0

I know that modal verbs back in time were always the same (not changeable) with some exeptions - e.g.: thou shalt, thou hast, thou dost, thou canst. Hence my question is: how to transform modal verbs in third person singular? How to say for example: she shall, she has, she does, she can, in archaic English?

WillS
  • 31
  • 3
  • She shall, she hath, she doth, she can. – Kate Bunting Jun 19 '20 at 12:40
  • So there are only four modal verbs that are exeptions: is, doth, hath, dareth, is that right? – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 12:44
  • @KateBunting: She canst. WillS - He durst. – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 12:49
  • 1
    @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica No, it's thou canst. Only one of the examples you have found is an actual use of she canst, and that appears to be 'uneducated' speech. – Kate Bunting Jun 19 '20 at 12:49
  • @KateBunting: Usually, yes. The point of my post was that link to numerous matching instances in Google Books. And then I thought of *durst* as another "awlward" example. – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 12:56
  • Apropos "durst", this is a verb in past tense - does it ever change? I durst, we durst, thou durst, they durst, she durst, is it all correct? – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 12:56
  • I've found several lists of modal verbs online, and none of them contains dare. I'm not sure what you mean by 'back in time [they] were always the same'. – Kate Bunting Jun 19 '20 at 12:57
  • @WillS: I daresay it's interesting to some learners, but mostly they've no reason to fill their heads with usages which have no place in modern contexts. – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 12:59
  • *He dursn't speak like you and me!* (That's *dares not, not doesn't*) – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 13:01
  • @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica The example from Clarissa is a false positive (the text is in two columns), and in two of the others there is punctuation between the two words. – Kate Bunting Jun 19 '20 at 13:02
  • I mean that modal verbs such as "shall" for exmaple, were never transformed, they would always stay the same as they are today, but, back in time, there were some expetions as in third/second person. And "dare" is a modal verb, or semi modal to be correct, when one ommits "to", for example "how dare you", "he dares challenge them" – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 13:06
  • @KateBunting: I actually looked specifically at whom she canst not take away, but you can probably pick holes in that one too (preceding *therefore Virtue are a Good* doesn't look good! :) Whatever - I'm certainly not gonna maintain that any significant fraction of the population ever used forms like He canst go to Hell! – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 13:08
  • Yeah, I think that we can stick to "she/he can" and leave "canst" to thou only. – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 13:12
  • *Canst thou, durst thou* leave all such usages in the past, where they belong? – FumbleFingers Jun 19 '20 at 13:42
  • Why... it is most fine, imo, to know a tittle of obsolete tongue, especially, since it's really easy to learn and still in use, for example in the north of England. Knowing those few archaisms is like a grasp of 400 years. Other languages tended to change a lot more faster and intensely, when English is almost the same as it was during Shakespearan times. To say or write some sht like "she runneth" would be probably out of place, for we don't even know how to pronounce it - TH like S or with grave/acute E, but saying to your close mate "Where art thou" or "I love thee" makes the language hmm – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 16:44
  • sort of more complicated, prettier, has it put emphasis on ONE person. "You" is too formal in my opinion. It's interesting that many young people renew this archaic third person singular. I wonder if they give it up when it comes to say something like "Where you walkedst, wouldst thou tell me?" Nevertheless, saying some brief subtle phrases like: "Thy eyes" or "I told thee" is adorable – WillS Jun 19 '20 at 16:52

0 Answers0