Search results for 'tag:Past tenses tag:Inflections' matching tags 'Past tenses' and 'Inflections'

Re: English teaching sites

Yoong Liat — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:56:28 GMT

Guest
How do you explain what a irregular verb is to entry 1 esol students?

Main Entry:	irregular verb
Part of Speech:	n
Definition:	any verb whose past tense and past participle are not formed by adding -ed, -d, or -t to the present tense, a verb that does not follow the general rules of inflection

Examples of irregular verbs are sing (past tense sang); feel (felt); and go (went).

Re: Using ''need'' as a modal

Cool Breeze — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:06:55 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
Need sometimes behaves like a modal, for example 'She need know', 'She needn't know', or, in more formal English, 'She need not know'.

Examples:

1: You needn't worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture needn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not remain that way...

4: You needn't come again, if you don't want to...

[an excerpt from Collins COBUILD Dictionary]

I would have written the above examples as:

1: You needn't to worry

2: Buying budget-priced furniture doesn't mean compromising on quality or style...

3: Loneliness can be horrible, but it need not to remain that way...

4: You needn't to come again, if you don't want to...

Questions:

1: I suppose ''to'' is functioning as a preposition in the above examples. Why can't a preposition be used after a modal?

Hi Jackson

You've got it wrong. To isn't a preposition in your sentences after need, it's a particle before an infinitive.

Examples of to as a preposition:

I am going to the park.
We are listening to him.

Examples of to as part of an infinitive:
I want to go there.
It's impossible to learn this.

The to-particle is normally not used after a modal auxiliary, or a defective auxiliary, as they are also called:
I will do it tomorrow.
Can he swim?
You should buy it.
You should have bought it.

If you use need or dare in the same way as the modals are used, they behave in exactly the same way as the modals:
1. You don't use do in questions and negations.
2. You don't use the third person singular s-inflection.
3. You don't use to before the infinitive.

Examples:
Can he come? Need he come? Dare he come?
1. NOT: Does he can come? (Wrong!!!)
2. NOT: Cans he come? Needs he come? Dares he come? (Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!)
3. NOT: Can he to come? Need he to come? (Wrong!!!)

You cannot use need in the past tense at all in the above way, but dare is sometimes possible in the past tense as well:
He dared not do it. (Or: He didn't dare to do it.)

Cheers
CB

Re: Subjunctive?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:45:57 GMT

Your sentences are not very good English as they contain grammatical mistakes. If I understand you right, you are asking whether need not + infinitive is a subjunctive. No, it isn't. Need in the present tense can be made negative in two ways:

1. He need not go there.
2. He doesn't need/have to go there.

In the first sentence need is an indicative present tense even though there is no third person singular inflection (s). In the second sentence does is in the present tense and need is a plain/bare infinitive, or an infinitive without to.

In the past tense we normally say:
He didn't need/have to go there.

CB

Re: will/would

Cool Breeze — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:41:17 GMT

New2grammar wrote:
So you are saying the 'if' usage does not automatically make a sentence subjunctive? Can you give me a couple of examples in different contexts where 'if' is not subjunctive?

Certainly, New2grammar:

1. I showed him some pictures yesterday. If he liked a picture, he would nod.
2. I used to take long walks in the evenings in those days but if I was tired, I just watched television.

An average English verb has only four forms written as one word (ask, asks, asking, asked) and therefore the indicative and subjunctive are often the same. This makes it easy for a learner but can result in ambiguity sometimes. You will have noticed that even native speakers argue on these forums about the meanings of, say, will or shall in some sentences.

In English, context is often of paramount importance. In many other languages that have more inflections, the meaning is clear and unambiguous without context. I am best familiar with my native language, Finnish. Just to say something in the indicative in the present tense in all the six grammatical persons (I, you, he, we, you, they), 13 different forms of the verb are needed. Another 13 verb forms are needed for the past tense etc. Consequently the problem discussed in this thread couldn't arise in Finnish.

Cheers
CB

Re: Help with past tense

mountain — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:58:19 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

The idiomatic 'try and do' is not acceptably used in any but that fixed form. Any inflection of the verb (tries and, tried and) illegitimatizes it.

I'll try and help you later.
She's going to try and bake a cake.
(X) She tries and bakes cakes.
(X) I tried and helped you yesterday.

How can "I tried and helped you yesterday" be put in another way that's also past tense? It looks weird when "tride and helped" together. Thanks

Re: There is or there are

CalifJim — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:34:45 GMT

FYI

The second form is the one I see 99% of the time in professionally edited grammar books. Sometimes boldface type is reserved for a lexical item that takes various inflections, e.g., there may be a reference to be -- the italicized form then being used for the specific inflected forms, e.g., is, were, been, to be. Thus, be means "any form of the verb be", and is means specifically the word is. Thus, one finds sentences like "be is an operator" and "went is the past tense of go".

I have never seen color highlighting in any such books.

CJ

Re: Subjunctive--still confused

rhetor — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:23 GMT

"If my child were caught shoplifting, [Hypothetical assertion. The "if" and the "were" indicate that the mood of the verb in this sentence is subjunctive.]

I would be very sad. [Contingent assertion. "Would be" is not subjunctive mood, but potential mood.]

After all, his unlawful behavior INDICATES that I HAVE not taught him well. [Nothing wrong with present indicative, but I would stick with the potential mood, and past tense: "His unlawful behavior would indicate that I had not taught him well."]

I would not scold him too harshly. [Contingent assertion. Potential mood is fine here.]

Since I AM his father, [Fine.]

I CONSIDER myself partly responsible for his mistake. [Fine, but better, for the sake of consistency, to stay with the potential mood as part of the contingency answering the original "if" phrase. "As I am his father, I would consider myself partly responsible for his mistake."]

Therefore, I would first try to understand the reason why he did this and then work out a solution to help him solve his problem. [Fine. I would write, however, "I would first try to understand the reason THAT he did this and then work out a solution to help him solve his problem." Finally, I would tighten the structure and remove some redundancy: "Therefore, I would first try to understand the reason that he did this, and then try to help him solve his problem."]

The most important thing IS that he KNOWS he HAS done something wrong and never MAKES the same mistake again." [We're still speaking of a contingency that depends on a hypothetical situation, so it's better to stick with the potential and subjunctive moods: "The most important thing would be THAT HE KNOW he had done something wrong, and never MAKE the same mistake again." The subjunctive mood doesn't show inflection. We could also use the infinitive, and say "The most important thing would be for him to know that he had done something wrong, and not to make the same mistake again."]

Re: When to use would and when to use could

paco2004 — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:42:56 GMT

Hi Cacarr

OED says about 'tense' as :any one of the different forms of a verb which indicate the different times at which the action or state denoted by it is viewed as happening or existing. It also says about 'inflection' as: the modification of the form of a word to express the different grammatical relations.

And the dictionary gives the inflections to as follows:

Present tense I can, thou canst, one can, we can, you can, they can
Past tense I could, thou couldst, one could, we could, you could, they could

Present tense I can, thou can, one can, we can, you can, they can
Past tense I could, thou couldst, one could, we could, you could, they could

paco

Re: When to use would and when to use could

cacarr — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:23:57 GMT

That's interesting, equivical.

What is the nature of the inflection? Tense is a morphological thing:

Smoke -Present Tense

Smoked -Past Tense

Will smoke = future time. See that the verb is without an affix of any kind? There is no future tense in English. We use a modal to refer to future time.

Could

Coulded?

Would

Woulded?

Trouble with "form of the verb phrases" *-)

eigil — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:55:18 GMT

For my home grammar assignment I am to "describe the form of the verb phrases in the following sentences (:finiteness, tense, modality, aspect, voice):

1. The house had been painted a bright red before it was sold.
2. Pigeons will be nesting on the statue's head.
3. It is good to have seen them again.
4. To drive like that must be dangerous.
5. To be followed all dat would make anyone suspicious.
6. Having signed the letter, she mailed it.

I have some trouble understanding what to do with sentence nr. 4. I believe there are two verb phrases; "to drive" and "must be". How do I describe the tense of these forms? i could also look upon "To drive like that" as the subject of the sentence and treat "must be" as the only predicator. It's rahter confusing to me. What tense is the infinite "to drive" in this context? Would someone please help me describe sentence number 4 and 5? Here are my notes to the three former sentences. Are they OK?

Op aux head/lexical verb head/lexical verb
[The house had been painted a bright red before it was sold]
In this sentence we find two verb phrases which I have underlined.
In the first verb phrase we have two auxiliaries and one head. The first phrase is past tense, carries the perfective aspect and the passive voice, has the indicative mood and is non-finite. The second verb phrase consists of the grammatical word âbeâ used as a lexical verb in the simple past tense making it a finite phrase. The phrase carries the passive voice and the perfective aspect.

Op aux head
[Pigeons will be nesting on the statueâs head.]
There are two auxiliaries and one main verb/head in this non-finite verb phrase. Here we have the future tense, progressive aspect, active voice, and the indicative mood.

[It is good to have seen them again.]
There are two auxiliaries and one main verb/head in this non-finite verb phrase. The operator âisâ (present tense singular inflection of âto beâ), the infinitive auxiliary âto haveâ and the head âseenâ. This verb phrase carries the present perfect form (past participle), the indicative mood, and the passive voice.

[To drive like that must be dangerous.]
There are two verb phrases in this finite sentence; âTo driveâ and âmust beâ. In the first phrase we have the present tense (?), passive voice and the indicative mood, .

Search results for 'tag:Past tenses tag:Inflections' matching tags 'Past tenses' and 'Inflections'

Re: English teaching sites

Re: Using ''need'' as a modal

Re: Subjunctive?

Re: will/would

Re: Help with past tense

Re: There is or there are

Re: Subjunctive--still confused

Re: When to use would and when to use could

Re: When to use would and when to use could

Trouble with &quot;form of the verb phrases&quot; *-)

Trouble with "form of the verb phrases" *-)