http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aConstructions+tag%3aVerbsSearch results for 'tag:Constructions tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Constructions' and 'Verbs'en-USXMOD (Build: 3715.30106)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Would3QuickQuestions/mldrb/post.htm#1057187Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:29:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1057187califjim1) How is it functioning below (I've asked this elsewhere and received no consistent answer)? Having found me to be an alcoholic, she did not like me and so spurned my offer. But I would attempt to warm up to her . It functions as the past of will . Past of: She's spurning my offer, but I will attempt to warm up to her . As will is similar to is going to , would is similar to was going to . ..., but I attempt to warm up to her . 2) And what tense is 'would' here, as I was told this wasn't simple past? Strictly speaking it is not a tense at all; it's a modal construction. Any modal verb followed by a base form can be called a modal tense. ( can go, should see, would do, may find ) A modal verb followed...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesThatMean/mwnrb/post.htmThu, 04 Feb 2010 17:41:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1045314arthurawesomeIf the weather should change, they will go boating. I do not understand this strange construction 'should change .., will go..'. Can anybody explain?http://www.englishforums.com/English/HaveGotInThePast/mwddh/post.htmTue, 02 Feb 2010 07:59:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1042481arthurawesomehow should I use 'have got' in the past tense? had got? I mean not the present perfect with 'get', but the construction of possessionhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IsThisGrammarRuleValid/mdkmp/post.htm#1020150Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:29:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1020150ferdisIt's not a grammar rule: it's a style suggestion. People are often confused by the use of the singular verb in such a construction, even though it is completely grammatically correct. By inverting the order of the parts, this whole issue can be avoided, and a plural verb becomes correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AblePresentProgressive/mcbjp/post.htm#1012763Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:41:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:1012763gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Arbizonne, to begin with, there is no difference in meaning between the two sentences, the only dissimilitude lies in the fact that in the former sentence the negation is achieved by lexical means (negative prefix un- ), while in the latter - grammatically (with the help of negator not ). As you see, the ways to achieve a particular meaning may be different, but the essence stays the same. Second, to be able as a substitute for the defectiveness of can retains some of the features of the modal verb, and, as you presume, it is stative in meaning. The sentence construction see oneself + -ing requires an - ing form of the verb be to become complete, and there is nothing wrong with that as the -ing form does not always imply...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ShouldVsIf/lqvrw/post.htm#998539Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:19:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998539dokterjokkebrokHi Both if-clause constructions in sentence #1 and #2 are possible I think. The first sentence is a regular if-clause. The second one starts with a modal verb, which comes from the full construction 'If there should be any...'. That's OK, but they don't have similar same meanings. Should stresses the fact that the condition stated after it is less likely to happen than the condition/situation after 'if' in the first sentence. So by using 'should' here, you modify the sense of probability/likelihood. I think there's another problem, however. Because you use a present tense finite verb, 'become', in the first sentence I think your second finite verb, which is 'would', ought to be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammarQuestions/lwghn/post.htmMon, 02 Nov 2009 15:41:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:959901emma_09Hello 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishGrammar/knnlv/post.htm#934342Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:37:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:934342califjimI still have trouble with this kind of construction s , You cannot have would had . Impossible. The only form of have which can directly follow a modal verb is have , never has, had, or having . These are the correct combinations: can have, could have, will have, would have, shall have, should have, may have, might have, must have. Do not write or say wrong things like: can has, could having, will had, would has, shall had, should had, may having, might has, must had. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AgreeVsAgreedAgain/lrvhl/post.htmMon, 28 Sep 2009 08:46:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:920017ecikDear users please consider these two sentences: 1. In fact, if all parties are agreed, possibly they do not need the sanction of the court. 2. And once changes are agreed, they cease to be the adjustments of the Government. I assume that in #1 'agreed' is an adjectival past participle rather than part of a passive verb construction ('be + past participle'). My question is: is it possible to replace 'are agreed' with 'agree' without changing the meaning of the sentence? When is 'are agreed' preferred to 'agree'? And one more point: you would probably agree that in #2 'are agreed' is a passive verb construction ('be' + past participle of 'agree'). My...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentProgressiveOfLove/knczg/post.htm#899815Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:32:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:899815anonymousThere is a class of verbs in English known as "stative" verbs because they relate to a state of being rather than an action (as in a dynamic verb); believe, hate, love for example are stative verbs. These are never used in the continuous (progressive) tense except in exceptionally unusual constructions. Learners of English should assume that these verbs are NEVER used in this way and the common mistake of "Yes, I am owning a car" will not happen.http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishGrammarExerciseAnswers/kjgmn/post.htmMon, 31 Aug 2009 18:00:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:881378python740Each of the following sentences may contain an error in grammar, idiom or usage. If there is an error, it will appear in one of the underlined portions. Answers are given at the answer part. First try to answer by yourself, and then check it against the given answer. Answer explanation for each sentence is also given. If you go through this exercise, we can assure you that you will have a vast idea in English: 1. Neither of the two candidates who had applied for the job to the factory were eligible. 2. This chair has the same design, but it is different shaped from that one. 3. Because of the approaching cyclone, the wind began to blow hard and the sky became dark as evening. 4. The flag is risen in the morning and taken down at...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassiveActiveActionLinking-Verbs/kwlrl/post.htm#877969Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:30:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:877969mister micawberOnly transitive verbs (those that take objects) can be transformed into passive constructions. Is "A smithy is a blacksmith's workshop." active or passive? -- Active Is "Most organized religions have monasteries where monks devote their lives to their region." active or passive?-- Active So if there is only a linking verb, is the sentence active or passive?-- Active In the sentence "It is a soft-feathered brown bird that reaches a height of up to 6 feet 6 inches.", I know the "is" is a linking verb but is "reaches" an action verb?-- Yes In the sentence "Although the birds cannot fly, they can travel great distances at speeds over 30 miles per hour.", are fly and travel action verbs-- Yes and are cannot and can included even...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutPhrasalVerbsConstruction/jxmng/post.htm#824183Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:06:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824183califjimhow many of them are grammatic ally correct? Four. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutPhrasalVerbsConstruction/jxmng/post.htmFri, 17 Jul 2009 15:54:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824166guyper1.Check out this book! 2.Check this book out! 3.Check out this! 4.Check this out! Hi, how many of them are grammatic correct? Thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfItsNumbers/jjlrh/post.htm#799184Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:12:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:799184fandorin(numbers) a large quantity or amount, often in contrast to a smaller one; numerical preponderance. The weight of numbers turned the battle against them . You use number with words such as `large' or `small' to say approximately how many things or people there are (can be both plural and singualar). Growing numbers of people in the rural areas are too frightened to vote. A considerable amount or quantity; many; A large quantity; a multitude: Numbers flocked to the city to see the parade. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/number The construction the number of + plural noun is used with a singular verb (as in the number of people affected remains small) . Thus it is the noun number rather than the noun people...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldHaveConsidered/jdkqg/post.htm#769915Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:49:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:769915califjimWhat is the best way to identify subjunctives? It may be better just to ignore them! English has so few forms that are obviously subjunctive that it's not often you'll see them. Most subjunctive forms are the same as non-subjunctive forms, so there's no way to be sure. If you see any past tense or past perfect tense in an if -clause, it's most likely a subjunctive. If they were here, they would enjoy the music. If Thomas had gone to the concert, he would have enjoyed it. If you see any other tense in an if -clause, it is not a subjunctive. If Paul's friends are late, we'll start without them. (not subjunctive) If you see be used as a main verb, it's a subjunctive. It's important that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/2/wnpbh/Post.htm#739527Wed, 20 May 2009 13:18:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:739527moivileIs this sentence grammatically correct? Не would have lent you the book last week if you could have called for it . No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG. -- The modal verbs can and may can also be found in conditional sentences. If they occur in if-clauses referring to the present or future, they have the past form. e.g. If I could be a writer I should write detective stories. His bedroom is very cold. If I might move him into your study he would feel more cheerful there. In the principal clause we generally use the Conditional Mood. But as can and may are defective verbs and cannot be used in the Conditional Mood, the past tense of these verbs is used in combination with the simple infinitive to refer the action to the present or...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/2/wnpbh/Post.htm#737158Tue, 19 May 2009 04:57:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737158moivileThank you very much! so that could in the main clause is absolutely, definitely not a subjunctive. The sentence is correct, but could have lent is not a subjuntive. Could in the main clause is probably a conditional mood, isn't it? could is not normally used as a subjunctive though it sometimes occurs in a subjunctive context. But could in the following sentence is a subjunctive, isn't it? Не would lent you the book if you could call for it .http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/wnpbh/post.htm#737108Tue, 19 May 2009 04:19:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737108moivileMany thanks! could is not normally used as a subjunctive though it sometimes occurs in a subjunctive context. But the following sentence is grammatically correct, isn't it? Не could have lent you the book last week if you had called for it. And "could have lent " in this sentence is a subjunctive form, isn't it?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/wnpbh/post.htm#737086Tue, 19 May 2009 04:00:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737086moivileNo, it's not. Thank you for answering. You want to say that "if I could + Perfect Infinitive" is an incorrect construction, don't you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/wnpbh/post.htm#737075Tue, 19 May 2009 03:50:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737075moivilePlease help me answer my question.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/wnpbh/post.htm#737072Tue, 19 May 2009 03:47:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737072moivileI know that your variant is correct. But I must know if my variant is grammatically correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfICouldHaveDoneIt/wnpbh/post.htmMon, 18 May 2009 18:34:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:736396moivileIs this sentence grammatically correct? Не would have lent you the book last week if you could have called for it . Is "if you could have called" a subjunctive form? Thank you!http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheyKnewRepresentingFirm/wzqwm/post.htm#697688Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:26:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:697688moivileI have a question. The brokers knew him as representing a well-known firm Is "representing" a gerund and is " as " a preposition in this sentence??? Answer this question, please.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoAmI/wdnjn/post.htm#686911Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:30:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:686911dormouseSince "AM" doesn't take an object (INtransitive Verb) "WHO" is correct. Written declaratively, the sentence is I AM WHO, though unless you're the progenitor of the the band WHO you'd never use the construction. And, Eddie, WHOM is still used, and used often, not only in the states but throughout the Enlgish-speaking word, as the objective form of the subjective WHO. "Give the letter to whomever answers the door." "Whom do you wish to ask to the party?"http://www.englishforums.com/English/ExpertsDividedOpinions/wdnlc/post.htm#686887Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:31:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:686887dormouseIs it the same to say "Experts differ/vary in their opinions" instead of the bolded part in the above? YES. A quibble could be made that "divided" represents a stronger verb than, say, "differ/vary" but the intent is the same. And what is an Expert, after all, but someone who agrees with NO-ONE?http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionAboutVerbSubject-Agreement/wcvjx/post.htm#679331Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:08:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679331bunyardWhere can I find information about compound subjects and their agreement with verbs? I thought that the verb "don't" goes with plural subjects and "doesn't" with singular. But I think that is only with 3rd person subjects. I think this is a 3rd person subject. If a compound subject has both singular words, does it not have a singular verb agreement?http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionAboutVerbSubject-Agreement/wcvjx/post.htmMon, 23 Feb 2009 19:18:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679317bunyardSome managers think that grammar and punctuation (doesn't, don't) matter. I've been thinking about this question for a few hours now. It's driving me insane. Since the subject "managers" is plural, doesn't the verb need to be "don't"? Thank you ahead of time for your help, Benhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PleasePhraseRevisedUrgently/hmnrm/post.htmSun, 18 Jan 2009 21:04:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:647372nsosazIs this phrase correct? "we will certainly increase our knowledge as we meet the challenges, be observant, and accomplish our goals".http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassivePastPerfectContinuous-Interrogative/hhdhh/post.htmWed, 24 Dec 2008 08:48:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:620031naylormI'm trying to figure out what this sentence is, and the Passive Past Perfect Continuous Interrogative is the best that I can think of. Where have all the reference books been put? It has the "have been + present part." form of the Past Perfect Continuous. Would 'have' and 'been' be considered auxiliary here? Does the determiner "all" function as a subject compliment? What is "where"? Is this correct: Where: Adverbial have: aux all: subject compliment the reference books: subject been: aux put: transitive verb In passive voice, if something would normally be a transitive verb acting on what becomes the subject, is it still considered a transitive verb?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveHopedThat/2/bdpdp/Post.htm#590474Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:10:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590474califjimIs the adverb "always" necessary in the sentence: "I've always thought you would respond" or we can imply its meaning without including it in the sentence? Let me put it this way. Without "always" the sentence seems awkward to the point of being ungrammatical. It just won't do! Secondly, even with "always" it is a peculiar construction, somewhat rough on the ear, and probably only very rarely used! I think it's the combination of have thought with would . Less "offensive", but still not great: I have always thought you were a good friend. _____ But note that there are perfectly good uses of think in the present perfect in other meanings: I have always thought of you...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToBeVerb/hbbnw/post.htm#590237Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:48:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590237anonymoust3K<Examples of modal forms where the obligation is clear from the words alone - See Cal Jim's post. http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbFormAppearsConfusing/whlh/post.htm <<"BE TO + VERB" often = "MUST VERB" The construction has features of both futurity and obligation. >>http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfI/hbcvz/post.htmFri, 21 Nov 2008 07:55:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590211velimirHello again, Would it be a correct grammar if I used "would have been" instead of "would" in the second sentence or I'm required to use "by now " instead of "now" in the second sentence : "If I had done it a year ago I would be rich now." "If I had done it a year ago I would have been rich now /by now. " I'd also like to know whether the "If I did.." construction with past time adverbs is possible in any context, i.e : "If I did it a year ago/ a week ago/long before ... Thank you for the answerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveHopedThat/bdpdp/post.htm#590162Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:42:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590162califjimunjustly buried for a long time That's a matter of opinion! " I have thought it is ..but it has just proved otherwise" Right. It seems that with many mental stative verbs the present perfect is not used as expected. what would I say now, after a year of waiting, given that I've never lost hope of getting the answer in the meantime I thought you would respond. I thought you would have responded (by now). The present perfect typically goes with always , and not with the would have construction. I've always thought you would respond. The same patterns are used for the verbs believe , hope, fear, be afraid. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisIsAboutTheWordThere/hrqwb/post.htm#589458Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:31:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:589458yoong liatHi Anon Below is the information extracted from two books on English usage. The first book is on British English usage, the second on American English usage. 1. The Right Word at the Right Time states as follows: There is an apple and pears for dessert. There are apples and a pear for dessert. 2. The Merriam-Webster Guide to English Usage states as follows: When a compound subject follows the verb and the first element is singular, the verb may be either singular or plural : There is a lake and several small streams. There are a dog and a few cats in the house. The singular construction is more common. Still, some writers insist on formal agreement and use a plural verb: There were an apartment house and a parking lot at the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Gerund/hrxbn/post.htm#588839Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:36:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:588839califjim"I enjoy watching t.v." The word watching is used as a subject noun (i.e. a gerund) and the word t.v. is what? watching is not a subject noun, no. The underlying structure is I enjoy . The bracketed part is the object of the verb enjoy . The clause I watch TV when expressed as a gerund construction becomes my watching TV . That is, the subject becomes a possessive adjective, and the verb becomes a gerund. (The rest stays the same. TV is still the direct object of watch .) When the main clause and the gerund clause share the same subject, you delete the subject of the gerund construction ( my ), leaving I enjoy watching TV. (Not I enjoy my watching TV. ) Compare: I like collecting stamps. He hates writing letters. But...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OneProblemsFacedEnglishLearners-Misconceptions/hrnkh/post.htm#588664Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:27:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:588664avangieither "learners of the English language," or "English language learners." Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the ? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays . The article is required in all of these. I honestly have no idea why. My guess is that "language" is the object of the verb "to learn," and would require an article if it were used without "English" as a modifier. To qualify for standing without the article, a "subject of study" must be one of a few very...http://www.englishforums.com/English/OneProblemsFacedEnglishLearners-Misconceptions/hrnkh/post.htm#588644Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:13:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:588644jackson6612Hi Avangi, either "learners of the English language," or "English language learners." Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the ? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays . << One - - is their own misconceptions .>> IMO there should be number agreement here. Possibly, " One - - - is dealing with their own misconceptions." Yes, there should be number agreement between verb and object. If I followed your suggestion then the sentence would read: One of many problems faced by...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdjectivesAndAdverbs/hrndv/post.htmMon, 17 Nov 2008 13:10:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:588459xenoHere's one question about verbs being followed by adjectives or adverbs. For example, a sentence: hold me tight . I've heard people using both this construction and "hold me tightly ." Are both forms correct? And why is the verb followed by an adjective in the first case?http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbRecommendInfinitive-Forms/2/zxrnm/Post.htm#588205Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:42:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:588205velimirHello everybody, My question is about leaving out "that" in the sentences with the verb "recommend" followed with subjunctive mood. In the following examples leaving out "that" makes sentence doesn't sound good to me : 1. They recommended that she find a good lawyer. 2. They recommended she find a good lawyer. (Do the inserting of the direct object after the verb "recommend" sounds redundant i.e " We recommended to her that she find a lawyer." or it is necessary to clear out the fact that "we" talked directly to her ?) On the other hand , in the following example leaving out "that" gives a sentence which sounds good to me : 1. We recommend that you be there at 10...http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbRecommendInfinitive-Forms/2/zxrnm/Post.htm#587765Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:34:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:587765anonymousHi Yankee I have the same question regarding the right structure for this verb. I have also read the same as Kooyen in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, you can check it out here:http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl. They say: " We’d recommend you to book your flight early." In fact, in the Murphy's English Grammar in Use, third edition, unit 55C, they say we can use recommend like this: "I wouldn't advise/recommend anybody to stay in that hotel" I'm really confused, what's the right construction? or may it be a AE/BE difference? Thank you. Edwinhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommasJoinClausePhrase/2/hrkhq/Post.htm#587751Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:10:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:587751califjimis the ing form only present tense if it has an auxilary verb before it? If the auxiliary verb is in the present tense, yes! If you have -ing, you have a present participle. The present participle can be used by itself (the "non-finite" constructions we talked about earlier) or with the auxiliary be . is working, are working, was working, were working, ... With the auxiliary it's a "finite" form. he ing form isn't a verb if it doesn't have an auxilary verb preeceding it, correct? Not exactly. It's still a verb in the sense of being a verb form , but it's not a "finite" verb unless it has the auxiliary. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CommasJoinClausePhrase/hrkhq/post.htm#587681Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:36:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:587681califjimI would use a comma. Participial constructions are normally set off by commas. A clause only needs a verb; the subject can be left understood, as in all imperatives. For example, Come here! is a clause, even though the subject 'you' is missing. It's understood. (Actually, there are even clauses without verbs, but we won't get into that here as it is irrelevant to your question.) In your case, you have a participial clause, and it's obvious that the subject of the main clause (independent clause) is understood as the subject of the participial clause ( I ). What may be confusing is that a participial clause is a "non-finite" clause, that is, it does not use an inflected form of the verb which marks tense. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyThereIs/hrjkg/post.htm#587467Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:45:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:587467yoong liatHi Ohmyrichard The following is for your information. Below is the information extracted from two books on English usage. The first book is on British English usage, the second on American English usage. The Right Word at the Right Time states as follows: There is an apple and pears for dessert. There are apples and a pear for dessert. The Merriam-Webster Guide to English Usage states as follows: When a compound subject follows the verb and the first element is singular, the verb may be either singular or plural : There is a lake and several small streams. There are a dog and a few cats in the house. The singular construction is more common. Still, some writers insist on formal agreement and use a plural verb: There were...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnotherGrammarCheck/hrdvn/post.htmSun, 09 Nov 2008 15:15:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:585595ellisaHello teachers! I have more here to be grammar checked. Even I was sure about the grammar, there used to be the wrong grammar. Thanks in advance! B. Discovering grammar Example 5 and 6 shows that students are encouraged to work out for themselves how language forms are constructed and used. The language should be familiar to them, however, not being properly taught them yet. Ex5) First, play a dialogue in which people have been comparing things. Then teacher show the way that we make adjectives comparatives. Giving rules, ignoring technical information and showing the grammar rules on the board is all possible. Showing the comparative adjectives examples and its variations, make questions which can confirm what they are taught....http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedWeSayMore/gqqln/post.htm#584567Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:25:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:584567alpheccastarsJackson: #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,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IntransitiveVerb/gqpgd/post.htm#584214Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:10:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:584214anonymousThank you very much. What I am not sure is if we can use modal verbs like 'could', 'would', 'must' and 'can' in front of an intransitive verb? I think it could but I am too familiar with it since I havent' been using the constructions like that many times. So, all these are possible with modals doing what they are supposed to do? has vanished/surfaced would have vanished/surfaced could have vanished/surfaced must have vanished/surfaced Also, can we use intransitive verbs as an adjective? a long-vanished cultural misconception an abruptly surfaced lutus flowerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IntransitiveVerb/gqpgd/post.htmWed, 05 Nov 2008 22:05:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:584174anonymousHi, I think the verbs 'vanish' and 'surface' are intransitive verbs. I think that means they take no objects and no passive form is available for them. Does that mean only passive form is not available and other verbal ? constructions are still available to them like attaching modal verbs like 'could', 'would', 'can' and 'could'? So these are not possible? was vanished/surfaced has been vanished having been vanished/surfaced But all these are possible with the modals doing their functions to indicate ability, possibility, etc.? has vanished/surfaced would have vanished/surfaced could have vanished/surfaced must have vanished/surfaced Is this correct as part of a subordinate...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrammaticalMistakes/gqmwc/post.htm#583392Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:04:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:583392alpheccastars4) Instead of "in this order", it might sound better as "in that order" The rule for #5 is: The conjunction or does not conjoin (as and does): when nor or or is used the subject closer to the verb determines the number of the verb. (From the dictionary) Usage Note: When all the elements in a series connected by or are singular, the verb they govern is singular: Tom or Jack is coming. Beer, ale, or wine is included in the charge. When all the elements are plural, the verb is plural. When the elements do not agree in number, some grammarians have suggested that the verb should agree in number with the nearest element: Tom or his sisters are coming. The girls or their brother is coming. Cold symptoms or headache is the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MegForcedJuneNotToSwim/gqwvm/post.htm#582600Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:22:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:582600califjimIs there a "not to" solution for these? Hi, Avangi! I'm not sure what you mean by "solution". You mean a paraphrase of the originals that uses "not to", I suppose. I find both examples to be "borderline grammatical" as is. They seem syntactically sound, but semantically anomalous. To my ear, the verb "force" suggests a positive impulse toward the accomplishment of some goal. The negative goal implied by "not to" seems to contradict this basic meaning of "force". Maybe a little research in a thesaurus would turn up a verb that is more appropriate semantically and yet accepts the negative infinitive syntactically, but off-hand, I don't know of one. Most verbs of...