Search results for 'tag:Auxiliaries tag:Grammar' matching tags 'Auxiliaries' and 'Grammar'

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: article

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:26:00 GMT

Thank you, again.

I might have to word this question carefully. Please take a look at these simple sentences that could be correct or wrong in term of grammar.

1. I am using a cream.
2.I purchased a shampoo.
3. I ordered a pizza.

To me, no. 1. and 2 seem to call for additional context or information, whereas no. 1 could stand alone without any auxiliary element (if I could call it that). They look the same in terms of how they are structured in terms of sentence pattern, yet no. 3 seems to be different than the other two. Am I right in thinking that way.
Your example sentences:
I went to the drugstore because I needed some shampoo. I bought a shampoo that I have never tried before.

If you look at your second example sentence, you will see there is an additional element to the clause "I bought a shampoo." And I feel no. 1 and 2 of the above seem to demand more like you have done, whereas it seems that no. 3 could stand alone.

Re: Pls let me know what's wrong?

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:45:29 GMT

Jaishree,

The second one is correct because it contains the auxiliary verb ("is") and punctuation (the period or full-stop at the end). Without the verb, in particular, the first line is not actually a sentence. For clarity, you can always rearrange the wording into the basic subject + verb + object structure. For example, instead of "Attached is the completed file for your review" (no period, as my sentence isn't finished), you can write "The completed file is attached for your review". "The completed file" (subject) + "is attached" (verb) + "for your review" (object, or the point of attaching the completed file to the e-mail).

Also remember that the completed file requires someone to attach it to the e-mail, as it can't do it itself! :) When you leave out who is doing the attaching, you must always use the auxiliary ("to be") and the past simple of the main verb ("attached"). In this instance, you would use the present form of the auxiliary ("is") as the completed file is still attached to the e-mail when the other person receives it (and if it isn't, it's likely the fault of the wonders of technology and not of the wonders of grammar!).

I'm a bit rusty at the explanations, so I hope this is clear.

Edel

Re: a Few grammar questions

CalifJim — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:12:40 GMT

Anonymous
Explain why the verb âTo Beâ is not a non-progressive verb?

It can be used in progressive tenses -- although this is not common. (The baby is being difficult this morning.)

Anonymous
I know the simple present never talks about the present ...

You have false knowledge. I wonder what makes you think this.

Anonymous
Why does the present tense not exist in English?

Again, you are mistaken. The present tense exists in English. Where are you getting all these crazy ideas?

Anonymous
What are perpendicular and parallel actions?

I've never heard of this distinction.

Anonymous
What is the difference between the Present Perfect and the Present Perfect Progressive?

Present Perfect is formed with the auxiliary have and the past participle of some verb: have seen, has done, have lived. Present Perfect Progressive is formed with the auxiliaries have and been and the present participle of some verb: have been seeing, has been doing, has been living.

Re: Experience

Rotter — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:01:03 GMT

Thanks Grammar Geek

Usually the verb which determines the tense of the sentence is the auxiliary verb.

So the verb 'is' or 'are' should be an auxiliary verb. I can't fathom out your point.

You have written the word 'auxiallary'. Is it AmE?

I have learnt to write 'auxiliary'.

Re: Experience

Rotter — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:12:58 GMT

Thanks Grammar Geek

You didn't see the following:

2.Your experiences as a teacher is valuble to the forum.

[ Probably the auxiliary verb 'is' wrong here. It should be 'are'. Please tell me.]

Re: a passive question

CalifJim — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:40:23 GMT

Yahyacan
Are both of these answers true or is there only one correct answer?

I don't know anything about those villagers and what happened to them, so I can't tell you whether the sentence is true. If the villagers really were taken from their houses, and so on, then it's true. That is, I don't know if those words correspond to reality.

I think you're asking if the sentences are right or correct (in terms of grammar)

The answer is that both are correct, but since you have the auxiliary were in the first clause, you don't need to repeat it in the second clause. The second version ( b ) of the sentence is better. It's like saying I have seen and heard it. You can say I have seen and have heard it, but that's a bit clumsier.

Re: need help from grammar experts

Mister Micawber — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:17:27 GMT

In(prep) the (article-- a kind of adjective) marshy(adj) mists(noun) of(prep) a (article-- a kind of adjective) deserted (adjective--it modifies 'churchyard') village(adj) churchyard(noun), a (adj) shivering(adj), limping(adj) convict(noun) on (prep) the (adj) run (noun) suddenly(adv) terrifies(verb) Pip(noun), a (adj) tiny(adj) orphan(noun used as an adjective) boy(noun). Years (noun) later (adverb) , a (adj) supremely(adv) arrogant(adj) young(adj) Pip(noun) boards(verb) the(adj) coach(noun) to(prep) London(noun) where (adverb used as a conjunction), by (prep) the (adj) grace(noun) of(prep) a (adj) mysterious(adj) benefactor(noun), he(pronoun) will(auxiliary verb) eagerly(adv) join(verb) the (adj) ranks(noun) of (prep) the (adj) idle(adj) rich(pronoun, or adjective used as a noun) and become(verb) a (adj) gentleman(noun).

Re: my cellphone had no power already??

Spides — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:11:30 GMT

By "true" I think you mean "correct"? True is the opposite of false, but doesn't apply to grammar. Only you can tell if your cell phone has no power, which would make the statement true. As far as correct goes, you could say "My cellphone has no power already." This would be used if your battery power ran out sooner than you thought it would. Or you could say, " My cellphone doesn't have power already." It would be more natural to say, "Already my cellphone has no power." Using "doesn't" as an auxiliary verb requires you to use "have" instead of "has." And finally, I don't think it is true that always could only be used in present perfect tense. One could say, "I will always be available." That would be future tense. "I had always said I would do it." Past perfect. So, no--always could be used in many different tenses and situations.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:49 GMT

Anonymous
In that respect, I would like to know when and how the auxiliary "do" appeared in English. What kind of people introduced it into the English language?
I would like to know who decided about the value of tenses of the Past. They do not correspond to the value of the tenses of the Past in latinoÃ¯d languages. Who can give me answers ?
In this debate, I do not think there is an evolution towards simplicity nor towards more complicated structures. The
communities of native speakers of a language constantly change the rules and the meaning of words (although the main core remains more or less stable for facility reasons.)
Ethnic languages are tools of inclusion and mainly exclusion (internal and external). That is why there are so many exceptions.
No ethnic language is that easy to learn. When I say "to learn" I mean to learn it to be on equal footing with a native speaker of the language. There will always be a difference, a discrimination.
From what I have experienced ( I am very interested by languages), there is no easy language. All has been done by training.
There is no natural language : everything has been constructed by Man.
I invite the readers to learn an interlanguage such as Esperanto, compare it with your mother tongue and with languages you have studied later. 90% to 95% of the time is spent to the learning of exceptions. That is why a language without exception such as Esperanto is ten to twenty times faster to learn than ethnic languages.
It is fascinating to see how a universal congress of Esperanto works and to compare it with an international congress in only one language. Many prejudices fall.
Maybe I am opening new interests in the debate..
George/Belgium

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say both

I know not him
and
I do not know him.

It is very common that the usage of tenses varies from language to language, especially if the languages are not closely related. No reasons can usually be given for this. You might just as well ask why the usage of tenses in the Romance languages differs from that in English. Linguistic changes are often shrouded in the past and there is no knowing why they occurred.

All words and grammatical structures people are not used to sound wrong and/or odd and therefore people usually object to changes that are about to happen in their lifetime and think the language is deteriorating. This is true about all languages, not just English. People tend to think a language is at its most beautiful right now and any change will just make it worse.

English grammar has become so simple over the centuries that I cannot envisage it becoming any simpler without the risk of English becoming even more inexact than it is now. However, not all changes have made the language simpler in structure. In Old English there was just one relative pronoun and it had only one form. That made communication with relative clauses very awkward and it wasn't a great surprise that who, whom, whose, what and which began to be used as relatives to facilitate communication.

CB