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call them allophones.. the cases of /loʊθ/ vs /loʊð/, /bɑːðz/ vs /bɑːθs/ take into account differences in accent. Although I can't think of an example for RP or GenAM, in some northern English accents, replacing the [θ] in "thaw" with [ð] creates the word "though". - file lake  shoe  23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not allophones. Thigh and thy, ether and either. --Kjoonlee 04:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And sooth and soothe, teeth and teethe. Deor (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And mouth (noun) and mouth (verb).--ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And bath (noun and verb) and bathe (verb); loath (adj.) and loathe (verb). And This'll be your last thistle for today, so eat slowly.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you would sound pretty weird to a native English speaker if you used one instead other where it doesn't make a word difference. For example, using [θ] in the word 'the' would probably get the point across, but you might get some funny looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aacehm (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Infinite forms of "Dare" and "Need" as modal verbs.
In the English language, modal verbs only function properly as finite tenses. When one requires an infinite tense to show mood, he must substitute some sort of periphrase for the modal verb in question.

eg.

I can do it (present indicative), I could do it (past indicative/past subjunctive),

but->

I shall be able to do it (future indicative)

I be able to do it (present subjunctive).

For most modal verb pairs in English——can/could, may/might, ought to/ought to, must/had to——I understand the conjugation patterns clearly.

For "Dare" and "Need", however, I'm quite confused.

As far as I'm aware, their finite tenses are all indentical regardless of time frame.

eg.

I need do it (present indicative/past indicative/past subjunctive)

I dare do it (present indicative/past indicative/past subjunctive)

But what would you consider more proper in periphrastic constructions?

I have needed do it.

OR

I have need do it.

I had dared do it.

OR

I had dare do it.

I believe—but I'm not certain—that the former is correct both times; to wit, while "dare" and "need" form the past tenses, "dared" and "needed" form the past participles.

Am I right? Pine (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it. Need and dare are hardly used any more as modal verbs in contemporary English. They really only appear in texts written more than 50 years ago, and rarely in texts written less than 100 years ago. I am a professional editor and native speaker of English with many years of education, and I do not use these verbs as modal verbs.  I don't think I've ever heard them used as modal verbs, except in old texts and maybe rarely by people affecting a historic way of speaking.  As a consequence, I am unable to answer your question.  I think you might need a historical linguist to answer it.  In any case, if you are trying to improve your English, I would advise you not to use these verbs as modal verbs.  You will sound as if you learned from very old books.  Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't ever seen dare or need used to form a past tense outside of the subjunctive. Of your examples of periphrastic constructions, 1, 2, and 4 sound insanely awkward to me and I would change the construction entirely. It's possible that I'm just not getting the tense you're going for with them, due to constructions such as (e.g.) He can call them if he dare. Maybe you have a different time frame/tense in mind - can you give a bit more detail about what you're going for?  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Even Zenswashbuckler's example sounds archaic. I would write/say "He can call them if he dares."  Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I will admit I hear it in my head with a rather upper-class British accent and the faint rustle of formal clothing. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * These are used, but almost always in a negative form:
 * You need not have done that. (More commonly contracted as in, "You needn't have done that.")
 * I dare not have tried that.
 * Even those look a bit unusual nowadays, though. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "You needn't have done that" and "You needn't do that" are fairly natural to me (though "I dare not have tried that" sounds weird). I might also say such things as "I daren't ask", "I didn't dare ask", and "Dare I ask?" (rhetorically). The set expressions "I dare say" and "Need I say more?" also comes to mind. (I am a BrE speaker.) 86.160.216.165 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there room here for 'durst', the old past tense of 'dare'? "I didn't dare ask" was once "I durst not ask".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also spotted in more recent times in the song "The Torture Never Stops", where Frank Zappa found it a handy rhyme for "first" and "worst". 86.179.118.44 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concede that these relict usages exist, but I really think they are confined to eccentric artists and perhaps older members of the British elite. In contemporary English, I think that need has been replaced by need to.  Need as a modal is marked as archaic/snooty.  Dare has mostly been replaced by dare to, though I guess I would also concede that "I didn't dare [verb]" is still in fairly wide use, even in North America, though I think that is the only context in which dare as a stand-alone modal is unmarked.  Elsewhere, it has been replaced by dare to/dared to. Nobody today would say I durst not... with a straight face, and anyone who did use that construction would not be understood by most native speakers.  Marco polo (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that Zappa's use of "durst" was modern English. He surely used it knowingly as an archaism. 86.160.217.252 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the opposite of finite when speaking of verb forms is nonfinite (optionally with a hyphen if you're into that sort of thing), not infinite. —Angr (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In a job advertisement you might find "This is a re-advertisement. Previous applicants need not re-apply."  It usually means Previous applicants were all considered unsuitable. Sussexonian (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses!

I suppose that the best advice is simply to use "dare" and "need" (as modals) as sparingly as possible, and try to find some other construction the rest of the time.

Pace Jack of Oz's assertion, as far as I know, "durst"—even when it was in fashion—was never used as a modal. Rather, in the days before finite forms of "to do" became the preferred way to form questions and negative statements in English, it was used in certain non-modal constructions.

eg. "I durst not him to call her." or "Durst you her to act in such a manner?"

(Kind of like: "I knew not the answer." or "Deserved it to be treated likewise?")

I myself, though, should never use "durst" in my personal, writing style. Not unless I were sending a manuscript to Marco Polo's publication, and wanted to brag that I had outwist the editor. :P    [outwitted] Pine (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)