Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Auxiliaries' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Auxiliaries'

Re: a Few grammar questions

CalifJim — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:12:40 GMT

Anonymous
Explain why the verb âTo Beâ is not a non-progressive verb?

It can be used in progressive tenses -- although this is not common. (The baby is being difficult this morning.)

Anonymous
I know the simple present never talks about the present ...

You have false knowledge. I wonder what makes you think this.

Anonymous
Why does the present tense not exist in English?

Again, you are mistaken. The present tense exists in English. Where are you getting all these crazy ideas?

Anonymous
What are perpendicular and parallel actions?

I've never heard of this distinction.

Anonymous
What is the difference between the Present Perfect and the Present Perfect Progressive?

Present Perfect is formed with the auxiliary have and the past participle of some verb: have seen, has done, have lived. Present Perfect Progressive is formed with the auxiliaries have and been and the present participle of some verb: have been seeing, has been doing, has been living.

semi-modals

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:48:32 GMT

I have read so much about modals and this is still a grey area of grammar to me.

Need is a semi-modal, which combines the qualities of auxiliaries and 'normal' verbs. OK.

Examples:

I needn't have gone to work (was unnecessary, still I did)

I did not need to go to work (was unnecessary, not inferable if I did)

Semantic difference between need as a modal and ordinary verb

Sometimes, however I cannot decide which form I should use:

You needn't be 18 to be allowed to enter this club.

You do not need to be allowed...

Difference? IMO, no.

Major changes need be implemented.

Major changes need to be implemented.

diff?

Thanks for possible suggestions.

Re: Not sure about this...

Clive — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:11:11 GMT

Hi,

Could you help me to distinguish (what is the difference between these...?) these two confused sentences? Before you do, please explain clearly. Thank you.

1. I did play.

2. I played.

Both are OK, although you would usually say #2 instead of #1.

Various tenses involve both main and auxiliary verbs. This is the Simple Past tense, and its auxiliary is 'did'. For a simple and positive statement, the auxiliary is not normally used, but we see it in negatives and in questions. eg

I played.

I did not play.

Did you play?

Didn't you play?

You played, didn't you?

You played, did you?

When you say 'I did play' instead of 'I played', it is often because you want to add emphasis.

Mary: You didn't play.

Tom: You are wrong. I did play, I did, I did, I did.

Best wishes, Clive

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: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

milky — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:38:33 GMT

I see. So when you refer to knowing how to use an item, you mean knowing how to use it syntactically, right? Well, that's probably the easy part of much English usage. Semantic and pragmatic knowledge are often much harder to learn/master.

BTW, what would be the difference between "I know how to use modals" and "I've mastered modals", IYO?

<What is not important are endless arguments about the real or imaginary differences between, say:

He has to go and

He must go.>

Well, I guess that would be part of the mastering part of the language - i.e. the complex part. It's easy for anyone to claim that English is not complex, or is much simpler than many other languages, if he/she avoids talking about mastering the language.

Again, you seem to be jumping thoughts. Are you saying that the difference in use between "have to" and "must" is not a common thing?

<Compared with other languages, this is not an insurmountable task at all.> *<How surprising that you should know it.>

Again, your view is quite subjective and personal. *Compare the above with other languages by showing us examples from other languages.

And often, the less common uses are based on differences in register or text type. The language that one needs at any time in his/her learning, and what is or is not common/ frequent for that student, depends on his/her personal situation. For, example, many of my students are lawyers. They need formal language. The above use of "should" would not be uncommon at all in their environment. Therefore, they would need to learn it early in their training.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:58:16 GMT

I'm surprised. Most people including teachers, would say that English modals are one of the most difficult areas to master.

They may be difficult to master. I said nothing about that, I said it is easy to learn them. As far as structures are concerned, I can't envisage how they could possibly be made simpler: there has to be a difference between the present and the past, which is achieved through the two infinitives English has. Take the verb to write. Its two infinitives are:

[to] write, [to] be written

[to] have written, [to] have been written

To use any other form of write with a defective auxiliary is always wrong, except for reductions like: He will have. Looks extremely simple to me! If English were an arttificial language, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly make this simpler without adding considerably to the ambiguity of English.

Modals are not important?

You have misunderstood my post. I didn't say modals are not important. Of course they are, being some of the most common words of the language. What is not important are endless arguments about the real or imaginary differences between, say:

He has to go and

He must go.

Instead of reading post after post dealing with these differences, the learner will certainly benefit a great deal more by increasing his vocabulary and improving his command of the language in other ways. I have heard opinions about the differences between some of the modals since I was a teenager. What good has it done to me? It has taught me English is inexact in many respects.

After the learner has a good command of the basics, he should of course be taught the not-so-common uses that some modals have. For example.

How surprising that you should know it.

Compared with other languages, this is not an insurmountable task at all. In every language, words have very common uses and less common uses. There is nothing exceptional in English in this respect.

Re: Grammar questions

CalifJim — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:18:39 GMT

The questions are as follows:

"A lot of progress was made[...]" or "Much progress was made[...]" - which one is better?

planter or plantation owner - which one is better?

sugar mill or cane mill - which one is better?

"[...] and it was difficult to identify the culprits." or "[...] and it was difficult to find the culprits." - which one is better? identify and find mean different things. If determining the identity of the culprits is the issue, use identify. If someone had to go looking for them, use find.

"Many died from the inhuman conditions on board the ships." or "Many died from the inhumane conditions on board the ships." - which one is better?

"The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where men often were separated from their wives and children." or "The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where husbands often were separated from their wives and children." - which one is better?

What's the difference between saying 'often were' separated from their wives and children, and 'were often' separated from their wives and children? My teacher says that they are both correct, however, it looks better if you write "often were separated". So, in effect, the auxiliary verb lies next to the verb. Normal order is 'were often'. For literary effect, 'often were'. Both are correct, as stated above.

The strongest men and women worked in the (is 'the' really needed here? No, but I happen to prefer it here. -- Personal opinion only.) tobacco and cotton fields in the South and at sugar mills in the West Indies.

"Only few â especially beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves [...]" or "Only a few â especially the beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves [...]" which one is better?

These are all questions of personal preference and taste. All the choices are grammatically correct.
It would be only be a waste of time to argue for one or another choice in most of these cases. (The only exception is inhumane.)

CJ

Grammar questions

Bennyman — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:35:57 GMT

Hello and welcome to my thread.

My English teacher has corrected a translation of mine, and while I don't doubt her abilities, I would like a second opinion.

The questions are as follows:

"A lot of progress was made[...]" or "Much progress was made[...]" - which one is better?

planter or plantation owner - which one is better?

sugar mill or cane mill - which one is better?

"[...] and it was difficult to identify the culprits." or "[...] and it was difficult to find the culprits." - which one is better?

"Many died from the inhuman conditions on board the ships." or "Many died from the inhumane conditions on board the ships." - which one is better?

"The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where men often were separated from their wives and children." or "The survivors were sold like cattle to white planters at auctions, where husbands often were separated from their wives and children." - which one is better?

The strongest men and women worked in the (is 'the' really needed here?) tobacco and cotton fields in the South and at sugar mills in the West Indies.

"Only few â especially beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves [...]" or "Only a few â especially the beautiful, young Negro girls â worked as house slaves [...]" which one is better?

Thanks beforehand,

Ben.

Re: Clause and use of Tenses

Cool Breeze — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:06:07 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
can,coud; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must and ought are auxiliary verbs. CB, I don't think they have infinitives, such as to shall, to may etc.

CB said: ''There are two infintives in both the active and the passive voices in English.''

What are these two infinitives?

Your teacher may have discussed the sequence of tenses.

Your teacher might have discussed the sequence of tenses.

What is difference between the meanings of above two sentences?

Jackson, your thinking is right. You have misundersood me. There is no such infinitive as to shall etc. The infinitive is used in connection with the auxiliaries:

I will write it.                     It will be written
I will have written it.          It will have been written.

They would write it.          It would be written.
They would have written it. It would have been written.

And so on. It would take me too long a time to discuss the defective auxiliaries in detail here. That's why I suggested you study them elsewhere.

Cheers
CB

Re: Clause and use of Tenses

Jackson6612 — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:39:12 GMT

can,coud; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must and ought are auxiliary verbs. CB, I don't think they have infinitives, such as to shall, to may etc.

CB said: ''There are two infintives in both the active and the passive voices in English.''

What are these two infinitives?

Your teacher may have discussed the sequence of tenses.

Your teacher might have discussed the sequence of tenses.

What is difference between the meanings of above two sentences?