Search results for 'tag:Auxiliaries tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Auxiliaries' and 'Past tenses'

Re: Simple, short phrase question.

CalifJim — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:37:04 GMT

Eddie88
I just know that if I see TO followed by a verb that it is an infinitive.

Really? Where did you get that idea?

The men I spoke to have a lot of money.

have is a verb. So you think to have is an infinitive in this sentence? That's not correct.

____

Is it only the ING form that is non-finite?

No.

The non-finite forms of a verb are its present participle, past participle, gerund, and infinitives. Both the present participle and the gerund are -ing forms, but not the others.

Eddie88
I thought that worked is a participle as you said that I was correct.

There are three principal parts for every verb: infinitive, past, past participle. Review this if you need to.

(to) know, knew, known

(to) see, saw, seen

The past and the past participle are frequently the same.

(to) work, worked, worked

(to) jump, jumped, jumped

So sometimes you can't tell whether an isolated word is the second form (past) or the third (past participle). When you ask if worked is a participle, I say yes, because worked is the past participle of the verb to work. If you ask if worked is a past tense, I say yes, because worked is the past of the verb to work. As a past participle, it is a non-finite verb form. As a past tense, it is a finite verb form.

In responding to that question I was saying that adding an auxiliary verb in front of another verb doesn't do anything of any significance. It certainly doesn't make a sentence complete. It seemed to me that you were claiming that adding an auxiliary could make a sentence complete. Of course if you have a group of words that is already a complete sentence except for a missing auxiliary, then obviously adding the proper auxiliary will complete the sentence.

*The children going on a picnic tomorrow. [incomplete sentence]

The children are going on a picnic tomorrow. [complete sentence]

But there's nothing here but a game of finding a missing word -- nothing of any grammatical significance.

___

And if the verb is one of those that has the same form for both the past and the past participle, then you might have a case where the sentences -- the one without the auxiliary and the one with the auxiliary -- are both complete.

I worked three hours today. [complete sentence]

I have worked three hours today. [complete sentence]

Here the addition of an auxiliary does nothing to "complete the sentence" because it was already complete.

Re: Simple, short phrase question.

CalifJim — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:08:07 GMT

Eddie88
Are verbals the only types of verbs that are not able to be the main verbs in a sentence, UNLESS there is an auxillary verb which can then make it the main verb?

I don't often use the term "verbal". It means "a non-finite form of a verb".

The presence of an auxiliary has nothing to do with it. You can have auxiliaries co-occurring with both finite forms and with non-finite forms.

having seen it

having is an auxiliary.

having seen is a non-finite verb form. (i.e., a verbal)

___

did not see it

did is an auxiliary.

did see is a finite verb form (past tense)

___

Only the finite forms (with or without auxiliaries) can be main verbs of a clause (either an independent or a dependent clause).

Non-finite forms (with or without auxiliaries) can never be main verbs of a clause.

Re: It did "used" or "use"

Cool Breeze — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:21:45 GMT

Anonymous
Or are both of them wrong?

Many dictionaries* consider both of them right. The underlying idea is that even though used with its ed ending looks like an ordinary past tense verb, usage has not settled and two forms are acceptable with the auxiliary do:

He didn't use/used to be rich.

And, since it can be considered an auxiliary, also: He used not to be rich.

* One of these is Collins.

Re: If - Real condition and unreal condition

Thomas Tompion — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:11:03 GMT

sarah88
Hello, can someone tell me how to distinguish between real condition and unreal condition? I know that real condition is most likely to be happened, but if we use IF, it's always an unknown, right? Also, I like to know wheather there is a past tense in If clause, such as " If you meant 2pm your time, then I will be online waiting for you."

thanks,

ESL Student

Hello Sarah,

I wonder what your native language is, because some languages are like English in this, while others are unlike it. My advice is to remember two basic formulae for the sequence of tenses:

1. If he goes, I will see him - Present -> Future
2. If he went, I would see him - Past -> Conditional

And remember which tense goes in the if-clause, and which in the main clause: just learn by heart the two sentences, they are simple enough. It's wrong to put a conditional in the if-clause. If you go one tense back you follow the rules as in 2. but this time apply them to the auxiliary: If he had gone, I would have seen him.

One can also use Present -> Present If he goes, I see him. Students don't have much problem with that, in my experience.

Your last question suggests that you need to polish up on this elementary sequence of tenses, as in 1. & 2, above.

Your first question, however, suggests that you've studied this rather further and are considering the difference between:

If I were you (subjunctive) - unreal condition - if I were you, if I were Sultan of Zanzibar, if I were Russian: you clearly couldn't be me or Russian, assuming you are not Russian, and it would be very hard for you to become Sultan of Zanzibar, so I suppose that is an unreal condition, too.

If I was in Salisbury (indicative) - real condition - if I was at my computer, if I was having supper, if I was swimming: you might sometime be in Salisbury, or at your computer, or swimming.

TT

Re: Need we say more?

AlpheccaStars — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:25:48 GMT

Jackson:

#1 "do" is a verb. (auxiliary) not an adverb. "need" is the main verb; the object is the infinitive phrase..("need to" is synonymous with "have to")

#2 say is the main verb, Need is an auxiliary verb. Like the auxiliaries can or may, it does not necessarily agree with the subject - Need he say more? (not needs)

The 2 sentences mean the same.

This is from the dictionary

Usage Note: Depending on the sense, the verb need behaves sometimes like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try). When used as a main verb, need agrees with its subject, takes to before the verb following it, and combines with do in questions, negations, and certain other constructions: He needs to go. Does he need to go so soon? He doesn't need to go. When used as an auxiliary verb, need does not agree with its subject, does not take to before the verb following it, and does not combine with do: He needn't go. Need he go so soon?The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses. Unlike can andmay, auxiliary need has no form for the past tense like couldand might.

Re: "Break, break, break", by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Karim Hamed — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:05:53 GMT

AlpheccaStars
The secret to understanding the word "would" is looking at the history of the verb "will"

O.E. *willan, wyllan "to wish, desire, want" (past tense wolde),

I didn't know of that meaning of 'will'. I've always used it as an auxiliary verb. Thanks a lot.

Regards.

Re: Need help over here.

Mr Wordy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:08:00 GMT

1. Well, "had" is the past tense of the verb "have", but I think you're asking specifically about its use as an auxiliary to form the past perfect tense of other verbs:

I played -- simple past tense

I have played -- present perfect tense

I had played -- past perfect (or pluperfect) tense

So, even though "have" on its own is present tense, it forms a past tense with other verbs. If you do a Google search for these tense names then you will find tons of information on their uses. See, for example, http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html (this page describes the past perfect; all the other tenses are linked down the left hand side).

"I have played football yesterday" isn't right. "have played football" has the general sense of "played football on one or more unspecified occasions in the past", and it doesn't go with "yesterday", which is a specific occasion. Instead you would say "I played football yesterday".

2. "Never" can be used with a variety of different tenses, depending on when the thing in question wasn't/isn't done or didn't/doesn't happen. A couple of examples:

You never told me that you loved me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past, but you might tell me now (or in the future).

You never tell me that you love me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past and you don't tell me now. In other words, the absence of telling continues up to and including the present.

It's not possible to use the present tense with "never before", so "I never do that before" is wrong. It should be "I never did that before" (or "I have never done that before").

Re: What did he say? What was it he said?

CalifJim — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:08:29 GMT

The auxiliary verb carries the tense. did shows the past. (Otherwise it would be do or does.) You can't indicate tense twice in the same clause. (*What did I said?) The main verb shows the past tense ONLY when no auxiliary verb is present to do the job! (I said so.)

Re: Can anyone help me to explain why this sentence is incorrect?

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:45:55 GMT

I think the best way to explain this is telling your friend that in English you use only one verbal element to indicate the tense. In this sentence the auxiliary "did" is indicating the past tense so you should keep the verb in the infinitive. Otherwise it will be redundant.

I hope your friend can understand it.

Best wishes,

Re: Can anyone help me to explain why this sentence is incorrect?

Clive — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:25:21 GMT

Hi,

I would appreciate any help to explain in grammatical terms why the following sentence doesn't work:

* I didn't talked to Simon on Sunday.

Is it because a past simple verb cannot follow another past tense? It is obviously incorrect, but I'm not sure how to explain this to my German friend.

I'm not a qualified teacher, but I live in Germany at the moment and have been trying to help some of my friends with their English. They usually ask

for grammatical explanations

Your example breaks the rules for how tenses are formed.

How to form Simple Past tense

I talked Here, the suffix '-ed' denotes the past

I did not talk. Here, the auxiliary verb 'did' denotes the past, and the main verb must be in base form only.

Best wishes, Clive