1

I've seen many explanations that just treat ought to as a whole which equals should. but how to explain the function/role of each word separately?

for example:

I ought to go now.

which role does to act there?

  1. where to is just part of the to-infinitive to go (as a mere infinitive marker, no meaning) if so, why to-infinitive marker is required after ought, but not after should?

  2. to is part of the phrase ought to, if so what's its function/role at all?

I have similar questions in understanding auxiliaries like have to and used to also, so how to understand this kind of structure correctly?

nova
  • 63
  • 1
    It's not required. I normally don't put the to in the phrase. – Phil Sweet Feb 09 '21 at 12:07
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? have to / must / should / ought as applied to inanimate objects 'Ought (to) [and have to] are periphrastic modal auxiliary idioms' (@John Lawler). No doubt there was a reason why the odd string arose, but Crystal regards idioms as lexemes, the analysis of whose inner structure is rarely profitable. // Why does écouter not have an à, when English must transitivise using listen to ? – Edwin Ashworth Feb 09 '21 at 12:13
  • What @PhilSweet (it's not required). I personally would normally include the infinitive marker *to* in contexts like the one cited, but *not in negated statements. For example, I wouldn't include to* in, say, The government says we ought not [to] make unnecessary journeys. And I suggest hardly anyone would include it in *You ought not [to] do that!* – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '21 at 12:22
  • 1
  • is correct. The "to" is a subordinator, a special marker for VPs of infinitival clauses -- in your example "to go now", i.e. [I ought [to go now]]. Thus its category is 'subordinator' and its function is 'marker'. The same applies with your last two examples; The "to" is part of the VP heading the clause functioning as complement of "used": [I have [to go now]]" / "[I used [to smoke]]".
    • – BillJ Feb 09 '21 at 12:46
  • 2
    I find the idea of leaving out to really strange. I found this on ELL. – Kate Bunting Feb 09 '21 at 12:49
  • @Edwin Ashworth um... seems I should still treat those kinds of auxiliaries that way, but his answer still useful for me... – nova Feb 09 '21 at 12:55
  • Generally, "ought" takes a to infinitival complement, but there is a growing tendency for it to be constructed with a bare infinitival in non-affirmative contexts (particularly in negatives), bringing it closer to the central modals, cf. "You ought not take any notice" / "Ought we invite them both?" – BillJ Feb 09 '21 at 12:56
  • @nova Does that clear things up for you? – BillJ Feb 09 '21 at 13:01
  • @BillJ Whether to use a to-infinitive market or not is a mere conventional rule? therefore I can't say "I have go now" to express "i must go now"? – nova Feb 09 '21 at 13:11
  • @nova Yes. Interestingly, the convention seems to be changing with "ought", notably in AmE, I believe, but not in BrE. Have you done any research yourself on why some modals require to infinitival complements, while others require bare infinitivals? – BillJ Feb 09 '21 at 13:23
  • @BillJ No, any good materials about those things I can study? my english isn't very good – nova Feb 09 '21 at 13:31
  • 1
    https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/language_corner_072814.php - ref. to 4th para. Learners of English as a 2nd language study like, He ought to/should continue; He ought not/should not continue... It goes like ought to continue, ought to be continuing, ought to have continued and ought to have been continuing. In their negatives, it should be He ought not continue; ought not be continuing/ ought not have continued/ ought not have been continued... The question of 'to' seems to be just a convention similar to what I have seen in cases of dare and need when used as auxiliaries. – Ram Pillai Feb 09 '21 at 13:45
  • 2
    @RamPillai Dare and need are a good example of the irregularities that come with modals. The to shows up only when they're not used as modals, in non-negative contexts. Similarly, negative ought not has an optional to, while affirmative ought requires it. Modals and negatives in the same sentence makes for very very complex and irregular grammar. – John Lawler Feb 09 '21 at 17:18