Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:Auxiliaries' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'Auxiliaries'

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:26:02 GMT

You wrote this as your partical response to the overall question:
I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Your technique (if I can call it that) is new to me. Anyway, how do you make distinctions as to which phrase/clause is appropriate to put an "s" after putting quotation marks around it: why not "good morning" but "how are you"?

I don't understand your question. The '-s' goes outside the quotation marks, as I indicated in both italicized sentences.

And I wrote this:
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?

-- Yes again.

The problem I have is that it is hard to distinguish situations where the detinite noun is necessary

-- It takes some practice.

We value freedom of press.
Order for proclamation of the King's Peace

In the two examples above I feel can use the detinite noun and not use it with little difference, if at all.

-- As they stand, the first should have no article and the second should: freedom of the press is a general freedom, but the King is a specific king. That at least is the presumption that the reader should make.

I thin the same goes to the original sentences with the word 'power' except you are very sure the reference it to a specific group of people and situation needs to be specific, but I feel, in most wriiting situations in the real world, don't need the definiteness brought by having placed 'the' before the likes of the word 'power'.

-- I agree that there is often an option; nevertheless, in your sentence, a specific power source is implied-- i.e the power supplied at where 'they' are.
.

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:16:11 GMT

THANK YOU.

You wrote:

I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the 'would's are incorrect:

If the power goes out, I dare to think that they will all leave.
If the power goes out, I bet they will all leave.
If the power goes out, I am sure that they will all leave.
If the power goes out, I bet that they will all leave.

And I wrote this:
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?

And to that, I think you said 'yes'.

The problem I have is that it is hard to distinguish situations where the detinite noun is necessary (as it seems) since some words like 'freedom' and 'proclamation' and possibly 'power' have what I can say a capacity to dwell and function well in both specifically referenced and non-specifically referenced situations like this:

We value freedom of press.

This one I picked out from the google book search:

Order for proclamation o fthe King's Peace

Two examples above I feel can use the detinite noun and not use it with little difference, if at all.

I thin the same goes to the original sentences with the word 'power' except you are very sure the reference it to a specific group of people and situation needs to be specific, but I feel, in most wriiting situations in the real world, don't need the definiteness brought by having placed 'the' before the likes of the word 'power'.

So, in most cases, I feel the version without the 'the's is good.

If power goes out, I dare ...

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:44:18 GMT

.
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?-- Yes

You wrote this as an introducing part (if that is phrased right) to the examples:
I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the 'would's are incorrect:

I have hard time finding out how to pluralize words like"'would" or 'how are you?"You seemed to have attach an 's' after putting the word "would" in the quotation marks. Is it how it should be done? --Yes. I used single quote marks; double marks are more formally correct.

How about this? I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the "would's" are incorrect-- No

How about these?

I think that the '"do's and don'ts" are inappropriate to the situation.-- Yes. Do's and don'ts is an idiom. (Notice that for clarity we do not use a second apostrophe in "don't's")
I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:21:32 GMT

Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?

You wrote this as an introducing part (if that is phrased right) to the examples:
I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the 'would's are incorrect:

I have hard time finding out how to pluralize words like"'would" or 'how are you?"You seemed to have attach an 's' after putting the word "would" in the quotation marks. Is it how it should be done? How about this?

I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the "would's" are incorrect:

How about these?

I think that the '"do's and don'ts" are inappropriate to the situation.
I think that the "good morinng's" are inappropriate.
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- this seems to be a difficult one since I feel "how are you" should have a question mark at the end and it is difficult to know what to do with the mark.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: army vs military

Grammar Geek — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:53:08 GMT

Using my favorite online reference, www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: ²military Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural military also milÂ·iÂ·tarÂ·ies Date: 1709

1: military persons; especially : army officers THIS IS THE RESTRICTED VERSION - ARMY ONLY

2: armed forces THIS IS THE GENERAL VERSION - ALL ARMED FORCES

Main Entry: armed forces
Function: noun plural
: the combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation âcalled also armed services

And here's Army: 1 a: a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land b: a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops coften capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare

I don't know why you thought that army, strictly speaking, referred only the infantry, but you can see that it does say "especially on land" so perhaps that confused you.

A soldier is anyone who serves in the amry. It doesn't matter what his or her job is.

Re: he is gone. What tense is being used? Is that simple present tense?

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:08:44 GMT

Â I think it's a big mistake because the verb after theÂ auxiliaryÂ is in the pastÂ participle,Â it means that theÂ auxiliary should be 'has' Â (the verbÂ 'to have' in the present) instead of 'is' (the verbÂ 'to be' Â in the present. its aÂ commonÂ mistake and it's a confusion of the contracted form of this sentence (He's gone) witch is He has gone, the ('s) after the pronoun (He) is taken as the contrected from of (is).Â

Re: Verb complementation

miriam — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:28:37 GMT

John: subject (noun)

tends to get hungry: predicate

tends to get: head of the predicate (verb phrase)

hungry: predicative, subjective complement or subject complement [all 3 terms mean the same] (adjective)

Randolph Quirk considers "tend to" a semi-auxiliary verb. This would make "get" (a linking verb) the main verb in the verb phrase. It can't possibly take a direct object. There are other verbs that act similarly to tend to: try to, happen to, fail to, etc.

Hope that helps, even though my answer comes late.

Miriam

Re: Exercises of linking verbs+adj

CalifJim — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:10:09 GMT

BeginStudent
after "have you been " ~~you must~~ must you have a verb?

No. The verb to be may be used as an auxiliary. Then have you been needs to be followed by a verb in the past participle form.

Have you been seen? / Have you been cheated? / Have you been heard? / Have you been paid?

But the verb to be can also be used as the main verb. Then have you been can be followed by an adjective or a noun or a propositional phrase.

Have you been asleep very long? / Have you been a carpenter very long? / Have you been in pain for more than a month? / Have you been lonely without me?

Study the verb tenses. It will help you to understand how these combinations work.

Verbs

ganesh77 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:38:41 GMT

The list isn't meant to be exhaustive or carefully arranged. Any additions, corrections or further examples would be welcomed.

1 main verbs; lexical verbs (all verbs which are not auxiliaries or modals)

2 action verbs; event verbs; dynamic verbs (a verb which can be used in continuous tenses) i.e. eat, run, talk

3 state of being verbs; existence verbs; state verbs; stative verbs; static verbs (a verb which describes a state and is not usually used in a continuous tense) i.e. be, own, know

4 regular verbs (a verb that has four forms and follows the normal rules)

5 irregular verbs; strong verbs (a verb not following the normal rules for inflection)

6 auxiliary and modal verbs (which make up verbal phrases) â 23 in total

7 linking verbs; copulative verbs; copulas (a verb which links the subject and complement of a clause) i.e. It is warm today.

8 transitive verbs (a verb used to talk about an action or event that involves more than one person or thing, and so is followed by an object) i.e. Sheâs wasting her money.

9 intransitive verbs (a verb used to talk about an action or event that only involved the subject and so has no object) i.e. She arrived.

10 multiword verbs

a type 1 â intransitive [phrasal verbs; adverb particle

b type 2 â transitive (inseparable) [prepositional verbs; preposition particles]

c type 3 â transitive (separable) [phrasal verbs; adverb particle]

d type 4 â transitive (with two inseparable particles) [phrasal-prepositional verbs; first particle is an adverb, second particle is a preposition]

11 compound verbs

12 delexical verbs (a verb which has very little meaning in itself but is used with an object to describe an action) i.e. She gave a small cry.

13 ditransitive verbs (a verb which can have both a direct and indirect object) i.e. She gave me a kiss.

14 ergative verbs (a verb which can be used transitively to focus on the performer of the action, or intransitively to focus on the thing affected by the action) i.e. He boiled the water. The water boiled.

15 reporting verbs; performance verbs; performative verbs (a verb used with a quote or a reported clause to describe what people say or think) i.e. suggest, say, wonder

16 reciprocal verbs (a verb which describes an action involving two people doing the same thing to each other) i.e. They met in the street.

17 reflexive verbs (a verb which is typically used with a reflexive pronoun) i.e. Donât cut yourself with that knife.

18 defective verbs (a verb without all the inflected forms of a regular verb) i.e. modals

19 finite and non-finite

a infinitives

b gerunds; verbal nouns

c participles

20 catenative verbs (a verb that takes other verb forms as objects; found at the head of a series of linked constructions) i.e. We agreed to try to decide to stop eating snacks.

21 causative verbs (a verb that designates the action necessary to cause another action to happen) i.e. The devil made me do it.