Search results for 'tag:Phrasal verbs tag:Modals' matching tags 'Phrasal verbs' and 'Modals'

Re: coordination: counterpart?

Clive — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:47:40 GMT

Hi,

I'm wondering if there's a grammatic or syntactic term ( or just speech part?!) named for the part "feed" (as opposed to "fly") in the sentence below? Counterpart? phrasal verb?

Or is it just simply two sentences connected by "and" with the second sentence omitting the subject and modal verb? <<< Yes. That's how I would express it.

If you want to look only at the word 'feed', it's a past participle. You could also consider it as simple past tense (ie Bats can fly and (bats) feed in the dark), but joining two different tenses by 'and' like this is not usually advisable.

Best wishes, Clive

coordination: counterpart?

Infinik — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:38:49 GMT

I'm wondering if there's a grammatic or syntactic term ( or just speech part?!) named for the part "feed" (as opposed to "fly") in the sentence below? Counterpart? phrasal verb? Or is it just simply two sentences connected by "and" with the second sentence omitting the subject and modal verb?

Bats can fly and feed in the dark.

thanks,

Re: Kinds of a verb

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:49:21 GMT

Am I right ot say that we also call verbs:

auxiliary verbs

modal verbs

regular verbs

irregular verbs

reflexive verbs

phrasal verbs

full verbs

stative verbs

Thank you

Martine

Re: would (again)

Inchoateknowledge — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:57:23 GMT

"Is would like called here phrasal verb?" No, but a verb phrase

Would is the past form of the modal auxiliary will

Re: "have to" as a phrasal verb relating to necessity.

CalifJim — Wed, 24 May 2006 18:29:43 GMT

"have" or "have to" is not a phrasal verb, though it does indicate necessity or obligation.
An infinitive may complement a main verb, but in the traditional sort of analysis your class seems to be learning, the infinitive is never considered a part of the main verb (phrase). "have had" is the main verb phrase in both sentences.

In both sentences the main verb phrase is followed by an infinitive (here underlined): "have had to jump ...", "have had to develop ...". This is typical of the verb "have" used as an expression of necessity or obligation. It is always followed by an infinitive. This usage of "have (to)" is called semi-modal. (A true modal omits the "to" of the infinitive, as in "you can jump", not "you can to jump".)

I would not consider "to jump out of" a phrasal verb, because the meaning is literal. You jump. But where? Out of the helicopter. If "jump out of" is a phrasal verb here, then I imagine "jump into" should also be considered a phasal verb. ("jump ... into icy water"). Neither analysis appeals to me.

Typically phrasal verbs have an idiomatic (i.e., non-literal) meaning, as in "put (something) off" (postpone). Grammarians argue over whether an idiomatic meaning is absolutely necessary to the determination that an expression is a phrasal verb, however, so perhaps this may be regarded as a borderline case.

CJ

Re: phrasal verbs

CalifJim — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:41:15 GMT

No doubt about it. The phrasal verbs of English are probably the most Germanic thing about the language in terms of vocabulary. (Of course there's the whole verb system including the modals - all from the Germanic heritage of English!) Aside from that, it's just mispronounced French, right?

Re: to be parsed

MrPedantic — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:27:54 GMT

Hello K.O.

That looks good - here's a little more detail:

Clause 1

We - subject

were spared - passive voice, past tense

the storm's fury - noun phrase, object (the storm's - possessive; fury - direct object)

Clause 2

but - coordinating conjunction

now - adverb

are having - modal verb, present continuous

to deal with - phrasal verb (prepositional), to-infinitive

the refugees and the misery - two objects coordinated by 'and'

(I expect there are other ways of parsing it.)

The present continuous emphasises the fact that the action is taking place as the speaker utters the sentence.

MrP

Re: Latin or German? Which languages has influenced English more?

CalifJim — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 07:38:34 GMT

You and your classmate don't seem to have any standard by which both of you agree to measure influence. Will it be the number of words related to each? Will it be the most frequently used words? The most frequently used words in everyday conversation? The most frequently used words in formal writing? In literature? Will your standard not have anything to do with word counts? Will you measure influence by similarity of syntax and morphology? Which syntactic structures will you measure? Phrasal verbs? Verb position within the sentence? The system of verb tenses?

I don't think it will be possible ever to reach an agreement on all these and hundreds of other issues. There is no objective standard of what "influence" consists of in this context.

The tense system, the modal verb system, and the phrasal verbs all point to Germanic elements as the infrastructure of English. Most of our everyday words are related to German. Nevertheless, we have more words related to the Romance languages, originally borrowed through French, than words with Germanic roots.

I suppose, in the absence of any rigorous standards and accurate data to answer the question, I personally would argue that German did not, strictly speaking, influence English, because English is the natural historic outgrowth of a branch of German itself. We don't normally use the word "influence" in that sense. If English already existed apart from German and then came in contact with German and absorbed some of its characteristics, then I might use the word "influence". I would say that French, as a superposition of French vocabulary upon a Germanic substructure, fulfills the role of "influence" much better. [Direct borrowings from Latin (not through French) are fewer and mostly related to church terminology.]

California Jim

Phrasal, modal, or what?

Guest — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:08:11 GMT

When speaking of modals, phrasal verbs or phrasal modals, how is the phrase "get with it" categorized?