1. Allsop J. Students English Grammar. New York, 1992.
2. Chalker S. Current English Grammar. London, 1990.
3. Close R. A Reference Grammar for Students of English Longman, 1975.
4. Ganshina M. and Vasilevskaya N. An English Grammar. M., 1954.
5. . . . , 1997.
6. . . . . , 2002.
7. Kaushanskaya V. L. An English Grammar. M., 2000.
8. Kobrina N. A. et al. An English Grammar. Morphology. St. Petersburg, 2000.
9. Krylova I. P., Gordon E. M. A Grammar of Present day English: Practical Course. M., 1999.
10. . . . ., 1978.
11. . . . . ., 1971
12. Natanzon E. A. Practical English Grammar by Correspondence. M., 1973
13. Swan M. Practical English Usage. Oxford, 1980.
14. Swan M., Walter C. How English Works. Oxford, 1997.
15. . . . , 1996.
16. . , . . . . . ., 2004.
16. Vince M. et al. Advanced Language Practice. English Grammar and Vocabulary. Oxford, 2003.
17. . . . II . ., 1984.
18. . . . . ³, 2005.
19. .., .., .., .. . . ., 1989.
[1] If the principal clause expresses possibility (It is probable, possible, likely) may(might) + infinitive is used, e. g.: It is likely the weather may change. It is possible the key may be lost.
In negative and interrogative sentences, however, should + infinitive is used, e. g,: It is not possible that he should have guessed it. Is it possible that he should refuse to come?
[2] If a phrase denoting fear is followed by an object clause introduced by the conjunction that or asyndetically, a modal phrase is used in the subordinate clause may/might/can/could + infinitive. The choice of may/can or might/could depends on the tense of the verb in the main clause, e. g.: They trembled (that) they might/could be discovered. She is uneasy (that) the timetable can/may have been changed because of the professors illness.
[3] After the conjunctions that, so that, in order that, so the modal phrases are used may/might/can/could + infinitive, e. g.: I tell you this so that you may/can understand the situation. She left the lamp on the window sill so that he could/might see it from afar.
[4] Conditional clauses of this type are sometimes joined to the main clause asyndetically, by means of inversion, e. g.: Should he ask for references, tell him to apply to me. Should anything change, you will return home.
|
|
|
[5] . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . ³: , 2005.
[6] To make the sentence more emphatic you can use the modal verb would + infinitive after an expression of wish but only if the subjects in both clauses are different and if the wish refers to the present and the future.
E. g. I wish you would go there at once. I wish you would not interfere. Such wishes are emotional but not very hopeful.
[7] The modal verbs can, may, will are freely used in the Subjunctive II Mood to express unreality in conditional, object and concessional clauses, e. g.: If she would help us, we would sooner be free. I wish I could have translated this article without a dictionary. Even though he might be tired, we should continue our work.
[8] The actions in the main and subordinate clauses may have different time reference, if the sense of the clauses requires it. Sentences of this kind are said to have split condition. The unreal condition may refer to the past and the consequence - to the present or future, e. g.: If we hadnt been such fools, we should all still be together. How much better I could write now if in my youth I had had the advantage of sensible advice!(patternIII)
The condition may refer to no particular time, and the consequence may refer to the past. She wouldnt have told me her story if she disliked me. John wouldnt have lost the key unless he were so absent minded. (pattern IV)
[9] Adverbial clauses of condition containing the verbs had, were and could are often introduced without any conjunction. In these cases we find inversion, e. g.: Were I Prime minister, I should spend more money on education. Had he got a message, he would have letus know. Mary would indeed have been very grateful to Miss Dunstable, could she have known all that lady did for her.
