Search results for 'tag:Auxiliaries tag:Speak english' matching tags 'Auxiliaries' and 'Speak english'

Re: I am looking forward to (meet / meeting)? you

Mister Micawber — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:10:39 GMT

.
I think you misunderstood. Have to + infinitive: I have to study; We have to speak English. 'Have (got) to' is classified as a semi-auxiliary verb, and 'to', I believe, is called an infinitive particle'.

I need serious advice. Help! :'(

Kooyeen — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:58:53 GMT

Ok,
I started to listen to more complicated stuff (movies), and... I have trouble!

I can't hear the sounds, I can't hear the syllablles. I notice strange features... Ok, let's get started. Here's some important points, I just need some advice about them, some comments on them. You will need to download a small zip file that contains 5 very short audio clips (a few seconds each).

http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=76d943d1

The points are named the same as the files:

Raincoat.
She's supposed to say "Oh, shoot, not again. I should've worn a raincoat". I can't hear that, I don't hear the "ve". It just seems "I should wear a raincoat".

Icecream.
She's supposed to say... "You guys want any dessert?" - Is that understandable? Hmmm...

Tape.
Here's an example of "not releasing a final consonant". --- "Get me that tape," she says, she wants to say. But there's no P at all, so it could be "tate", "tay", whatever. So my opinion is that in cases like these you understand only because you already know what the other is going to say, not because you hear the "sounds". I wonder how children learn to speak English, how they get to know what sounds are at the end of a word, since you can't hear them. They probably heard those sounds on some occasion when someone released the final consonants...

Killme.
I aready asked about this... I was told "no", well, here's a "yes" for you...
I asked if the vowel in HE or SHE (SAMPA: /hi/, /Si/) was sometines reduced to a vowel similar to the one in HIT or SHIP, so that they become close to /hI/, /SI/. I was told "no".
Well, the "shes" in this clip sound reduced to me, and "me" is reduced too. I also hear the verb "be" reduced this way. If you also checkthis clip on youtube, you'll hear a lot of reduced "He's like", and even a reduced "What do you mean" (the vowel in "mean" is kind of like the one in "did") ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ
What happens?!?

What?
He is supposed to say: "What? What are you saying?" - But there's no R in that "are", so it sounds like "uh". And the final "ing" is practically unnoticeable. So it sounds like "What do you say?"
So, what would be the difference between "What are you..." and "What do you"? If you release some of the R, then that's the difference, but if you don't... what would be the difference? The D, maybe?

Finally, a point with no audio.
I keep on hearing people who don't use auxiliary verbs. I'd have to say I rarely hear them, LOL! Is it that they don't use them, or is it that they are so reduced that they are pronounced only slightly and no one hear them?
You want a cigar? You got any vices? Ice cream, what flavors you have? You trying to drive me crazy? --- Or is it that they say "(D') you want a cigar? (Ah) you trying to drive me crazy? (D') you guys want any dessert?"

The end. This post is quite long. My problems are weird. Anyway, if you feel like commenting on this, go ahead, comment! Thanks a lot in advance.

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Grammarian-bot — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:11:01 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Great Job every one. Thanks a lot.

Cool Breeze, this post goes directly on my desktop.

Thanks a zillion.

GB

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:26:15 GMT

Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Re: How to Speak English Fluently

CalifJim — Sat, 12 May 2007 03:29:15 GMT

Another set of patterns occurred to me. These sometimes give learners trouble, and it's a good idea to practice them until they are automatic. They are drills on 'subject pronoun + auxiliary verb' contractions.

Type X1:
he's, she's, I'm, you're, we're, they're

Type X2:
he'll, she'll, I'll, you'll, we'll, they'll
he'd, she'd, I'd, you'd, we'd, they'd

Type X3:
he's, she's, I've, you've, we've, they've
he'd, she'd, I'd, you'd, we'd, they'd

Combine X1 with verbs in -ing or with adjectives or with other descriptive expressions. (She's eating chocolate. They're going home. I'm happy. We're on time.) Add always, never, or usually where appropriate: I'm usually happy. We're always on time. You're never late.
Combine X2 with the bare infinitive. (He'll help. They'll agree. We'd buy it.)
Combine X3 with the past participle. (He's been sick. I've bought the car. They'd seen the movie.) Add already where appropriate: I've already seen it. She's already done it.

I won't bother to write out all the negative contractions and the more complicated combinations because I think this is enough to give you an idea of what to practice.

CJ

Re: Start a phrase with verb

Cool Breeze — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:22:44 GMT

Hi DS

You have a very theoretical approach to your subject. I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean by 'a phrase verb', but you can begin a sentence with a verb in at least the following cases:

A verb is the subject:
1. Infinitive: To know him is to like him.
2. Gerund: Seeing is believing. (A gerund is neither a verb nor a noun but resembles both to an extent.)

A verb is an imperative:
Come here at once!
Do not close the door.

An auxiliary verb begins a question:
Can you swim?
Does he speak English?
Have you seen him?

Cheers
CB

Re: EFL to ESL status

Forbes — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:59:16 GMT

Difficult to answer your point as I make a distinction between "second language" and "auxiliary language" and believe that each arises for different reasons so that in general neither one leads to the other, except perhaps over a long period.

To take the countries mentioned in your first thread, I cannot imagine that in any of them English is going to be used widely in any of the following circumstances any time soon:

1. In internal business agreements

2. In broadcasting and press aimed at nationals

3. In legal proceedings

4. At home

5. For public notices, especially in areas where non-nationals are not found in large numbers.

Like many areas in linguistics, I do not say that there is any hard and fast distinction to be made.

Even where second languages are concerned, not all situations are the same.

Take three countries I have visited:

Tunisia

Everywhere you go everything is written in Arabic and French. If you buy a packet of anything one side will be in Arabic and the other side in French; all signs whether official or not are in Arabic and French (the exceptions are religious buildings where everything is in Arabic and international hotels where everything is in French); almost everyone seems to speak some French. However, Tunisians do not communicate with each other in French, at least when speaking - some Tunisians prefer to write in French as they find it easier than writing Arabic, which is not the same as the vernacular and has to be learned.

The Gambia

English is the only language you see written. To read and write in The Gambia means to read and write in English. Everyone seems to know at least some English. Gambians do not (as far as I could tell) use English to speak to each other. English is the only official or national language.

Sri Lanka

English is very widely spoken and seen written everywhere. It is not an official language, but is effectively a national language. In all the hotels I stayed in English is the only language written down. Many middle class Sri Lankans speak to each other in English at home, in some cases in preference to Sinhala or Tamil - many Sri Lankan children speak English as well as British or American children.

I have not visited any of the countries mentioned in your first post, but I doubt that any of the above descriptions could be applied (mutatis mutandis) to any of them.

Re: Whose property?

Forbes — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:33:44 GMT

Milky wrote:

"Especially, in many countries now, the learning of English is not based on the student's decision or will but on their 'duty'. In an EFL context, students basically have no choice but to learn English as their second language."

Hm. But they also don't have any choice about lots of subjects they are taught. Is it suggested that students (I assume we are talking about schools rather than universities) should choose all their subjects? Or is it just that they should choose the language they learn? If there is a choice is it going to be the child or the parents who decides? Who is in the best position to decide whether it is in the child's interest to learn English? Not knowing English may be a disadvantage. In many countries English, whilst it may have no official status or be used for any official purpose, is effectively an auxiliary language. English is now the default language many non-native English speakers use to communicate with each other. To a large extent this just sort of happened. There is no great world conspiracy to force everyone to learn English. English may have been an instrument of colonial oppression and may now be the language of the world's greatest economic power, but English has taken on a life of its own, rather like Latin after the fall of the Roman Empire. Those concerned with education should not be worrying about the past, but looking to where the world is now. Many of those concerned are native speakers of English who typically are not bilingual. Bilingualism is probably the norm for about half the world's population and not a problem for them. Whilst it is conceivable that in, say, SE Asia it will be normal for an educated person to speak English, that does not mean that the local language is under threat.

Subjunctive mood in English

paco2004 — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:08:13 GMT

Hello

This is a garbage-like posting written by a poor English learner who has been and still now is agonized by subjunctive things which supposedly underlie English collocations.

My way of understanding English grammar

The English language uses two moods (indicative/subjunctive) and two tenses (present/past). Accordingly, all English verbs including modals and auxiliary verbs have four inflective forms beside finite forms (-ed, -ing). The four are;
(1) indicative: present / past
(2) subjunctive: present / past
For example, 'can', 'have', 'be', and 'smoke' inflect the ways like:

(1) indicative: can / could
(2) subjunctive: can / could

(1) indicative: have, has / had
(2) subjunctive: have / had

(1) indicative: am, are, is / was, were
(2) subjunctive: be / were

(1) indicative: smoke, smokes / smoked
(2) subjunctive: smoke / smoked

We have to understand that tense and time are things a little different. The time is a concept to section the time flow in universe. There are three times: past, present, and future. This concept of time, especially that of 'future' is the one that can be owned only by the modern world where many people feel rather sure they can live next year. Contrary to this, the tense is a concept owned by the people who lived in the remote past and created languages. In such remote past, I think, people must have been unable to be sure they could live in 'future', even tomorrow, because their living environment was so harsh. So 'future' wouldn't matter a lot to them. It is why many languages including English basically lack verbal forms for future. Anyway 'future tense' is not a real tense built in the English language. The future tense is something like an extension of the present tense and therefore it should be expressed only with help of the modal verb 'will'. So, we could say, basically, English has only two tenses, present and past.

Mood is a convenience contrived by the old people to differentiate their speech into fact-statements and thought-statements. The indicative mood is the one for fact-statements and the subjunctive for thought-statements. In our modern world people can know many things proved to be facts owing to education and science, and therefore, our speech is more abundant with indicative sentences to compare with subjunctive sentences. But in the old days, people could not confirm many things they know to be fact. And so, I suppose, they would speak a lot in collocations like "Methink + subjunctive mood". It seems nowadays native speakers are getting uncosciousness that they are using the subjunctive mood in their collocations. But still, I feel, it would be better for us (ESL) to know the subjunctive mood underlies many of current English collocations, especially those using modals.

Now this posting is coming to what I really would like to say. I was taught and even now many Japanese students are being taught that the protases in English imaginary conditionals are expressed by 'past tense' (for imaginary present) and 'past perfect tense' (for imaginary past). And teachers told us that, exceptionally in the case the verb is 'be', we should use a special word, 'were'. But I think this way of understanding would get the thing more complicated. I think we (at least me) had better understand that the finite verbs in the thought-statements in English are all in subjunctive forms.
(EX) If I had been a diligent student, I would be able to speak English better. ['had' and 'would' are subjunctives]
(EX) I wish I were a bird. I wish I could fly like a bird. ['could' is subjunctive]
(EX) (I wish) I could kill him. ['could' is subjunctive] I could swim when I was young. ['could' is indicative]

paco

Re: Emphasize

miriam — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:07:17 GMT

Of course I don't mind your asking
I don't know what your first language is, but in my country, Spanish speakers find it difficult too to understand that the "s" is necessary to form the simple present of a verb for the 3rd. person singular. The reason is that we associate the addition of an "s" at the end of a word only with plural forms.

In English, most nouns add an "s" to form the plural:
example (singular) --- examples (plural)
Some nouns add "es", and there are several irregular plurals.

Now, the "s" you may add to the word "mean" is not the same "s" that you add to a nounn in order to from the plural.
You intended to use the verb "mean" in the simple present in your post. Now, the rule for forming the present simple of verbs in English is the following:
You use the base form of the verb (that is, the infinitive, the verb as it appears in a dictionary entry) for all the persons but the third person singular, for which you have to add an "s" (or "es") to the verb. To form the negative and the interrogative, you need the auxiliary "do" for all persons except the third person singular, which uses "does".
The exceptions to this rule are the verb "to be", which is the most irregular of the English verbs, and the modal verbs (can, could, may, might, should, will, would, etc).
The verb "mean" in the simple present would be:
I mean
you mean
he, she, it means
we mean
you mean
they mean

In the case of verbs, the addition of the "s" does not mean pluralisation.

Other examples of the simple present:

"I go to school."
"He goes to school."

"My sister and I like icecream."
"Susan likes icecream."

"I speak English."
"You speak English."
"She speaks English."
"The boys speak English."
"We all speak English."

"The word 'easy' means 'not difficult'."
"What does this word mean?"
"What do these words mean?"

Let me know if you still find it confusing?