Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(7)
They permit epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses.
Recall that counterfactual attitudes in TSM allow epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses, as shown by 53 54, repeated in 58 59.
I also proposed a semantic analysis to account for these properties, explaining in particular why they allow epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses.
I will first demonstrate the empirical fact that counterfactual attitudes allow epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses, and then provide a semantic account for this fact.
This latter component is also responsible for the epistemic licensing behavior of counterfactual attitude verbs, that is, such attitude verbs allowing epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses.
However, if we consider these three types of attitudes from another angle, viz. the interaction between the embedding attitude verbs and the embedded epistemic modals, we may ask whether a fourth typological possibility exists, as Table 1 shows: could there be a fourth class of attitude verbs, which allows epistemic necessity but not possibility modals in their complement clauses?
Similar(51)
Do not possibilities imply impossibilities?
It puts dramatic limits, not possibilities, on a television series.
The idea of a wife and a family were not possibilities for me, I thought.
The SF writer sees not just possibilities but wild possibilities.
That's not a possibility.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com