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

Re: Bilingual

Cool Breeze — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:06:07 GMT

Anonymous
Websters is more of a descriptive dictionary. Cambridge and Oxford are prescriptive. I think that explains why Webster's has it as a noun. As our language evolves (becomes degraded), the more we'll find things in Websters that aren't widesly accepted by grammarians.

I agree with your analysis regarding the character of the two dictionaries. If change equal degradation, English was ruined hundreds of years ago. There are countless examples of that: the use of the auxiliary do in questions and negations, the use of s as a nearly universal plural ending, the use of which and who as relative pronouns etc. Also, more than 99 percent of modern English spellings are incorrect compared with what they were 1200 years ago. The language is completely corrupt if we accept the premise that change equals degradation.

The funny thing is that most people don't consider past changes bad, only those that happen in their lifetime. I fail to understand the logic behind that reasoning.

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

Re: Using ''need'' as a modal

Cool Breeze — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:06:55 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
Need sometimes behaves like a modal, for example 'She need know', 'She needn't know', or, in more formal English, 'She need not know'.

Examples:

1: You needn't worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture needn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not remain that way...

4: You needn't come again, if you don't want to...

[an excerpt from Collins COBUILD Dictionary]

I would have written the above examples as:

1: You needn't to worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture doesn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not to remain that way...

4: You needn't to come again, if you don't want to...

Questions:

1: I suppose ''to'' is functioning as a preposition in the above examples. Why can't a preposition be used after a modal?

Hi Jackson

You've got it wrong. To isn't a preposition in your sentences after need, it's a particle before an infinitive.

Examples of to as a preposition:

I am going to the park.
We are listening to him.

Examples of to as part of an infinitive:
I want to go there.
It's impossible to learn this.

The to-particle is normally not used after a modal auxiliary, or a defective auxiliary, as they are also called:
I will do it tomorrow.
Can he swim?
You should buy it.
You should have bought it.

If you use need or dare in the same way as the modals are used, they behave in exactly the same way as the modals:
1. You don't use do in questions and negations.
2. You don't use the third person singular s-inflection.
3. You don't use to before the infinitive.

Examples:
Can he come? Need he come? Dare he come?
1. NOT: Does he can come? (Wrong!!!)
2. NOT: Cans he come? Needs he come? Dares he come? (Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!)
3. NOT: Can he to come? Need he to come? (Wrong!!!)

You cannot use need in the past tense at all in the above way, but dare is sometimes possible in the past tense as well:
He dared not do it. (Or: He didn't dare to do it.)

Cheers
CB

Re: I not want/People don't want

CalifJim — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:37:44 GMT

Note the definition: Operators are the modals (can, could, will, would, etc.) and forms of be -- and also forms of do or have used as auxiliaries.

The negative adverb not can only be carried by an operator, i.e., can only be used when accompanied by an operator. To negate a sentence without an operator, the operator do must be added together with not. The technical term for the addition of a form of do is do-support.

Operators underlined below. Note the third example, where negation requires do-support because the affirmative sentence has no operator.

Popcorn can be eaten. > Popcorn cannot be eaten.
Popcorn is eaten. > Popcorn is not eaten.
People eat popcorn. > People do not (don't) eat popcorn.

CJ

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:49:45 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:
It interests me that some modern languages have at least the appearance of greater simplicity (e.g. the loss of inflection) than their counterparts of 900 years ago. This seems counter-intuitive: you would expect a language to evolve towards (not from) complexity.

Hello MrP

As far as English is concerned, the loss of inflections is largely due to massive foreign influence that lasted for centuries. Even native speakers of English began to drop inflections that could be dispensed with when they heard nonnatives use these uninflected forms. Learning a foreign word is always easier than learning to use it grammatically. Many Italian men know little about Finnish grammar but when they say I love you in broken Finnish to a fair-haired Finnish woman, she understands immediately.

If a language can't fulfil its needs, it will grow more complicated with time. That has happened to English as well. There was only one relative pronoun in Old English - and it was uninflected - and that clearly wasn't enough for seamless communication. Therefore people began using which, who and what as relative pronouns in addition to the original that. This way a handy genitive (whose) appeared. Unfortunately it is considered stilted by many in some contexts despite its neatness.

Another development, this time inexplicable and totally useless, towards complexity was the appearance of the auxiliary do in questions and negations. In Shakespeare's day it was possible to say Know you him? or Do you know him? and the modern usage became the norm after his death. As there is nothing similar in other Germanic languages, learning to use do correctly is a minor hindrance to learners in the early stages of language acquisition.

Cheers
CB

Re: modals

Cool Breeze — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:26:27 GMT

Hi redliddy

I am not so sure what to say about your 'Others' group but the difference between 'Modals' and 'Semi-modals' is very clear. I have always called 'modals' defective auxiliaries, by the way, but I do know that your term is also used.

With the modals you never use do in questions and negations:
I can't swim. (Not: I don't can swim.)
Should I go there? (Not: Do I should go here?)

With the semi-modals you have a choice, at least many grammarians think so:
Dare he do it? Or: Does he dare to do it?
I need not go there. Or: I don't need to go there.
He used to like it. Or: He didn't use to like it. (Quite a few people consider even He didn't used to like it correct.)

However, most usage experts (if there are any ) would want you to say I don't have to do it, and would think I haven't to do it wrong.

But even have can be made negative without do when it is the auxiliary of the perfect tense: I haven't seen him. So that may be the reason some people call it a semi-modal. And you can say:
I haven't a cat. Or: I don't have a cat.

Cheers
CB

Re: Change English As You Wish

Cool Breeze — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:20:32 GMT

Thank you to all those who have posted their suggestions to my little imagination game. Some have taken it very seriously thinking they would have to relearn English after the 'changes'. This was meant to be just a game, not for those wo take everything seriously, and of course in this game everybody automatically speaks and writes the new English fluently without having to learn anything.

In the colonial days several European languages got exported as taking peoples' lands from them was considered a virtue and something to be proud of. This resulted in some languages being more dominant than others. Spanish and French were the most important languages till the end of the 19th century when the USA rose to be No. 1 in world politics and commerce. The foundation for English as the lingua franca had been laid.

The world should be thankful. There is no such thing as an easy language; every language is difficult if the learner aims at perfection. However, there are grammatically and structurally far more complicated languages than English, and we should consider ourselves lucky it's only the spelling that drives us nuts about English, not inflections.

Here are the changes I would make to English:

A. Spelling: Grammar Geek, Alienvoord and Englishuser would all make changes to the spelling, and indeed so would I. I think Englishuser puts it nicely: "I'd certainly change the spelling of words with an 'irregular' spelling, that is, words whose pronunciation can't be determined basing on how they're spelt." I would also accept more than one spelling for a word in many cases.

There isn't enough space and I don't have enough time and patience to cover all the tens of thousands of words this entails, but here are some examples of new spellings:

OLD                                 NEW
fight                                  fite
perceive                           perceive, percieve
tough                                 tuf
though                              tho
knight                                 nite
caste                                 cast
pace                                 pace, pase
write                                 rite

B. Grammar: English grammar is so uncomplicated due to 500 years of simplifying foreign influence (200 years of Vikings and 300 years of Normans) that English grammar really couldn't be made much simpler even if it were an artificial language. However, as a foreigner I'll continue the foreign influence and enforce the following changes.

1. I will get rid of the third person singular s and has. Henceforth we will say: He speak English. He have a car. He have asked it twice. The s is a totally needless relic and Swedish, another Germanic language, needs no verb endings for any person even though it is more complicated than English in other respects.

2. There will be no irregular verbs from now on with the exception of to be and the defective or modal auxiliaries, which will remain unchanged. Examples of new English:

OLD                                 NEW
He saw us.                        He seed us.
He has written a letter.    He have rited a letter.
Who wrote it?                   Who/Hu rited it?
I haven't hit him.               I haven't hitted him.
I ran too fast.                    I runned too fast.

3. I'll return English to its pre-Shakespearean state with regard to questions and negations. Henceforth, English will be like the other Germanic languages and questions will be asked without the totally unnecessary do auxiliary:

OLD                                  NEW
Do you speak English? Speak you English?
I didn't see him.                  I seed not him.
Did you do it?                   Doed you it?

4. All past participles can be used attributively before nouns: a rited report, a catched fish, two asked questions, a surrendered country.

5. There will be no irregular plurals for nouns:

OLD                                     NEW
two men                               two mans
many children                      many childs
these phenomena              these phenomenons
two geese                           two gooses

6. Any uncountable noun can be used as a countable if the need arises:

OLD                                    NEW
two pieces of advice         two advices
two news items                  two newses

7. I'll leave the articles, pronouns, numerals, adjectives and adverbs as they are. There are countless idioms where the articles are used contrary to reason and logic, but non-natives' incorrect usage seldom gives rise to misunderstandings. Besides, who am I to deprive English of all its fascination?
Those who don't like sentences like He runned too fast have my permission to say He runned too fastly if they prefer that.

8. Since there are so few inflections, the word order will just have to remain as it it with a few exceptions. For the sake of clarity, some minor changes will take effect: You Only Live Twice has to be renamed (and rerecorded) You Live Only Twice. (Fortunately Nancy Sinatra is still alive, she can rerecord it next week!)

9. Some changes in clause equivalents would make English more exact, but I am reluctant to make them. I'll let English remain somewhat inexact. It is plain impossible to make it exact in every respect without more inflections, and more inflections would make learning English a more laborious task for non-natives.

Consider these examples:

Having said that, he left the room. (After he had said that, he left the room.)
"Having said that, he did win Wimbledon two years ago." (A tennis commentator has said something slightly negative about a player, then decides to mention a positive thing about him. The sentence does not usually mean: After he had said that, he won Wimbledon two years ago. But of course it could mean that, too.)

English abounds in ambiguity and native speakers disagree on what common verbs such as the defective auxiliaries mean in some contexts. I'll let all that be as it is, I know when to give up.

Vocabulary: I'll add some short words that can be used to indicate surprise, disbelief etc. in spoken English in sentences like: He goed there? You like not it! Haven't you seed it? I won't write the words here, though, I just think English could and should have more finesse and be more expressive and colorful.

I won't delete a single word from the vocabulary, on the contrary, I'll add a way of forming a word denoting a person from a town or a village. English already has many such words but on the whole they are rather impractical: a Liverpudlian, a Memphian. Some are easier: a Londoner, a New Yorker. But what do you call a person who lives in Timbuktu?

From now on, the ending will always be er: a Liverpooler, a Memphiser, an Uppsalaer, a Hong Konger, a Tokyoer, a Timbuktuer. This will add hundreds of thousands of words to English. I'll also let you call a Swede a Swedener and a Thai a Thailander if you wish.

I have simplified the grammar a little and that should help non-native learners in particular. I have left the basic structure of the language untouched except for the disappearance of do in questions and negations. But even this is actually a minor thing since it just returns English to the early 16th century.

I have increased the vocabulary a great deal. Every three-year-old Finn knows what to call a person from Timbuktu once he is told there is such a place. English-speaking kids should be able to do the same.

Cheers
CB

Re: Usually - Position

CalifJim — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:48:22 GMT

I think you all are missing one thing; it's the very basic question. The definition of operator. Up till now no one has defined what operators actually are.

Operators are verbs with special properties as explained in the article I cited for you above.

Some authors just call them auxiliary verbs, but that leaves out the cases where be or have is the main verb and still "operates" the same as an auxiliary with respect to negation, inversion, etc. So other authors prefer to use both terms in order to focus on the slight differences.
_________

With regard to adverb placement (word order) and the terms marked and unmarked, see this site:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:aYNuGzv8DNAJ:www.anglistik.uni-bonn.de/staff/ofiles/
GLC2-Sum01-Gram.pdf+grammar+operator+inversion+negation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

CJ

Re: operator

CalifJim — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:13:07 GMT

How can I decide which the operator is in a sentence?

The modal verbs (can, could, will, would, shall, should, may, might, must), be, and do and have in some circumstances are the operators. Their negated contracted forms are also operators (can't, doesn't, etc.) They are nearly equivalent to auxiliary verbs. The presence of be in the group of operators means that operators and auxiliaries are not exactly the same.

One of the characteristics of operators is that they invert with the subject to produce questions.

You can go. Can you go?
He is crazy. Is he crazy?
Do you play bridge?
She has gone away. Has she gone away?

Another characteristic is that they are the only verbs in the language that can carry negation (can introduce not or n't).

Non-operators don't have such characteristics:

*Hoped you that he would win?
*I saw not that movie.

Not all sentences contain operators, e.g.,

I found a wallet on the street yesterday afternoon.

But because of the characteristics mentioned above, all questions and negations have operators.

Do you understand? Are you ready?
I couldn't remember. I wasn't there.
_______

So would and will and won't are the operators in the sentences you showed above.

CJ

Re: Need help to distinguish between auxiliary dare and main verb dare

CalifJim — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:26:00 GMT

American Heritage Book of English forbades the use of an infinitive in
[If you dare breathe a word about it, Iâll never speak to you again.]

"forbids", not "forbades"!

I think you misread that article.

Watch out for what "it" means when reading that article. Also, be aware that the sentences given are examples of a particular usage. Nothing in the article says that the examples are correct only in the given form.

Here is part of the article below:

Depending on its sense, the verb dare sometimes behaves like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try).

When used as an auxiliary verb,
dare does not change to agree with its subject: He dare not do that again.
It also does not combine with do in questions, negations, or certain other constructions: Dare we tell her the truth? I dare not mention their names.
Finally, it does not take to before the verb that follows it: If you dare breathe a word about it, Iâll never speak to you again.

When used as a main verb,
dare does agree with its subject (If he dares to show up at her house Iâll be surprised), and
it does combine with to (Did anyone dare to admit it?).
It may optionally take to before the verb following it: No one dares (or dares to) speak freely about the political situation.
_______________

The article could have been written like this, with examples modified and switched:

...
Finally, it does not take to before the verb that follows it: If you dare show up at her house, I'll be surprised.

When used as a main verb,
dare does agree with its subject (If he dares to breathe a word about it, I'll never speak to him again),
...

In the first part of the article, the author simply has to invent sentences that illustrate each feature of auxiliary dare which he has explained.
In the second part of the article, the author simply has to invent sentences that illustrate each feature of full verb dare which he has explained.

CJ