In Auxiliaries^x, Constructions^x

<In the first context, any of the options (1) - (4) would be correct ways of asking the question, although (4) is slightly clumsy because of the repeated use of the verb "to go".> There is no repetition. The construction is be going to + verb (i.e. auxiliary + verb).

This is off the internet too, Abmateen, but I could do no better: Personal Passive simply means that the object of the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive sentence. So every verb that needs an object (transitive verb) can form a personal passive . Example: They build...

American Heritage Book of English forbades the use of an infinitive in "forbids", not "forbades"! I think you misread that article. Watch out for what "it" means when reading that article. Also, be aware that the sentences given are examples of a particular usage. Nothing...

CalifJim wrote: Welcome to English Forums! This is the going to of motion, not the going to of the future. Here are sentences which use both: I am going to go shopping. ( going of the future; go of motion) I am going to be going now. ( going of the future; going of motion)...

Soylista wrote: I am confused with this expression, " will be going to + Vb ". eg. I will be going to visit Aunt Carol tomorrow. To me, this expression is sort of redundant. Why do you need to use both "will" and "be+going to"? I somewhat understand the differences between future meaning...

Pieanne wrote: Mister Micawber wrote: Did Mary say is the interrogative inversion, Pieanne-- no question. Yes, but I was trying to compare this kind of inversion (in reported speech) with constructions like "little did she know..." etc... In the former, there's no problem to put...

Mister Micawber wrote: Did Mary say is the interrogative inversion, Pieanne-- no question. Yes, but I was trying to compare this kind of inversion (in reported speech) with constructions like "little did she know..." etc... In the former, there's no problem to put the subject after the verb,...

Nona Nona The Brit wrote: Yes Paco I am perfectly aware that 200 years ago the construction 'is arrived' was acceptable. So what? If you are so, why did you give such a message as below? If you had written in previous post just that "is arrived" is not incorrect but rather an archaic...

I agree with you, Paco The conjugated part of a verbal form should be in the second position - regardless of adverbs like yesterday or complement/adverbs separated by a comma -. I'll add that the subject cannot follow the main verb, that's why in the above construction it is replaced by an...

In #1, the verb is in the passive voice, the past perfect tense. In the active voice, it would be The gas explosion had blown out all the shop's windows. Blown out is a phrasal verb; had been blown out is a verb with auxiliaries. In #2, had is the (whole) verb and blown out is a past participle...