Search results for 'tag:American English tag:Auxiliaries' matching tags 'American English' and 'Auxiliaries'

Re: did vs be in questions?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:53:55 GMT

Do is not used:

1. With be (except imperatives):
Were you late?
Is he walking now?
But: Don't be a fool!

2. With the defective auxiliaries (can, could; will, would, shall, should; may, might, must; ought):
Can he swim?
Will they come as well?
Would you have said that?

3. With have, has, had when they are perfect and past perfect auxiliaries:
Have you seen him?
Had he done anything?

Do need not be used with the above verbs when they mean 'own', 'possess':
Has he a car? It is more common, especially in American English, to use do: Does he have a car?

When have has another meaning, do must be used:
What time did you have lunch today? (= eat)
Do you have to go there every week? (= must)
Does he have his house painted every year? (= someone does the job for him)

4. When an interrogative pronoun is the subject or a part of the subject of a clause:
Who said that?
Whose friend said that?
What happened?

CB

Could you correct my composition?

Emib — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:01:05 GMT

Hi all! I need you to correct this composition I did. I was asked to write a letter (I guess it's got to be formal) about a camp in Canada, I would be a L.I.T. (I didn't found this word on the net related to camps) and tell the parents what their kids are going to do and what they sould bring). It's American English. Thank you so much. (please, tell me if there's any mistake in the text below too).

Dear Sirs and Madams,

We are writing to advice you about what your children should bring to our Summer Camp in Canada and what activities they will take part in.

First of all, we recommend you to give your children a sleeping bag due to the lack of sheets and because it is not very warm at night. It would be useful for them to bring a flashlight in order to be able to find some things at night or not to get lost on a night trip (I mean, going to the mountain and so on). It's not very hot where your children will spend their vacation so they will (I can't figure out another auxiliary verb, maybe "could") wear shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes.

The activities scheduled for these three weeks are:

On Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday afternoons we will go hiking, fishing or canoeing.
On Tuesday. Thursday and Sunday afternoons we will play football, tennis or basketball.
During the mornings, we will go to a swimming pool and a lake so kids can play in the water.
Some days we will visit some cities so they can know new towns.

We are really sure that your children will have a lot of fun and will want to come back next summer.

Yours Faithfully

Re: You guys use auxiliary verbs?

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:39:16 GMT

what flavours you have?

I thought you were learning American English!
(Mnemonic: British food has no flavor -- it has flavour. )
(I'll get hate mail on this. )

In faster speech, you might, just maybe, hear What flavors you have? but you are just as likely (if not more likely) to hear What flavors jou have? (j = d(o) + y).

The typical case of the transformation you're hearing is initial Do- or Are-dropping before you in a question. The non-initial dropping is less typical, but it exists. You're not going deaf!

CJ

Re: Had he a dog? vs. Did he have a dog?

CalifJim — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:05:18 GMT

In that case, they have earned the title of distinguished by imitating British usage.

I am well aware that the sample sentence is not a question and what the meaning is, and though my concentration often lapses, I don't believe it has done so on this particular occasion.

Modern American English, distinguished writers aside, rarely uses main verb have as an operator, as in:

Have you any brothers?
Had you a problem in finishing the work?
Had he a second brain, it would be lonely.
He hasn't to leave until 8 o'clock.

These are rendered in AmE as

Do you have ...?
Did you have ...
If he had ...
He doesn't have to ...

respectively. Otherwise, they seem like (nearly deliberate) imitations of British English.

Auxiliary have is an operator in AmE, however, and the following structure is not uncommon:

Had you seen that dog, you would never have forgotten it.

CJ

Re: Omission of words in comparisons.

Grammarian-bot — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:06:26 GMT

OK.. I accept that i screwed the whole question. So, let me restate my question..

She is as good a swimmer as I [am]. (Can we omit "am")

I can run as fast as you [can]. (Can we omit "can")

So can we omit auxiliaries like these in any positive and comparative structure. Please don't answer regarding the coloquial. I am preparing for GMAT and these rules must be precisely according to the formal American English standards. I know my grammar is nop too god for GMAT but I know I can make it.

Appositives with auxiliaries.

Grammarian-bot — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:50:18 GMT

In American English, should an appositive used in a clause, which has auxiliaries, be placed after the auxiliary and not the subject of the verb?

We are both very happy to see you.

The boys had all been looking forward to seeing the circus.

Appositives with auxiliaries.

Grammarian-bot — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:28:45 GMT

In American English, should an appositive used in a clause, which has auxiliaries, be placed after the auxiliary and not the subject of the verb?

We are both very happy to see you.

The boys had all been looking forward to seeing the circus.

Re: had have had

Firefly — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:02:16 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:
I see no grammatical form or semantic meaning in had have had,

I don't dispute you, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. And I can infer semantic meaning. Presumably that's because I'm used to hearing both versions, and I distinguish between them automatically.

Mister Micawber wrote:
and googling (a mere 11,000 hits when I tried it) produces not one grammatically reputable webpage.

Well I just found this one, from "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English" (yes, curiously, American English). It's at http://www.bartleby.com/68/46/4646.html, and it describes what I'm talking about as the PLUPLUPERFECT tense. It states: "All such locutions are Substandard" - so I accept that this is substandard (at least, in America). The clarify the expansion of 'd, it says: "the uncontracted auxiliaries can be either would have or had have" - so we're both right, which is nice. :-)

Anyhow, I've just decided to buy myself a copy of "The Oxford English Grammar", which is pretty definitive so far as British English is concerned. I'll let you all know if there is any significant difference between British and American English in this regard (and I still suspect that there will be). The afforementioned Columbia Guide says "Spoken or written inadvertently, the plupluperfect is a powerful shibboleth in Standard English." -- so I just had to look up "shibboleth", which turns out to mean something which only people who use it consider to have meaning! Eerk!

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

milky — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:23:48 GMT

Milky wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the sentence, "She has to eat salad every day," would "has to" be a helping verb for the action verb "eat?" Initially "to eat" looks like an infinitive, but isn't "has to" another way of saying "must," which would make it a helping verb? Thanks!

"Have/has/had (to)" is not a member of the main group of modal auxiliary verbs, but is known by many as a "semi-modal auxiliary". Another name for "auxiliary verb" is "helping verb". So, you are right, "have (to)" is a helping verb.

"Must" is normally used for subjective obligation or necessity, e.g. when a person feels he/she is obliged to do something or something is necessary, and "have to" (in one use) is used for expressing objective obligation or necessity. that is, when the obligation or necessity is placed upon us by another person. However, it seems that a few American English speakers do not distinguish between those uses.

Sorry, All. I've been sleeping badly the past few nights and have been typing tired nonsense. See my corrections above.

Lesson to be learned: check one's posts before posting.

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

milky — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:30:39 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
In the sentence, "She has to eat salad every day," would "has to" be a helping verb for the action verb "eat?" Initially "to eat" looks like an infinitive, but isn't "has to" another way of saying "must," which would make it a helping verb? Thanks!

"Have/has/had (to)" is not a member of the main group of modal auxiliary verbs, but is known by many as a "semi-modal auxiliary". Another name for "auxiliary verb" is "helping verb". So, you are right, "have (to)" is a helping verb.

"Have to" is normally used for subjective obligation or necessity, e.g. when a person feels he/she is obliged to do something or something is necessary, and "must" (in one use) is used for expressing objective obligation or necessity. that is, when the obligation or necessity is placed upon us by another person. However, it seems that a few American English speakers do not distinguish between those uses.