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

Two common uses of WOULD that can hardly be found in dictionaries?

ChaCha7 — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:20:58 GMT

1. I found this explanation of WOULD from Collin's English Usage:

"possible situations
    You use should or would to say that something is certain to happen in particular circumstances.

    After `I' or `we' you can use either should or would.
        I should be very unhappy on the continent.
        We would be glad to have money of our own.
        If I were Tim, I'd be a bit uneasy.

    After any other pronoun or noun, you use would. You do not use should.
        Few people would agree with this as a general principle.
        He would be disappointed, but he would understand."

I don't quite understand what the above means by 'particular circumstances'? Why 'WILL' is not used in the above sentences? Why WOULD is used? Is it because those 'circumstances' are not realised yet and are just hypotheical?

2. FURTHERMORE, I found everyday use of 'would' seems to be related to 'probabilty' / 'prediction'. Some examples are:

From http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/auxiliary.htm:

"Finally, would can express a sense of probability:

I hear a whistle. That would be the five o'clock train."

In the same website, the writer wrote:
"In England, shall is used to express the simple future for first person I and we, as in "Shall we meet by the river?" Will would be used in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the first person would express determination on the part of the speaker, as in "We will finish this project by tonight, by golly!" Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of promise about the subject, as in "This shall be revealed to you in good time.""

Do all the 'would's used here mean probability or prediction with confidence? I think I have encountered similar use in my past reading, but it seems it is rarely mentioned or explained in dictionaries!

Can anyone help?

Re: two simliar sentences but they are different

Clive — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:46:37 GMT

Hi,
e 1) Iâll do what I think is right.

                     2 )Iâll do it, which I think is right.

"i" pronoun functioning as subject.
"will" is modals OK, although I'd call it an auxiliary verb.
"do" main verb.
"what is think is right" is direct object. OK. I'd call it a subordinate noun clause. If you want to, you can analyse each word in this clause, too.

the second sentence "i" pronoun functioning as subject.
                               "will" modals.
                               "do" main verb.
                               "it" diect object.

"which i think is right" object postmodifer Yes, you could argue that it is a subordinate clause describing the object 'it'.
However, I'd call it a subordinate adverbial clause, modifying 'I'll do it'. You could reword the sentence as 'I think it's right that I will do it'.

the first sentence means i will do what seems to me right.here we speak generally.
the second sentence means i will do something specific
is this analysing right? Yes, subject to my comments above.

As you can see, you can use different kinds of terms in analyzing sentences. Use what your teacher has taught you, as I do.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Rationalizing the misuse of the pronoun "it"

Mister Micawber — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:18:01 GMT

.
Not "Matt is..."-- Matt is.

I can offer you no linguistic explanation, sorry. Perhaps another member can. I'm sure that you have noticed that short responses use only the auxiliary:

Who's been sleeping in my bed? -- Goldilocks has.
Who can suggest an answer? -- I can.
Who'll get the phone? -- I will.
Who dances with wolves? -- He does.

Re: FORM

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:36:50 GMT

1) Where are you? I've been waiting for 2 hours

2) I needn't have brought that milk

I = subject

need have bought = verb; present perfect tense, modal form (need is the auxiliary), buy is the main verb, bought is the past participle.

not - adverb

that - demonstrative pronoun refering to milk

milk - noun,object of the verb buy

3) He played truant

He - subject

play - verb, simple past tense

truant - predicate noun ? (To be precise, I would have to look in a dictionary to see if "play" is transitive or intransitive in this case.

4) I stopped to give my friend a lift

I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past

to give my friend a lift - infinitive phrase, adverb, modifying "stop"., "to give" is the infinitive head of the phrase

my friend - my is personal pronoun modifying freind, friend, noun, indirect object of the verbal, give

a lift - a = article, modifyinglift. Lift is noun, direct object of the verbal, give

5) I stopped giving my friend a lift
I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past
giving my friend a lift - gerund phrase, direct object of verb "stop". giving is the gerund head of the phrase

The other teachers can critique this analysis.

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:53:09 GMT

CB,
Thank you for your input. At least I know I am not the only one with the PASSIVE approach toward this typeof sentences.

<<<Football is a popular sport [which/that is] played in almost all Asian and European countries. >>>-
The sentence consists of a main clause and a relative clause, which has been reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary (is). I call such structures clause equivalents, but terminology is unimportant here. The relative clause - or its equivalent - is in the passive voice.

Huevos

You were correct with your comment in the sense that my sentence was an active one because of the beginning structure of the sentence was âthis is a car of the futureâ¦â

, and what came after was âdesigned and built for safety and comfortâ which is a adverbial clause. That- I completely agree, viewing from your angle.

As I stated: â from my grammatical angleâ¦â that sentence is passive in NATUREâ. My disagreement was not in the literal grammatical interpretation of the anatomy of the sentence, but the tone or voice of it. If you donât mind, I like to know your take on this sentence âI am completely exhausted just watching these toddlers ! â. Is this passive in your opinion? Or active? The reason I like to know is because some folks look at [exhausted] as an adjective, although it is a past participle. However, some may argue this is a passive voice sentence because my exhaustion was caused by the act of watching the toddlers. I can see it both ways as correct.

Re: passive voice

Cool Breeze — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:51:51 GMT

Huevos
Goodman
football is a popular sport played almost in all Asain and European countries. There is no direct agent here but it's still a passive structure.
That sentence is not in the passive voice.

Football is a popular sport [which/that is] played in almost all Asian and European countries.

The sentence consists of a main clause and a relative clause, which has been reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary (is). I call such structures clause equivalents, but terminology is unimportant here. The relative clause - or its equivalent - is in the passive voice.

A sentence ends with a full stop / period, an exclamation mark or a question mark. A clause need not have any punctuation after it, which is the case after the main clause in this sentence.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: he is gone. What tense is being used? Is that simple present tense?

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:08:44 GMT

Â I think it's a big mistake because the verb after theÂ auxiliaryÂ is in the pastÂ participle,Â it means that theÂ auxiliary should be 'has' Â (the verbÂ 'to have' in the present) instead of 'is' (the verbÂ 'to be' Â in the present. its aÂ commonÂ mistake and it's a confusion of the contracted form of this sentence (He's gone) witch is He has gone, the ('s) after the pronoun (He) is taken as the contrected from of (is).Â

Re: 'than' in a comparative sentence

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:29:10 GMT

You can use the full form, the 'pro' form, or just the pronoun. In the last case, note that isolated subject pronouns after than are often expressed as object pronouns in informal situations. The 'pro' form is the echo of the operator (modal or auxiliary) -- do if the first clause has no other operator.

Joe can play chess better than [I can play chess / I can / I / me].

Ed will reach the train station sooner than [we will reach the train station / we will reach it / we will / we / us].

Karen saw the sign more clearly than [he saw the sign / he saw it / he did / he / him].

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.