Mustaqil ishlar ro’yhati

Conditional sentences[edit]
The preterite forms of modals are used in counterfactual conditional sentences, in the apodosis (then-clause). The modal would (sometimes should as a first-person alternative) is used to produce the conditional construction which is typically used in clauses of this type: If you loved me, you would support me. It can be replaced by could (meaning "would be able to") and might (meaning "would possibly") as appropriate.
When the clause has past time reference, the construction with the modal plus perfect infinitive (see above) is used: If they (had) wanted to do it, they would (could/might) have done it by now. (The would have done construction is called the conditional perfect.)
The protasis (if-clause) of such a sentence typically contains the past tense of a verb (or the past perfect construction, in the case of past time reference), without any modal. The modal could may be used here in its role as the past tense of can (if I could speak French). However all the modal preterites can be used in such clauses with certain types of hypothetical future reference: if I should lose or should I lose (equivalent to if I lose); if you would/might/could stop doing that (usually used as a form of request).
Sentences with the verb wish (and expressions of wish using if only...) follow similar patterns to the if-clauses referred to above, when they have counterfactual present or past reference. When they express a desired event in the near future, the modal would is used: I wish you would visit me; If only he would give me a sign.
For more information see English conditional sentences and English subjunctive.
Replacements for defective forms[edit]
As noted above, English modal verbs are defective in that they do not have infinitive, participle, imperative, or (standard) subjunctive forms, and, in some cases, past forms. However in many cases there exist equivalent expressions that carry the same meaning as the modal, and can be used to supply the missing forms. In particular:

• 
  The modals can and could, in their meanings expressing ability, can be replaced by am/is/are able to and was/were able to. Additional forms can thus be supplied: the infinitive (to) be able to, the subjunctive and (rarely) imperative be able to, and the participles being able to and been able to.
  
• 
  The modals may and might, in their meanings expressing permission, can be replaced by am/is/are allowed to and was/were allowed to.
  
• 
  The modal must in most meanings can be replaced by have/has to. This supplies the past and past participle form had to, and other forms (to) have to, having to.
  
• 
  Will can be replaced by am/is/are going to. This can supply the past and other forms: was/were going to, (to) be going to, being/been going to.
  
• 
  The modals should and ought to might be replaced by am/is/are supposed to, thus supplying the forms was/were supposed to, (to) be supposed to, being/been supposed to.
  

Contractions and reduced pronunciation[edit]
As already mentioned, most of the modals in combination with not form commonly used contractions: can't, won't, etc. Some of the modals also have contracted forms themselves:

• 
  The verb will is often contracted to 'll; the same contraction may also represent shall.
  
• 
  The verb would (or should, when used as a first-person equivalent of would) is often contracted to 'd.
  
• 
  The had of had better is also often contracted to 'd. (The same contraction is also used for other cases of had as an auxiliary.)
  

Certain of the modals generally have a weak pronunciation when they are not stressed or otherwise prominent; for example, can is usually pronounced /kən/. The same applies to certain words following modals, particularly auxiliary have: a combination like should have is normally reduced to /ʃʊd(h)əv/ or just /ʃʊdə/ "shoulda". Also ought to can become /ɔːtə/ "oughta". See weak and strong forms in English.
Usage of specific verbs[edit]