I want to find an article about the modal verb “To be” and its usage.
As far as I’m aware, there is no situation in which “be” is considered a modal verb. You may mean something else. Can you give an example of the sort of usage you are thinking of?
For example. The plane is to arrive at 6 o’clock. or She is to die.
Oh, I see, I didn’t know “be” was called a modal verb in this case. This may be of interest:
bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn … v103.shtml
There is also a mention at arts-ccr-002.bham.ac.uk/ccr/patgram/ch11.html
Dear Dozy, I liked the link, but here in Armenia we are taught “to be to is a modal verb”. So, that’s not right? Or there is some explanation to this?
Hi Lily,
A definition of a modal verb usually describes a verb that is defective in the sense that it doesn’t have parts such as participle and infinitive. Examples are: may/might/can/ought to and so on. This doesn’t apply of course to the verb ‘be to’. It is simply a construction indicating that something has been arranged to happen.
Alan
Further to Alan’s reply, I have never anywhere seen “be” itself listed as a “modal verb”, but it is possible that the construction "is/are/etc. to " could, overall, be considered to have a modal flavour. Perhaps that is the explanation.
“ought TO” - what is “to” in this case? Is this a particle?
What I think about “to be to” is that this is not right. The right way to build this construction is “to be” + infinitive (with the particle to).
For example: to be + to ride a bike. He is to ride a bike.
I remember I was reading about this issue some 7 years ago, but unfortunately my memory is not that much good…
Now I see what is what! Thank you everybody for your attention 