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

Re: Verb Pairing

cool breeze — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:09:36 GMT

a. Do you can understand? Until Shakespeare's days questions were formed in English the way they are still formed in other Germanic languages, simply by inverting the subject and the verb: Know you him? (Today: Do you know him? ) The correct question is Do you understand ? (I would add an object .) The can in the original sentence is wrong. However, if we were to include can in the question, do would have to be left out: Can you understand it? This is because even today, do isn't used with the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; shall, should; will, would; may, might; must; ought) in questions: Can you speak French? Will he come in time? Should we go now? Must we do it now? Do isn't used with the...

Re: Can also or also can?

cool breeze — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:26:02 GMT

You give no sentences. There may be exceptions - in English there almost always are - but the rule is very simple: put also after a defective/modal auxiliary (can, could; shall, should; will, would; may, might; must; ought). You can also come with us. He will also buy a new car. It should also be easy. They may also want to read the book. He must also have seen it. CB

Re: Modal will and would

mister micawber — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:44:37 GMT

They are modal auxiliaries, both at the same time. Modal auxiliaries are one kind of auxiliary verb.

Re: Suggest + subjunctive or not

dimsumexpress — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:31:03 GMT

The "if" subjunctive variety was not the main issue here. At this juncture, we are not particularly concerned about the "if" conditionals, or degree of possibility and certainty. Perhaps that's another topic. The heavy discussion for the last two pages mainly was around the acceptability and grammaticalilty of the modal word "should" in relation to the mandative verbs usage. And I found another English website pointing the unfavorable style of this usage. http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/excerpts.html Excerpt: Mandative subjunctive. So far we have examined three different ways of issuing directives – modals, semi-auxiliaries, and the imperative.The subjunctive can also be used as a...

Re: Auxiliary verbs

cool breeze — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:54:53 GMT

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. May is a defective auxiliary, also known as a modal auxiliary. Have been is a parfect infinitive but have can also be called an auxiliary even though it isn't of course a modal auxiliary or a part of may. Been is a past participle. CB

Re: Infinitives/ bare infinitives

english 1b3 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:50:52 GMT

Yes, but the verb phrase has a bare infinitive in it, due to the modal auxiliary. So I'm just confirming if I am right with that, and if bare infinitives can function as nouns adjective and adverbs as to infinitives can. Wiki doesn't mention them working as such, but I can't just trust that :)

Re: A question about auxiliary verbs

califjim — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:23:53 GMT

...was driving... Is this a phrase in the past progressive? Yes. ... And is it a passive voice? No. And there is no modality here because there is no modal auxiliary, right? Right. (he) Would have reached.. Is this pefect form? I'd call it a modal perfect. past time? Yes. MOdality= epistimic? (because somethings is stated as the case?) ??? The term epistemic doesn't apply here. And a active voice? Yes. CJ

Re: A question about auxiliary verbs

gleb_chebrikoff — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:38:11 GMT

Dear friend, ...was driving... Is this a phrase in the past progressive? Yes, it surely is. ( be+ing) And is it a passive voice? No, it is not. Passive voice requires a past participle ( eg was being driven) And there is no modality here because there is no modal auxiliary, right? You are quite right. He would have reached ... is a perfect form (manifested by have + ed-participle); it is also a modal phrase and is in the active voice. MOdality= epistimic? (because somethings is stated as the case?) - You probably mean epistEmic possibility that modals can express, but this epistemic meaning is limited to may/might, must, have (got) to . 'Would' in this case is used in the hypothetical sense and has...

A question about auxiliary verbs

justafreak — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:12:49 GMT

Can someone correct this? A phrase like: ...was driving... Is this a phrase in the past progressive? ( be+ing) And is it a passive voice? And there is no modality here because there is no modal auxiliary, right? What about: (he) Would have reached.. Is this pefect form? past time? MOdality= epistimic? (because somethings is stated as the case?) And a active voice?

Re: Grammar Questions

dimsumexpress — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:49:18 GMT

Hello everyone, I wish it would stop raining – I know ‘wish’ and ‘would’ are the key to the construction - but I don’t know what the tense is… Subject + wish + it (what is it?)+ would (modal auxiliary verb) + verb + gerund Hi, You are almost perfect! The " I wish + I would / could " construction is one type of conditional sentence that describes conditions of non-factual or imaginary natures. I wish I could have graduated from college a few years earlier..

Grammar Questions

emma_09 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:41:37 GMT

Hello everyone, Would anyone mind having a read through my answers below to see if i'm on the right tracks? I'm looking at the meaning/function and form of the sentence/underlined words! With many thanks!! Fiona is very sociable - Present simple to describe a friends character/ Subject + be in present + adverb + adjective (adjective phrase) I wish it would stop raining – I know ‘wish’ and ‘would’ are the key to the construction - but I don’t know what the tense is… Subject + wish + it (what is it?)+ would (modal auxiliary verb) + verb + gerund Fadouma has worked here for 2 years – present perfect to describe something that began in the past and continues now. Subject + have (3rd...

Some Questions about Modals

ihsuan — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:50:11 GMT

Hi, I would like to ask some questions about modal auxiliary. First, does HAVE TO belong to MODAL AUXILIARY? I have visited some websites on this topic. (I also searched here for the keyword, but there are too many articles and thus I couldn't read through them all.) Some of them say it is a modal . http://www.englishpage.com/modals/haveto.html Some of them, however, say it is the auxiliary verb HAVE combined with an infinitive. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm Furthermore, some say it is even not an auxiliary, but a main verb with an infinitive. http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modals-have-to-must-not-1.htm I feel co

Re: What tense is this sentence in?

cool breeze — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:39:06 GMT

They had to have that specially made? The sentence is in the past tense. Since English lacks verbs for situations in which person A does something for person B on person B's request, a rather long and awkward structure is used instead: to have something done . Have is the finite verb, in other words, the verb that shows tense . The past participle has absolutely nothing to do with tense as it is always required regardless of the tense. Other examples of the same structure in various tenses: Present tense: He has his house painted every five years. Past tense: He had his house painted last week. Present perfect: He has had his house painted twice. Past perfect/Pluperfect: He had had his house painted needlessly. Present...

Re: verbs

cool breeze — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:59:36 GMT

Terminology varies a little from country to country and ven from grammarian to grammarian. My opinion: Are gerunds verbs? No, but a gerund can take an object and may occur in the passive voice like a verb. I consider a gerund neither a verb nor a noun but a little bit of both. are infinitives verbs? Yes. ' She is swimming' are both 'is' and 'swimming' the verb or only 'is'? Both are verbs. Swimming is a present participle. 'That could be fun' are the verbs 'could' and 'be', or just 'be'? Both a verbs. Could is a defective auxiliary (also known as a modal auxiliary) and be is a present infinitive. All infinitives are verb forms. Can you have multiple verbs...

Will be ING vs Past progressive

guzhao67 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:29:58 GMT

Hello; the following text was taken from a grammar book, and i can't see the point the author wanted to convey. "Other uses of the progressive aspect It may be used especially following the auxiliary will or shall with the special implication that the action will take place 'as a matter of course' in the future: I'll be seeing you next week. Note: 'The 'matter-of-course' implication of will or shall with the progressive is also found with other modal auxiliaries, and possibly also with the past progressive in conversational contexts; eg: I was talking to Anne, and she was telling me that the job is still vacant. In contrast to the simple past talked and told , the progressive here suggests a casual...

"Past Probability + Tenses" combo

akdom — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:24:28 GMT

express probability in the past STRUCTURE: modal + have + past participle Where was John last night at 10? 1. He may have been at his home. This is Past Tense. Right? He has been in this country for 2 years. (Present Perfect) 2. He may have been in this country for 2 years. Isn't #2 exactly same as #1? The suspect had been to the crime scene. (Past Perfect) 3. The suspect may had been here. The suspect may have had been here. Ok, in this situation, I'm completely lost so far. When I tried to describe a Past Perfect situation using the STRUCTURE (modal+have+pastPartipal), the STRUCTURE doesn't seem to fit anymore. I also attached this Formula I found, but it also...

Re: Parts of Speech

clive — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:53:03 GMT

Hi, I have difficulty in understanding verb usage(two verbs given and go in same sentence) in below sentence and also please tell me the parts of speech in the sentence. You need articles as shown. Effective and substantial critiques given to a person can go a long way in changing the life of the person in a postive way. 'Given is a past participle usesd as an adjective to describe 'critiques'. The full adjectival phrase is 'given to a person'. The adjectives 'effective and substantial' also describe 'critiques'. The noun 'critiques' is the subject of the sentence. The verb is 'can go'. 'Can' is a modal auxiliary used withe base verb...

Re: "might", modal or adverb

dokterjokkebrok — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:03:18 GMT

Might is always considered a modal in English. However, and that is why I think yours is a good question, in other languages, such as my own – which is Dutch – we do in fact add an adverb to the verb phrase of the sentence. In the end, the difference between a modal and an adverb is not quite that distinguishable, as they both give extra information and can be left out. Note: modal verb = type of auxilia ry If we were to make a question of the sentence we can see if might is in fact a modal auxiliary. That would be, Can/Could I have a copy in the garage? I'll take a look. You can see that 'might' has been subsituted with 'can/could', because might is never used in questions to express specific possibility...

Re: Where we use

mister micawber — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:37:41 GMT

Your question is far too general for this forum. Start by reading about modal auxiliary verbs HERE and HERE . Then, if you have any specific questions, we will try to answer them.

Re: Modal auxiliaries

mister micawber — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:22:57 GMT

'Can' is not polite except with family or close friends. 'Would' is quite polite in all situations.

Modal auxiliaries

anonymous — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:35:46 GMT

what is the differences of can and would as a modal auxiliary which have a fuction as a polite request?

Re: Modal auxiliaries and grammatical moods

cool breeze — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:25:40 GMT

It is advisable to learn the various ways of using the modal auxiliaries without thinking of grammatical moods at the same time. These auxiliaries lack forms ( must has only one form, for example) and the potential mood, as it exists in some languages, is nonexistent in English. However, auxiliaries such as may and can can be used to convey thoughts that are expressed using the potential mood in other languages. It is perfectly possible, though, that in many cases can may be translated into your native language using the indicative mood. Some auxiliaries are used in conditional sentences, some aren't. The subjunctive is normally formed without modal auxiliaries in English but it is possible that you have to translate some modal...

Modal auxiliaries and grammatical moods

khnnoufa — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:17:12 GMT

hello can i used the modal auxiliaries in the other grammatical moods (conditional,pottential,subjunctive,..) beside the master mood the indicative mood. thank.

Re: Sentence correction

cool breeze — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:23:55 GMT

There is no modal auxiliary in your sentences. You need does: Only one chance does he have. I don't know how many people would actually say that. I wouldn't. He has only one chance is correct. CB

Re: Difference between 'might be' and 'may be'

vince — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:17:34 GMT

I found a website that could help you. I'll quote part of it for you: "May/might is an example of a modal auxiliary verb. The distinction between may and might has to do with the tense (present, past etc.) and/ or mood (indicative/ subjunctive). "May" is the present indicative and "might" is either the past indicative (which isn't relevant to your particular query) or the past subjunctive. Your question therefore ultimately boils down to a more general question about when to use the present indicative and when to use the past subjunctive of a modal auxiliary verb. A particular problem is that in certain varieties of spoken English we often use the past subjunctive ("might") when a...

Re: COuld, Should , Might and able to

alpheccastars — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:07:56 GMT

This lesson shows how to use these words (they are modal auxiliaries) in sentences. If you have more questions after this lesson, just post more specific questions.

Re: Could you please, help me?

cool breeze — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:37:17 GMT

have done something. had done somthing. If the above sentences were preceded by: could/ would/may..etc I'm afraid I have to tell you that had done following a defective auxiliary (can, could; will, would; may, might; shall, should; must; ought) is always an incorrect collocation. Only an infinitive can follow a defective/modal auxiliary. Fortunately there are only two infinitives in English, two in the active and another two in the passive voice (for transitive verbs only). The verb to write , for example has the following infinitives: Present active: write ; perfect active: have written (= have + past participle) Present passive: be written ; perfect passive: have been written As the names imply, the present...

Re: Infinitive

cool breeze — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:11:23 GMT

I have heard that the infinitive can exist without the 'to.' Is this correct? As others have told you, it is correct. More examples and explanations: A 1. Can you speak English? Do you speak English? 2. How dare you say so? (Also: How do you dare to say so?) 3. He need not come . (Also: He doesn't need/have to come.) 1. The plain/bare infinitive (= infinitive without to ) is used in connection with the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; shall, should; may, might; will, would; must) and with do, does, did . 2. and 3. The plain infinitive is used with dare and need when these verbs are used in questions and negations without the auxiliary do. B 1. I saw him come /coming. He was...

Re: Present perfect of passive voice and adverbs

cool breeze — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:59:03 GMT

Passive has nothing to do with it. The so-called adverbs of frequency are usually placed as follows: 1. Before the main verb if it is in the present or past tense: I almost hurt my leg. He seldom smiles. 2. After the present and past tense forms of to be: He is always late. 3. After the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must; ought): He would never have done it. He may always have known it. 4. After the perfect auxiliaries (have, has; had): He has never been told the truth. They had often said something. 5. After not: They do not/don't always know the right answer. I have not/haven't always liked her. 6. In questions, after the subject : Does he always know the...

Re: What is the difference between these two ?

alpheccastars — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:31:19 GMT

Canakc "be" is an auxiliary verb used to make the progressive tenses.(be + present participle) I am sitting, I was sitting The simple modal is formed by the modal auxiliary + infinitive I might sit. I would sit. I must sit. The modal (or future) form in the progressive is made from the modal auxiliary + be (infinitive) + present participle of the verb. I might be sitting, I would be sitting, I will be sitting, I must be sitting... etc. Just like the progressive tenses, it indicates that the action is continuing over a period of time. The modal + be is where "be" is the main verb That would be my mother. She always calls at this time every day. Could that watch be a real Rolex? It looks like an imitation. He...

Locative Inversion in English

anonymous — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:06:25 GMT

Hi. I'm a Japanese university student, working on my graduation thesis. I'm studying locative inversion with modal auxiliary verb, such as (1-3). (locative inversion consists of <locative phrase＋verb＋subject>,and its derivative <ing＋locative phrase＋be＋subject>, by my definition. ) (1) Sitting on the stump {will/ may/ can/ should/ must} be a great big toad. (2)In the caves {will/ may/ can} hide a fierce lion. (3)Down the hill {will/ may/ can} roll the baby carriage. Are these sentences acceptable? If you think acceptable, which modal aux will be a top, and which will be a low? If you think unacceptable, what contexts are required to make these sentences acceptable? (As for (2) and (3), a sperker or writer who states...

Re: There is much I have to say to you

anonymous — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:52:46 GMT

<I'm not sure where you're coming from with "have to.">< ?? Have to" is a, relatively, ages-old semi-modal auxiliary. It's used by children and adults alike.

Please, help me with my sentences!

anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:34:26 GMT

Could you please, check if the answers given for each sentence are correct? 1) I think he is Irish. * I am not sure . Here when I say “ I think he is Irish ”, it’s my deduction

Re: The Callan Method

anonymous — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:20:08 GMT

Hi everybody, I strongly disagree with the views mentioned on behalf of the Callan Method. Just because it promises to get the student where he or she wants to, doesn't mean the Method deserves criticism. I've been teaching English both the traditional way and the Callan Method way for about a year and a half now and I find that the Callan Method is much more productive (great emphasis on 'much') because it forces the student to cope with real language and real life situations, not just nonsensical vocabulary (words like 'juggle' or 'juggler', etc which I believe are to be found in almost all elementary books, not the Callan ones, though). The Method completely fulfills every single promise it gives to...

Re: "have + to" versus "have + object + to + V"

anonymous — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:10:03 GMT

Aside: Americans, does this comment vex you? "The 'Americanization' of British English is suggested by the modal auxiliary profiles: here British English appears to follow American English, where the decline of modals is further advanced both in the 1961 and the 1991 data. In addition to American influence, another general trend of 'colloquialization' appears to explain some changes." http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/floblob.html

Re: Need we say more?

alpheccastars — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:51:20 GMT

What is defective/modal auxiliary verb? Jackson: See the catenative verb entry in wiki.. These verbs can be followed by other verbs - infinitive, gerund, and bare infinitive. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_catenative_verbs

Re: Need we say more?

jackson6612 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:44 GMT

Hi CB, To my home has nothing to do with verbs. To is a preposition here. Did I say it had anything to do with verbs? Yes, to is a preposition but to my home functions an infinitive object. Am I wrong? The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses . Why conditional clauses , why not simply conditional sentence(s) ? In other words, auxiliary need is normally not used in affirmative clauses and therefore to is used before the infinitive (to say) . Is auxiliary need and modal need the same thing? should , may , will , etc. are auxiliaries verbs and at the same time modal verbs. Is affirmative clause and assertive clause the same thing? I believe infinitive has...

Re: Need we say more?

cool breeze — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:03:23 GMT

Do we need to say more? Let me ask you few more questions. In Will you come to my home today : to my home is infinitive object But when Do we need to say more is changed into affirmative statement Do just disappears, We need to say more . What is your explanation for this? To my home has nothing to do with verbs. To is a preposition here. An answer to your last question is given in a previous post: " The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses." In other words, auxiliary need is normally not used in affirmative clauses and therefore to is used before the infinitive (to say). To is normally used before an infinitive after a verb: I want to say it....

Re: She must have a lot of homework to do

planet hopper — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:02:46 GMT

Too easy for a question here...But there you go Any auxiliary verb will not allow the main verb after it to inflect, let it be will, must, or any other primary / modal auxiliary. Never put an ed or an -s on a verb that is introduced by an auxiliary. Cheers :)

Re: "shall always be" or "shall be always"

cool breeze — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:21:03 GMT

Always and other adverbs of indefinite time (ever, never, usually, seldom etc.) are usually placed after a defective/modal auxiliary in affirmative clauses: I shall always regret that. I would never have believed him. CB

Re: Names of different tenses

cool breeze — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:58:41 GMT

He would have had completed the task if he had asked for help before he left work -- would have had completed used for had asked (past perfect) that happens before left (simple past) Is it false then? "would have + (past perfect)" doesn't exist? These terms may not be the same everywhere but the basic grammar of the language is the same all over the Anglo-Saxon world! Would have had completed is always wrong. Would is a defective/modal auxiliary and only an infinitive is possible after these auxiliaries. In this case the perfect infinitive must be used. There are two theoretical alternatives using your verbs. Either would have completed or would have had . All other combinations are wrong. The perfect...

Re: conditional

anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2008 01:59:29 GMT

Thank you, Mr. M. Then, what are these ones I wrote? They have if-clauses and what look to be resultant clauses, and also, they seem to be good, sensible sentences. All first conditional?? If I hear from you before I leave, I would call you when I get home. If I get a raise this month, I would buy a new car. If I play soccer every two days, I might beat this illness. If I work hard, I might/would get a raise before the end of this month. I think those are sentences I can use any day. What are they then? Should I not use any of them and as you seem to have recommended, change the modal auxiliary verbs in the main clause to 'will'?

Re: ? have something done

mister micawber — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:49:01 GMT

. None of the answers makes sense in this context except C. The other modal auxiliaries carry inappropriate meanings. Start your study HERE, FOR INSTANCE .

Re: You need only see her. (Is this correct?)

tanit — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:05:30 GMT

Hi, I know that auxiliary verb "need" cannot be used in affirmative statements, but how about this one? Is this correct? You need only see her. Hi, Let me quote Swann ( Practical English Usage , 3 rd ed., § 366.2): Need can also have the same present-tense forms as modal auxiliary verbs ... In this case, need is normally followed by an infinitive without to . She needn't reserve a seat - there'll be plenty of room. These forms are used mainly in negative sentences ( needn't ), but they are also possible in questions, after if and in other 'non-affirmative' structures. You needn't fill in a form. Need I fill i n a form? I wonder if I need fill in a form. This is the only form you...

Re: Modal verb Used to, understood?

cool breeze — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:23:21 GMT

Hi Eladio You have a mathematical mind! Congratulations! In addition to what CalifJim and MrP have said, I would like to add a couple of comments. In one of your sentences not is in the wrong place: "Shall not we ever get used to this house?" Not can't be after a defective/modal auxiliary ( shall) in a negative question unless it is contracted ( shan't). Say: Shall/will we not ever get used to this house? Or, better still: Shan't/won't we ever get used to this house? / Shall/will we n ever get used to this house? Secondly, used to need not indicate habitual action in the past. It is frequently used with verbs such as live and like : He used to live here when he was a teenager. The meaning is the same...

Re: may/might

yoong liat — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:34:21 GMT

Hi Newguest I have the following to share with you. may / might Similarly, we can use the modal auxiliaries may or might to say that there is a chance that something is true or may happen. May and might are used to talk about present or future events. They can normally be used interchangeably, although might may suggest a smaller chance of something happening. Compare the following: I may go into town tomorrow for the Christmas sales. And James might come with me! What are you doing over the New Year, Ann? ~ Oh, I may go to Scotland, but there again, I might stay at home. If you go to bed early tonight, you may / might feel better tomorrow. If you went to bed early tonight, you might feel better tomorrow. ...

Re: adverbs of probability

mister micawber — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:33:57 GMT

No; they are modal auxiliary verbs. Adverbs of probability are such as likely, probably, possibly, feasibly, certainly .

Re: Non finite reduced adverbial clause????

anonymous — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:11:12 GMT

Hello, Dr. E.T. Babalola! I'm still uncertain of the third example you've given here. Are you fully convinced that the italicised part of the third example is a non-finite clause? As I know, clauses can be divided into two kinds, namely finite clauses and non-finite clauses . The distinguishing characteristic between these two clauses is the verb within the clauses.The verb in finite clauses must be a finite verb whereas the verb in non-finite clauses is a non-finite verb. The finite verb shows tense whereas the non-finite one doesn't. Modal auxiliaries count as finite ones. And in the third example you've given, the italicised part contains a modal, " can't ". I would say that the italicised part is not a non-finite clause, but it...

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

belly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:00:22 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote: Hi Belly 1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream. 2) Not one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object : I did n't see any boys there. I did n't see anything there. I did n't see anybody there. 3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive:...

Re: 1) In the end I had to get a lift with a colleague

cool breeze — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:23:55 GMT

Hi Belly 1) You could use to get as well. Both the full infinitive (to get) and the plain/bare infintive (get) are correct after do in sentences like yours. There is an old song All I Have To Do Is Dream. It could just as well be All I Have To Do Is To Dream. 2) Not one is idiomatic and grammatical. Not any fitted is impossible because fitted is the finite/main verb (past tense) and the collocation not any/anything/anybody is never used as a grammatical subject. Not + any/anything/anybody is possible when any is an object : I did n't see any boys there. I did n't see anything there. I did n't see anybody there. 3) Should is a defective/modal auxiliary and is therefore always followed by a plain infinitive: Should your...