All verbs describe some aspect of an entity’s existence. The present mode of existence of the little guy above is that of  throwing a snowball for example. All verbs are characterised by having an infinitive case – to jump, to run, to sing – it is a basic form of the verb without any ending. Most verbs describe an action that would be impossible to sustain permanently and is transitory even when in the continuous present: The statement “Sam is bleeding.” Whilst making sense in the closed world of syntax would in the real world mean the death of Sam if the loss of blood were not staunched. Similarly a person could not sing continuously, and even those people who enter contests or try to set new records for singing or running without pause have to give up after a day or two from sheer exhaustion. Even birds and butterflies that spend most of their time flying must descend to earth and take a respite to refresh themselves.

There are some important exceptions to this condition of modal prolongation and there are some verbs that describe existential conditions that can be ongoing for the whole period of existence of the entity. Let us examine some of the exceptions and exclusions.

The most important exception is that cluster of words that the tradition knows as the verb “is or the “copula.” For the time being I will continue to describe it in those terms. The verb “be” exhibits one important feature of the verb – it has an infinitive form and the infinitive marker “to.”

Even modern grammar books tell us that the verb “be” is a verb of existence. Recenhinking however suggests that it is not a verb of existence but rather a form of prefacing a mode of the existence of the entity in question and is not a regurgitation of the established fact of the simple existence or presence in the cosmos of the named subject in a statement or sentence. So in a simple statement like:

“Mary is knitting a pullover for Charles.”

The verb of existence “is” does not refer to the fact that there is somebody called Mary present on earth - but refers to Mary’s present activity during her sojourn here which is to be engaged in the activity of knitting a pullover for Charles.

Looking again at the sentence, we know immediately already when we see the identifier Mary – it is obvious that there is somebody by that name who exists – for if the name did not appear we wouldn’t be analysing the statement in the first place. Many now believe that the time has come to provide a new category for the so-called verb of existence “to be” that will illustrate its role more clearly not as a verb but as an indicator word which part of the way of describing the way something exists in the universe and not the simple fact that it exists.

Because the “to be” cluster [was, were, is, are, will be etc,] help to indicate and describe the various modalities of the existence of entities it was thought best that it was given a name which reflected these predicational functions so the people who want to update the “be” cluster have re-named it the modal indicant.

Before we go on to explore the various specifics that the modal indicant accomplishes, there is a question to be answered: “Is the modal indicant the sole member of this new class – or are there others?”

Are there any other words posing as verb types which are also modal indicants in disguise? Below is a list of eleven more candidates for modal indecency. In the past linguists have described them as ‘modal auxiliaries’ that is as syntactical elements functioning in a subsidiary or supporting capacity to what was believed to be the verb of existence: ”be,” but we will demonstrate that they function perfectly on their own as modal indicants without needing to act as ‘helpers’ to the “be” cluster, although they CAN be employed in this capacity when required.

Here is the list of the eleven nominees and the characteristics they indicate:

Appear: To give a distinct impression of a distinguishable modality.

Can: To be able to, have the ability to adopt a certain mode.

May: Get to or be allowed to adopt a specific modality.

Must. Be obliged, required, or forced to assume a certain mode.

Might. A possibility, a future prospect or potential of modality.

Ought. Be logically necessary to acquire a certain existential modality.

Seems. Appear to exist in a definite mode - a certain outward aspect

Shall. To be going to; indicates modal futurity - quality of later manner.

Should. To be expected to adopt a specified modality of existence.

Will. To be going to; indicates futurity – speaks of a mode yet to come.

Would. Expresses conditionality or possibility of a future mode.

Just like the “be” indicant, these members of the indicant family do not have an ‘s’ form in the third person singular, and there is no ‘ing’ form in the past participle. We can say:

“Jack jumps like a kangaroo.” And “Jack was jumping like a kangaroo.”

But one cannot say for example:

“Jack 'isses' like a soldier” or “Jack was 'issing' in the restaurant.”

“Jack cans as a soldier” or “Jack was canning in the restaurant.”

“Jack 'coulds' like a soldier” or “Jack was 'coulding' in the restaurant.”

“Jack 'mays' like a soldier” or “Jack was 'maying' in the restaurant.”

“Jack 'shalls' like a soldier” or “Jack was 'shalling' in the restaurant.”

“Jack wills like a soldier” or “Jack was willing like a soldier.”

One can say however “Jack appears as a soldier.” And still make sense. Why is this? The answer is that ‘appears’ is the only indicanhat as well as describing time for the subject Jack (the present simple in the sample sentence) and an ACTUAL mode of existence as that of giving a certain impression (to the observer) as of having a certain outward aspect of a particular mode of existence, also doubles as a verb meaning: “ to come into sight or view." It should also be noted that the sight of Jack and the assessment of his 'appearance' is an existential modality of the observer, and that without any observer Jack would find it impossible to 'make an appearance' in the first place.”

Before we leave the subject of indicative nominees, there are a number of other words which are known as ‘linking’ verbs – another name for copulas – which because of the trouble Aquinas and the Scholastics caused with their original definition of one aspect of the “is” word as being that of a ‘copula’ or ‘linking’ word, bear scrutiny to see if they too might have been wrongfully classified and slung into the wrong bin.

Here they are – another ten of them:

Become: To change and enter or assume a certain modal state or condition.

Remain: To persist in a certain state, modality, place or situation.

Feel: To be in a mode of intuitive awareness - undergo passive experience.

Look: To give a certain impression or have a certain outward modal aspect.

Like: To resemble or have the same or similar modal characteristics.

End up: To be in a certain state or mode as a result of some action or event.

Get: To assume a certain mode or condition – to get better or worse.

Grow: To evolve a condition gradually, become or develop another modality.

Prove: To establish the validity of another modality - Provide evidence.

Has: To have a particular modality as a feature of existence.

I hope that this comprehensive list of enlistees for the nominated conjugal family of modal indicancy provides material for discussion. It can be seen that the original grounding of AITism in the "be” constellate was only a start in the process of offering linguistic semantic and syntactical content for discourse and possible reform.