By Present tenses, Auxiliaries

CJ: I answered this once before. >>>>>>>>>> JTT: No, Jim, you failed to answer it the first time. As I stated, I was not looking for any kind of reported speech. Jim wrote: However, to be more exact, the prototypical modal for the meaning "it is possible that" is "may". Frequent substitutes...

Hey Blitz 1. 'only ur kiss is worth the whole planet for me' Yes, that would be fine. (Cf Othello, talking about Desdemona: 'If heaven would make me such another world Of one entire and perfect chrysolite, I'd not have sold her for it.') 2. I'm not sure of the context here, but 'does that...

Here's a start: When using the present tense (with 'to have' as the main verb), or the present perfect tense (with 'to have' as the auxiliary verb), 'has' is used only in the third person singular-- that is, when the subject is a single entity that is not you or I: he, she, it, John, the Eiffel...

Hello, I am very confuse about the infinitive tense, such as without to , I had read a grammar book which state never use to for such verb such as make, feel,see hear, eg as follow: (I knew if we add to infront of all these verb, it make no sense ,It is all these verb are special verb, whenever...

Third person singular (he, she, it, who, which,...) works as follows. Present affirmative. Present negative. Past affirmative. Past negative. She has a coat. She does not have a coat. She had a coat. She did not have a coat. In the present tense, one and only one verb has the present...

Hi Garry, Welcome to English Forums! 1) 'she did not have' ('has' is 3rd person PRESENT tense only) 2) 'he doesn't have' (only the auxiliary 'do' takes the 3rd person '-s'. Another way to remember is: only one 's' in the verb phrase. (These are not sentences yet-- they both need objects,...

Hi, Does + Subject + root verb ......? Yes, a1) is present tense. It usually describes a accepted fact or habitual behavior. The verb that follows an auxiliary must be a root verb. So it is wrong to generate a question like 'Does she has(incorrect) a sense of humor?' Instead, you should say 'Does...

I checked in a new book, "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", which is intended as a rival to Quirk. Following is an excerpt concerning "had better". I don't understand most of it, but presumably Pemmican & Miriam will. I was surprised to see that dropping the "had", as in, "You...

Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze: "go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to! I have to go: "have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive. "Have to" here is a...

I guess I should maybe explain this: The reason is not a grammatical one, eg that they are auxiliaries, but sooner a historical one: (It's a bit difficult but be patient while I'm trying to explain it *lol*) Ok here we go: First of all you certainly have seen, that, beside the missing -s for...