Search results for 'tag:English grammar tag:Auxiliaries' matching tags 'English grammar' and 'Auxiliaries'

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:49 GMT

Anonymous
In that respect, I would like to know when and how the auxiliary "do" appeared in English. What kind of people introduced it into the English language?
I would like to know who decided about the value of tenses of the Past. They do not correspond to the value of the tenses of the Past in latinoÃ¯d languages. Who can give me answers ?
In this debate, I do not think there is an evolution towards simplicity nor towards more complicated structures. The
communities of native speakers of a language constantly change the rules and the meaning of words (although the main core remains more or less stable for facility reasons.)
Ethnic languages are tools of inclusion and mainly exclusion (internal and external). That is why there are so many exceptions.
No ethnic language is that easy to learn. When I say "to learn" I mean to learn it to be on equal footing with a native speaker of the language. There will always be a difference, a discrimination.
From what I have experienced ( I am very interested by languages), there is no easy language. All has been done by training.
There is no natural language : everything has been constructed by Man.
I invite the readers to learn an interlanguage such as Esperanto, compare it with your mother tongue and with languages you have studied later. 90% to 95% of the time is spent to the learning of exceptions. That is why a language without exception such as Esperanto is ten to twenty times faster to learn than ethnic languages.
It is fascinating to see how a universal congress of Esperanto works and to compare it with an international congress in only one language. Many prejudices fall.
Maybe I am opening new interests in the debate..
George/Belgium

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say both

I know not him
and
I do not know him.

It is very common that the usage of tenses varies from language to language, especially if the languages are not closely related. No reasons can usually be given for this. You might just as well ask why the usage of tenses in the Romance languages differs from that in English. Linguistic changes are often shrouded in the past and there is no knowing why they occurred.

All words and grammatical structures people are not used to sound wrong and/or odd and therefore people usually object to changes that are about to happen in their lifetime and think the language is deteriorating. This is true about all languages, not just English. People tend to think a language is at its most beautiful right now and any change will just make it worse.

English grammar has become so simple over the centuries that I cannot envisage it becoming any simpler without the risk of English becoming even more inexact than it is now. However, not all changes have made the language simpler in structure. In Old English there was just one relative pronoun and it had only one form. That made communication with relative clauses very awkward and it wasn't a great surprise that who, whom, whose, what and which began to be used as relatives to facilitate communication.

CB

My interview experience.

Bird Of Paradise — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:07:48 GMT

I belong to a country where English is used as a second language, so it is not my first language. A few days ago I appeared in an interview for the post of English Teacher. I want to share a few points of that interview for your worthy comments.

I use A for interviewer and B for myself.

After the formal greetings,

A: Introduce yourself.

B. Sir, I have come from Swabiâ¦..

Donât say âI have come fromâ say âI come fromâ

Then I was asked some questions in English Literature and then,

How many moods are there in English Grammar?
Sir, there are three moods in English grammar, Indicative, imperative and subjunctive.

Can we use Model auxiliary with infinite clause.
Yes sir, we can.

How? Give an example.
For example âI will goâ

What is an infinite clause?
A clause, which doesnât show tense.

No. You are wrong.

Ok, tell my in how many ways can we use a subordinate clause?
Well sir, there are different kinds of subordinate clauseâ¦

No, no. Just tell me exactly in how many ways can we use it, like with subject-verb, subject-adverb etc.
Sorry sir.(it was really confusing for me.)

A. Ok, âHe is marriedâ which part of speech is married?

B. Sir, it the past participle form of the verb marry and here it is used as an adjective.

These are some of the point of my interview. Please give some comments. Thanks.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:17:26 GMT

Milky wrote:
<To my mind, the articles are the trickiest part of English grammar>

And modals?

They are similar to other Germanic languages in structure and as there are only two infinitives in English (and in Swedish, for that matter), the modals or defective auxiliaries are very easy and simple to learn. They have no inflections for different grammatical persons, which is also helpful.

Like many other words in many languages, these words have a number of meanings and uses, and regional differences exist. The average user need not devote a lot of his time to subtleties that rarely present themselves in real life. He may never have to face a situation where a Scot uses shall or will in a sense that is unfamiliar even to most native speakers of English.

Disagreement regarding the use and meanings of some of the defective auxiliaries is widespread even in standard English. That doesn't make learning them more difficult for nonnatives. It's easy to learn the fact that people disagree on something, that some people think that certain verbs should or should not be used in some situations.

A learner might as well focus his efforts on more useful things to improve his English.

CB

Re: future tense

Dawnstorm — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:38:45 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:
What does (simple) future tense mean in this sentence?

The grammarian (it is a grammarian, isn't it?) you're quoting would probably tell you that there is no future tense. Many linguists claim English has only two tenses: Past and Non-past (sometimes called present). Like Marius Hancu said, the grammarian might tell you its about "intention"; will is a modal auxiliary, therefore "will go" is not the future tense of "go". Instead, it's present tense with modified "mood".

Whether English expresses future through tense or not is a controversial question. Your quote doesn't support the existence of a future tense, so - in this context - "future tense" would be a meaningless term.

Thomson/Martinet, in A Practical English Grammar, for example, say:

There is no future tense in modern English, but for convenience we often use the term 'future simple' to describe the form will/shall + bare infinitive.

This is not uncontested. It's a purely terminological debate, though, depending on the definition of tense. Whether there is a future tense or not has no bearing at all at your language proficiency, if you know how to express the future in English. There are other terminological debates: for example, I've heard linguists say there's no passive voice in English, and that the distinction between present participle and gerund cannot be sustained. Different ways to look at language yield different vocabulary to talk about it.

Re: Joy to the world, the lord is "COME" ????

Cool Breeze — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:06:53 GMT

I always thought it was a remnant of the French (Norman Invasion, 1066). There is a handful of verbs in French conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have" in the passÃ© composÃ© (past) tense. Rise, [to be] born, arrive, leave, go (all "coming and going" verbs) are some examples. We also sing "He is risen" and we allow for "he is gone" as well as "he has gone".

Hi Philip

There has been vacillation between be and have as the perfect auxiliary in the Germanic languages - that's what I really meant to say in my previous post - but to my knowledge no one has ever maintained this usage derives from French. As a matter of fact, French had little effect on English grammar in terms of grammatical structures although the number of loan words is remarkable.

One of the structures derived from French is the of-genitive, which most scholars believe is based on the de-structure of the French language. And of course the word order of e.g. court martial reflects French grammar.

The only tenses Old English had were the present tense and the preterite (past tense); in other words, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain in the 5th century didn't take the perfect, pluperfect and the future tense with them from the continent.

Cheers
CB

Re: Change English As You Wish

Cool Breeze — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:20:32 GMT

Thank you to all those who have posted their suggestions to my little imagination game. Some have taken it very seriously thinking they would have to relearn English after the 'changes'. This was meant to be just a game, not for those wo take everything seriously, and of course in this game everybody automatically speaks and writes the new English fluently without having to learn anything.

In the colonial days several European languages got exported as taking peoples' lands from them was considered a virtue and something to be proud of. This resulted in some languages being more dominant than others. Spanish and French were the most important languages till the end of the 19th century when the USA rose to be No. 1 in world politics and commerce. The foundation for English as the lingua franca had been laid.

The world should be thankful. There is no such thing as an easy language; every language is difficult if the learner aims at perfection. However, there are grammatically and structurally far more complicated languages than English, and we should consider ourselves lucky it's only the spelling that drives us nuts about English, not inflections.

Here are the changes I would make to English:

A. Spelling: Grammar Geek, Alienvoord and Englishuser would all make changes to the spelling, and indeed so would I. I think Englishuser puts it nicely: "I'd certainly change the spelling of words with an 'irregular' spelling, that is, words whose pronunciation can't be determined basing on how they're spelt." I would also accept more than one spelling for a word in many cases.

There isn't enough space and I don't have enough time and patience to cover all the tens of thousands of words this entails, but here are some examples of new spellings:

OLD                                 NEW
fight                                  fite
perceive                           perceive, percieve
tough                                 tuf
though                              tho
knight                                 nite
caste                                 cast
pace                                 pace, pase
write                                 rite

B. Grammar: English grammar is so uncomplicated due to 500 years of simplifying foreign influence (200 years of Vikings and 300 years of Normans) that English grammar really couldn't be made much simpler even if it were an artificial language. However, as a foreigner I'll continue the foreign influence and enforce the following changes.

1. I will get rid of the third person singular s and has. Henceforth we will say: He speak English. He have a car. He have asked it twice. The s is a totally needless relic and Swedish, another Germanic language, needs no verb endings for any person even though it is more complicated than English in other respects.

2. There will be no irregular verbs from now on with the exception of to be and the defective or modal auxiliaries, which will remain unchanged. Examples of new English:

OLD                                 NEW
He saw us.                        He seed us.
He has written a letter.    He have rited a letter.
Who wrote it?                   Who/Hu rited it?
I haven't hit him.               I haven't hitted him.
I ran too fast.                    I runned too fast.

3. I'll return English to its pre-Shakespearean state with regard to questions and negations. Henceforth, English will be like the other Germanic languages and questions will be asked without the totally unnecessary do auxiliary:

OLD                                  NEW
Do you speak English? Speak you English?
I didn't see him.                  I seed not him.
Did you do it?                   Doed you it?

4. All past participles can be used attributively before nouns: a rited report, a catched fish, two asked questions, a surrendered country.

5. There will be no irregular plurals for nouns:

OLD                                     NEW
two men                               two mans
many children                      many childs
these phenomena              these phenomenons
two geese                           two gooses

6. Any uncountable noun can be used as a countable if the need arises:

OLD                                    NEW
two pieces of advice         two advices
two news items                  two newses

7. I'll leave the articles, pronouns, numerals, adjectives and adverbs as they are. There are countless idioms where the articles are used contrary to reason and logic, but non-natives' incorrect usage seldom gives rise to misunderstandings. Besides, who am I to deprive English of all its fascination?
Those who don't like sentences like He runned too fast have my permission to say He runned too fastly if they prefer that.

8. Since there are so few inflections, the word order will just have to remain as it it with a few exceptions. For the sake of clarity, some minor changes will take effect: You Only Live Twice has to be renamed (and rerecorded) You Live Only Twice. (Fortunately Nancy Sinatra is still alive, she can rerecord it next week!)

9. Some changes in clause equivalents would make English more exact, but I am reluctant to make them. I'll let English remain somewhat inexact. It is plain impossible to make it exact in every respect without more inflections, and more inflections would make learning English a more laborious task for non-natives.

Consider these examples:

Having said that, he left the room. (After he had said that, he left the room.)
"Having said that, he did win Wimbledon two years ago." (A tennis commentator has said something slightly negative about a player, then decides to mention a positive thing about him. The sentence does not usually mean: After he had said that, he won Wimbledon two years ago. But of course it could mean that, too.)

English abounds in ambiguity and native speakers disagree on what common verbs such as the defective auxiliaries mean in some contexts. I'll let all that be as it is, I know when to give up.

Vocabulary: I'll add some short words that can be used to indicate surprise, disbelief etc. in spoken English in sentences like: He goed there? You like not it! Haven't you seed it? I won't write the words here, though, I just think English could and should have more finesse and be more expressive and colorful.

I won't delete a single word from the vocabulary, on the contrary, I'll add a way of forming a word denoting a person from a town or a village. English already has many such words but on the whole they are rather impractical: a Liverpudlian, a Memphian. Some are easier: a Londoner, a New Yorker. But what do you call a person who lives in Timbuktu?

From now on, the ending will always be er: a Liverpooler, a Memphiser, an Uppsalaer, a Hong Konger, a Tokyoer, a Timbuktuer. This will add hundreds of thousands of words to English. I'll also let you call a Swede a Swedener and a Thai a Thailander if you wish.

I have simplified the grammar a little and that should help non-native learners in particular. I have left the basic structure of the language untouched except for the disappearance of do in questions and negations. But even this is actually a minor thing since it just returns English to the early 16th century.

I have increased the vocabulary a great deal. Every three-year-old Finn knows what to call a person from Timbuktu once he is told there is such a place. English-speaking kids should be able to do the same.

Cheers
CB

Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Drewauerbach — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:08:48 GMT

Alienvoord, I appreciate you're constructive criticism. Allow me to rebute:

1) Comprehensible, yes. But many expressions are comprehensible even without being gramatically sound. The nuances I try to reveal in this post are to help you write better gramatically, not to sound or to write comprehensible.

2) I cannot refute this well supported argument. In fact, there is a sliver of the article that directly weakens my point. I quote:
-------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive -----------

Problems caused by trying to avoid the split infinitive

Stylistically, the careful placement of another word between to and the bare infinitive sometimes avoids ambiguity or ugliness. The old prohibition on split infinitives is particularly surprising when one observes that there are a number of expressions in English that are weakened considerably by avoiding the split infinitive.

[edit]

An example

R.L. Trask uses this example:

She decided to gradually get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

Clearly, what is implied here is she took a decision to get rid of her teddy bears, and the disposal would happen over time. 'Gradually' splits the infinitive 'to get'. But if we were to move it, where would it go?. Consider the following:

She decided gradually to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This implies that the decision was gradual.

She decided to get rid of the teddy bears she had collected gradually.

This implies that the collecting process was gradual.

She decided to get gradually rid of the teddy bears she had collected.

This sounds awkward to most native speakers of English.

She decided to get rid gradually of the teddy bears she had collected.

This is almost as awkward as its immediate predecessor.

Not only does the original example sound right to a native speaker, it is also the only semantically sound possibility.

The best way to avoid using split infinitives is usually via a change in lexical choices. However, in spoken language, phonetic stresses and timing is usually all that is needed for a sentence's actual implications to be understood.

In other instances, use of a split infinitive is for many people the most natural way to add certain kinds of emphasis in conversation:

Student A: "I'm going to do better next year."Student B: "I'm going to really do better next year."

On a historical level, it is possible that years of attacks against split infinitives by prescriptive grammarians have cowed some people into needless reluctance to split other compound verb forms. For example, people will contort sentences to avoid placing an adverb in its usual position between the auxiliary verb and the participle, leading to constructions such as, "The argument originally had been usedâ¦" instead of "The argument had originally been used", which is more natural for most speakers.

It is probably not possible to disentangle this argument from the modality of English grammar. Typically, in a phrase such as "I am going to", the verbal construct "to be going to" acts as a modal verb, analogous to other standard modal verbs "will", "could", "can" etc. In this sense, it becomes apparent that the preposition 'to' does not belong to the infinitive verb, but rather to the modal verb. In this case, it becomes impossible to split an infinitive.

-------END EXCERPT FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive --------

3) By saying, "I only <want to go to the movies>," you do NOT imply that you also <do not want to breathe.> Again, you got to pay attention to what "only" is modifying, the verb. By placing the limiting modifier before the first verb in this sentence, you imply limitations to what you can do, including breathing (although the idea sounds exagerrated initially, it really is correct). Now, you say that the sentence implies that the speaker <does not want to breathe>. Not so! In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he CANNOT breathe, regardless of desire. In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is capable of only desiring to go to the movies. In my last sentence, I would have been correct to say, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he is only capable of desiring to go to the movies," or, "In fact, the speaker implies that (s)he only is capable of desiring to go to the movies."

4) The point I'm trying to make here is that using "it" as a dummy subject is gramatically incorrect; therefore, we should reject its use as a dummy subject (think prescriptivist rather than descriptivist).

5) I do not understand your argument here; therefore, I cannot refute it.

6) Your "counterargument" seems to be more like a historical basis that I would use to set up my argument. Which side are you on: yours or mine?

7) You're correct; I have not. Here is my evidence: Passive voice is boring. End of discussion.

Re: "will be going to + Vb. inf." Is this expression common?

paco2004 — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:15:25 GMT

Soylista wrote:
I am confused with this expression, "will be going to + Vb".
eg. I will be going to visit Aunt Carol tomorrow.
To me, this expression is sort of redundant. Why do you need to use both "will" and "be+going to"? I somewhat understand the differences between future meaning expressions; "be+going to", "be ~ing", "will" and "will be ~ing" but I've got confused since I heard this "will be going to ~".
Is this expression common to use? Is there any specific meaning on this? What kind of occasion or circumstances should I use this expression?

Stanford Linguistics/Grammaticalization of "Be Going To"
The full semanticization and grammaticalization of "be going to" is evidenced when the following subject and/or the verb is incompatible with purposiveness, for example, an inanimate subject or a verb of mental experience such as "hear". Once the semanticization of later time/future had occurred, the "will" future could no longer be used with "be going to", presumably because it had become partially redundant, and did not fit the auxiliary verb structure into which the construction had been absorbed. (Note, however, that the "will"-future can still occur in the main verb construction "be going to", as in "I will be going to visit Aunt Mildred tomorrow.")

BBC World Service/Learning English Grammar (Future Tenses)
[QUESTION]I have heard people mixing tenses - for example, saying, "I will be going to see him". Isn't that just the same as, "I'll be seeing him."?
[ANSWER]We choose between a wide range of future tenses and sometimes combine these tenses. Each possibility expresses a different attitude towards the event.
"I will be going to see him" has a different meaning from either "I'll be seeing him." or "I'm going to see him." It suggests that at a particular moment in the future I will be preparing to see him.

paco

Re: Adjectives or past participles?

paco2004 — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:29:21 GMT

Hello CJ

I have four English grammar books. Two are written in Japanese and both treat an agentless passive as a kind of passive, although one of them introduces the concept of "stative passive" to explain the usage of agentless passive. English-written grammar books are Quirk's CGEL and Alexander's Longman English Grammar.

Quirk uses a term "pseudo passives" for "agentless passives". He also uses a term "semi passive" for the constructs like "He was interested in linguistics". He defines this construct as "semi-passive" due to the reason as follows. Semi passives are common with true passives in that they have an active partner like "Linguistics interested him", but they are different from true passives in that the past participle in semi passives can be coordinated with usual adjectives and modified with adverbs like "very", "more", "quite", "rather", etc.. Another difference is that the auxiliary "be" can be replaced by verbs like "seem", "feel", etc.. Personally I don't feel Quirk's explanation is well organized.

Alexander shares only three pages for the description of passive voice. There he explains the difference between the adjectival construct and the passive voice with the examples:
I was worried about you all night (adjectival).
I was worried by mosquitoes all night (passive)
But I don't think Alexander also has a clear idea about distinguishing adjectival constructs from passive constructs. He categorizes into passives the sentence "He is said to be honest" despite the fact we cannot say "They say him to be honest".

paco