Modality here?

Would you say there's modality in these sentences?

He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
We had some miles to drive before we reached the hotel.
He has himself to blame.

Forms that I would find more natural would be:

He had thirty years to wait before she would be (or "was to be") released.
We had some miles to drive before we would reach the hotel.
He has only himself to blame.

This would definitely make the first two sentences have modality, but I don't think the last one does, or the first two in their original forms. Here, "to have" is used in the possessive rather than modal sense.

<Forms that I would find more natural would be: >

You find those wordy forms more natural?

Could you explain "modality", and what kinds of answers you are looking for?

<Could you explain "modality", >

▸ noun: a classification of propositions on the basis of whether they claim necessity or possibility or impossibility
▸ noun: verb inflections that express how the action or state is conceived by the speaker

<<You find those wordy forms more natural? >>

I find proper grammar more natural. If you're discussing the state of affairs at an earlier point in time, and there is some event that, as of that point in time, had not yet occurred, then the simple past tense is not appropriate. So, for instance, I would find "Ten years, ago I met the woman who was the mother of my children" quite odd, while "Ten years ago, I met the woman who would become the mother of my children" would make much more sense.

<<Forms that I would find more natural would be:

He had thirty years to wait before she would be (or "was to be") released.
We had some miles to drive before we would reach the hotel.
He has only himself to blame>>

Hmm. I learned those wouldn't be more natural, they would be ODD!
Because I don't think you can say "Get the hell out of here before you will get your ass kicked"... it should be "before you get your ass kicked", or at least that's what I learned and what sounds natural to me.

That's not an analogous sentence. You could, however, say "You only have a few more seconds until you will get ass kicked". Still not perfectly analogous, but closer.

<<He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
We had some miles to drive before we reached the hotel.
He has himself to blame.>>

The first is ok, depending on when you're telling the story.

<<He had thirty years to wait before she would be (or "was to be") released.
We had some miles to drive before we would reach the hotel.
He has only himself to blame.>>

These are all pretty bad english. For the last one, 'he only has himself to blame' is the usual construction.

'Good grammar' should not trump good communication!

<<Forms that I would find more natural would be:

He had thirty years to wait before she would be (or "was to be") released.
We had some miles to drive before we would reach the hotel. >>

<<You could, however, say "You only have a few more seconds until you will get ass kicked">>

They all sounds odd to me, not better. Another guest, are you a native speaker? What dialect do those constructions come from?

<<These are all pretty bad english. Perhaps they sound unnatural to you, but they are correct grammar. Unless I'm misinterpreting the original sentences, they are not written in correct grammar.

<<For the last one, 'he only has himself to blame' is the usual construction. >>
According to Google, my version is slightly more common. "He has only himself to blame" means that there he does not have anyone other than himself to blame. "He only has himself to blame" means that himself to blame is the only thing he has, which is a completely different meaning. "Only", like every other modifier, should be placed next to the word it modifies.

<<'Good grammar' should not trump good communication! >>
When people get used to bad grammar, good grammar sounds wrong. But having standard rules of grammar makes for better communication.

<<Another guest, are you a native speaker?>>
Yes.

<<What dialect do those constructions come from? >>
I think that it's more an issue of register than dialect. I also abhor such constructions "If I only I would have known."

<<<I find proper grammar more natural. >>>


You wouldn't know proper grammar if it jumped out and bit you in the ass.

<"Only", like every other modifier, should be placed next to the word it modifies. >

I want only to go to Paris.
I only want to go to Paris.
I want to go to Paris only

<<When people get used to bad grammar, good grammar sounds wrong. But having standard rules of grammar makes for better communication. >>

With all due respect, you seem to have a wrongheaded idea of how grammar and language relate to one another!

And english, especially, does not follow the grammatical rules designed for use on latin languages.

<<According to Google, my version is slightly more common. "He has only himself to blame" means that there he does not have anyone other than himself to blame. "He only has himself to blame" means that himself to blame is the only thing he has, which is a completely different meaning. "Only", like every other modifier, should be placed next to the word it modifies.>>

It's possible that your construction is more common in US english, i admit I was talking as a british speaker. But they both mean the same thing, I assure you.

<<With all due respect, you seem to have a wrongheaded idea of how grammar and language relate to one another!>>
With which of my statements do you disagree? Or both?

<<And english, especially, does not follow the grammatical rules designed for use on latin languages. >>
ompound tenses are in no way peculiar to Latin.

<<It's possible that your construction is more common in US english, i admit I was talking as a british speaker. But they both mean the same thing, I assure you.>>
They may be mean the same thing idomatically, but syntactically, they mean different things. Here, the other meaning doesn't really make sense, so it defaults to the other meaning, but there are other cases where it's an important distinction.