Dear friend, 'should go' is a single verb phrase containing a modal auxiliary verb should . This operator is more specifically known as a central modal , because it shares all the features pertaining to modal auxiliary verbs. 'need to

Hi There, I am having trouble understanding Main verbs and Auxiliary verbs could someone please assist me. If there is a modal verb before the main verb would I class this as a main verb? I understand that the primary Auxiliary

I don't want to go to the game.  Your primary action verb is want.   Go is also an action verb as well.  Why don't you like math?  Do is an auxiliary. No t is the negative and Lik e is the action verb.

Hi Yaggy, I'm no expert, but perhaps I can help. She is getting more beautiful every day . I get, you get, he/she/it gets is the simple present tense. I am getting, You are getting, He is getting is the present continuous - the

In other words, your auxiliary verbs must match.  A: I am going to New York next year. B: So am I! A: I live in Italy. (You use do/don't as the auxiliary in the question or in negative sentences) B: So do I!

Thank you Grammar Geek. Thus, since the negatives in my examples aren't going in a row, they are both used for the sake of ease of comprehension, one referring to the auxiliary verb and the other referring to the adverb, am I getting it

You have worked a lot. You must be tired, aren't you? Yes, i'm very tired.(agree with the speaker) No, i don't tired.(disgree with the speaker) In this case as verb to be works as the auxiliary verb of the tag question, you've got

HI I'm from canada and here for me both are the same. However in written texts I'd probably use have insted of have got. Have got is more used in spoken language, and many times we say only I got with the idea of I've got. But, we use

It is only recently that I discovered that with the auxiliary did n't , use d to is probably incorrect. The proximity of use d t o is such that it's hard to hear what actually is going on. This is one of the numerous points of

(I edited this because my examples didn't match the point I was trying to make! -s) So, am I the only one who thinks it's more than okay (though darned confusing to ESL students) to use "could" as a past form of "can"