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

Re: "shall" and "will" for 18th century readers: interchangeable?

Philip — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:21:43 GMT

Bokeh wrote:
Hi Teleostomi,

According to "Everyday Grammar - Oxford - ISBN 0-19-280116-3":

will/shall
Sometimes it is not clear whether one should use "shall" or "will".
The rule of traditional grammar is as follows:

Normally use "shall" with "I" and "we". Use will with all other persons.
Reverse this for emphasis, as in this famous example: "You will do it and nobody shall help you

Increasingly, however, "will" has become common in all uses.
Indeed "shall" is by far the least commomon of all the modal
auxiliary verbs: for every occasion where "shall"is used in
conversation, "will" is used fourteen times. The only common
occurrence of "shall" with "I" and "we" is in questions:
Shall I do it now?
The alternative "Will I do it now?", is also possible but in British
English tends to be regional rather than general usage.

That's the simple explanation I learned many, many years ago. I don't think the same distinction is made much any more in AmEng except in the most erudite situations.

[To make clear the above usage, my teacher then went on to explain that General MacArthur was trying to be emphatic by saying, "I shall return", when he should have used "will" to be emphatic (18th Century style).]

Re: "shall" and "will" for 18th century readers: interchangeable?

Bokeh — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:09:33 GMT

Hi Teleostomi,

According to "Everyday Grammar - Oxford - ISBN 0-19-280116-3":

will/shall
Sometimes it is not clear whether one should use "shall" or "will".
The rule of traditional grammar is as follows:

Normally use "shall" with "I" and "we". Use will with all other persons.
Reverse this for emphasis, as in this famous example: "You will do it and nobody shall help you

Increasingly, however, "will" has become common in all uses.
Indeed "shall" is by far the least commomon of all the modal
auxiliary verbs: for every occasion where "shall"is used in
conversation, "will" is used fourteen times. The only common
occurrence of "shall" with "I" and "we" is in questions:
Shall I do it now?
The alternative "Will I do it now?", is also possible but in British
English tends to be regional rather than general usage.

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: Modal verbs

milky — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:07:56 GMT

Milky wrote:

I have agreed that certain BE speaking individuals do not follow the must subjective/have to objective line and that their use may be either regional, idiolectic, or influenced by AE use.

This is like saying "All swans are white, except the ones that are black. Nonetheless, all swans are white.">

Strange, you are the one who asked me if I thought that all BE speakers used "have to" and "must" in the way I see it.

<I'm arguing against a restrictive interpretation which does not reflect current British English usage.>

Can you prove that it doesn't? In general usage?

<"Because they're using an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression.">

Pay attention:

<< speakers tend to prefer to use an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression>> Note the qualification with "tend to" there.

Hmm. I think I should have asked this at the start: What is your definition of BE?

Re: Modal verbs

MrPedantic — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:02:03 GMT

Milky wrote:

I have agreed that certain BE speaking individuals do not follow the must subjective/have to objective line and that their use may be either regional, idiolectic, or influenced by AE use.

This is like saying "All swans are white, except the ones that are black. Nonetheless, all swans are white."

Milky wrote:

I fail to see what it is you are arguing against.

I'm arguing against a restrictive interpretation which does not reflect current British English usage.

Milky wrote:

I repost this so we can be clear on my stance, once more:

"A general semantic characteristic of the deontic use of the central modals is that they may all be used to express subjective deontic modality but do not all so readily permit the expression of objective deontic modality, for which speakers tend to prefer to use an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression. This is the case with must, may and need (the latter in its auxiliary use in negative interrogative contexts). Speakers generally avoid these forms when expressing objective deontic modality, substituting, respectively, have (got to, can/be allowed to and non-auxiliary need to (Cf Perkins 1983:63; Palmer 1986:103.)."

As we've already seen, this is "argument by circular reference". If I asked:

"How do we know that speakers are expressing objective deontic modality?"

you would presumably reply

"Because they're using an alternative, usually non-auxiliary, modal expression."

Tendencies are the key in TESOL. If you want to discuss why speakers tend to avoid those forms when expressing objective deontic modality, I'm here and waiting, but to keep looking at singular examples that do not follow the common line, is off-topic and a waste of energy, IMO.

For "singular examples that do not follow the common line", read "examples that disprove the theory".

MrP

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: I have a book / I have got a book (differences)

CalifJim — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:12:30 GMT

Hi, Pieanne,

The first two are easy. The same ideas presented for the affirmative forms

I've got a book. / I have a book.

apply to the negative forms

I haven't got a book. / I don't have a book.

The third is even easier. In British English, but not in American, "have" used as a main verb is permitted to take the negative contraction form "haven't": "I haven't a book." In American English, "haven't" is only used when it's an auxiliary: "I haven't seen the book."

I think that's what you were asking, but ask again if not!

CJ

Re: Difference between American and British English

Guest — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:29:44 GMT

1. Use of present perfect tense and simple past tense

Speakers of American English generally use the present perfect tense (have/has + past participle) far less than speakers of British English. In spoken American English it is very common to use the simple past tense as an alternative in situations where the present perfect would usually have been used in British English. The two situations where this is especially likely are:

(i) In sentences which talk about an action in the past that has an effect in the present:

American English British/American English
Jenny feels ill. She ate too much. Jenny feels ill. She's eaten too much.
I can't find my keys. Did you see them anywhere? I can't find my keys. Have you
seen them anywhere?

(ii) In sentences which contain the words already, just or yet:

American English British/American English
A: Are they going to the show tonight?
B: No. They already saw it. A: Are they going to the show tonight?
B: No. They've already seen it.
A: Is Samantha here?
B: No, she just left. A: Is Samantha here?
B: No, she's just left.
A: Can I borrow your book?
B: No, I didn't read it yet. A: Can I borrow your book?
B: No, I haven't read it yet.
2. Verb agreement with collective nouns

In British English collective nouns, (i.e. nouns referring to particular groups of people or things), (e.g. staff , government, class, team) can be followed by a singular or plural verb depending on whether the group is thought of as one idea, or as many individuals , e.g.:
My team is winning.
The other team are all sitting down.
In American English collective nouns are always followed by a singular verb, so an American would usually say:
Which team is losing?
whereas in British English both plural and singular forms of the verb are possible, as in:
Which team is/are losing?
3. Use of delexical verbs have and take

In British English, the verb have frequently functions as what is technically referred to as a delexical verb, i.e. it is used in contexts where it has very little meaning in itself but occurs with an object noun which describes an action, e.g.:
I'd like to have a bath.
Have is frequently used in this way with nouns referring to common activities such as washing or resting, e.g.:
She's having a little nap.
I'll just have a quick shower before we go out.
In American English, the verb take, rather than have, is used in these contexts, e.g.:
Joe's taking a shower.
I'd like to take a bath.
Let's take a short vacation.
Why don't you take a rest now?
4. Use of auxiliaries and modals

In British English, the auxiliary do is often used as a substitute for a verb when replying to a question, e.g.:
A: Are you coming with us?
B: I might do.
In American English, do is not used in this way, e.g.:
A: Are you coming with us?
B: I might.
In British English needn't is often used instead of don't need to, e.g.:
They needn't come to school today.
They don't need to come to school today.
In American English needn't is very unusual and the usual form is don't need to, i.e.:
They don't need to come to school today.
In British English, shall is sometimes used as an alternative to will to talk about the future, e.g.:
I shall/will be there later.
In American English, shall is unusual and will is normally used.

In British English shall I/we is often used to ask for advice or an opinion, e.g.:
Shall we ask him to come with us?
In American English should is often used instead of shall, i.e.:
Should we ask him to come with us?
4. Use of prepositions

In British English, at is used with many time expressions, e.g.:
at Christmas/five 'o' clock
at the weekend
In American English, on is always used when talking about the weekend, not at, e.g.:
Will they still be there on the weekend?
She'll be coming home on weekends.
In British English, at is often used when talking about universities or other institutions, e.g.:
She studied chemistry at university.
In American English, in is often used, e.g.:
She studied French in high school.
In British English, to and from are used with the adjective different, e.g.:
This place is different from/to anything I've seen before.
In American English from and than are used with different, e.g.:
This place is different from/than anything I've seen before.
In British English to is always used after the verb write, e.g.:
I promised to write to her every day.
In American English, to can be omitted after write, i.e.:
I promised to write her every day.
5. Past tense forms

Below is a table showing verbs which have different simple past and past participle forms in American and British English.
Note that the irregular past forms burnt, dreamt and spoilt are possible in American English, but less common than the forms ending in -ed.

infinitive simple past (Br) simple past (Am) past participle (Br) past participle (Am)
burn burned/burnt burned/burnt burned/burnt burned/burnt
bust bust busted bust busted
dive dived dove/dived dived dived
dream dreamed/dreamt dreamed/dreamt dreamed/dreamt dreamed/dreamt
get got got got gotten
lean leaned/leant leaned leaned/leant leaned
learn learned/learnt learned learned/learnt learned
plead pleaded pleaded/pled pleaded pleaded/pled
prove proved proved proved proved/proven
saw sawed sawed sawn sawn/sawed
smell smelled/smelt smelled smelled/smelt smelled
spell spelled/spelt spelled spelled/spelt spelled
spill spilled/spilt spilled spilled/spilt spilled
spit spat spat/spit spat spat/spit
spoil spoiled/spoilt spoiled/spoilt spoiled/spoilt spoiled/spoilt
stink stank stank/stunk stunk stunk
wake woke woke/waked woken woken

Note that have got is possible in American English, but is used with the meaning 'have', gotten is the usual past participle of get, e.g.:

American English British English
You've got two brothers. (= you have two brothers) You've got two brothers.
You've gotten taller this year You've got taller this year
from www.onestopenglish.com

"To have" in the interrogative and negative forms

Jack-in-the-box — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:39:35 GMT

1) "I have a pen."

2) "I have my good reasons for that."

3) "I have to go there."

I'm often in doubt about how to put in the interrogative and negative forms the verb "to have".

The easiest case is when "to have" is used as an auxiliary verb: "I have (I've) gone to Paris" > "Have you gone to P.?", "I have not (haven't) gone to P."

1) In the first sentence, "to have" means "to possess".
I would say "I have a pen" or "I have (I've) got a pen", but only "Have you got a pen?" and "I haven't got a pen".
As far as I know, "Have you a pen?" and "I have not (haven't) a pen", with no "got" after, would be grammatically correct, but are scarcely ever used, at least nowadays; and "Do you have a pen?", "I don't have a pen" are rather American constructions (are they used in England, too? Because I'm interested in British English usage.)

2) In the second sentence, the meaning of "to have" can hardly be described as "to possess": is it still possible to say "I've got my..., Have you got your...?, I haven't got any..., good reasons"?
Other similar examples: "He has a beautiful voice", "She had blue eyes", "I have a temperature", "We have a right to know", "I have a good opinion of Sandy".

3) In the third sentence, "to have to" means "must, to be obliged to". I think that I should say "I don't have to go there" and "Do you have to go there?": am I right? Perhaps also with "got"?

I'm a little bit confused. Would you help me to bring order into the chaos of my mind?

Thank you very much for your answers.