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

Re: FORM

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:36:50 GMT

1) Where are you? I've been waiting for 2 hours

2) I needn't have brought that milk

I = subject

need have bought = verb; present perfect tense, modal form (need is the auxiliary), buy is the main verb, bought is the past participle.

not - adverb

that - demonstrative pronoun refering to milk

milk - noun,object of the verb buy

3) He played truant

He - subject

play - verb, simple past tense

truant - predicate noun ? (To be precise, I would have to look in a dictionary to see if "play" is transitive or intransitive in this case.

4) I stopped to give my friend a lift

I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past

to give my friend a lift - infinitive phrase, adverb, modifying "stop"., "to give" is the infinitive head of the phrase

my friend - my is personal pronoun modifying freind, friend, noun, indirect object of the verbal, give

a lift - a = article, modifyinglift. Lift is noun, direct object of the verbal, give

5) I stopped giving my friend a lift
I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past
giving my friend a lift - gerund phrase, direct object of verb "stop". giving is the gerund head of the phrase

The other teachers can critique this analysis.

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: Analyzing WH-questions the H&P CGEL way

Anonymous — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:22:51 GMT

Oh, I'm so sorry.

First, I posted in the wrong forum. This topic would be more appropriate in ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum. Could the moderators move it there, if possible?

Second, "WH-questions with both subject-auxiliary inversion and ." was meant to read "WH-questions with both interrogative phrase fronting and subject-auxiliary inversion." Likewise, "I'm at all sure" is "I'm not at all sure."

Third, the third paragraph should rather read like this (because the italics don't show up for some reason):

Let us take the sentence "What did the Captain say?" as an example. Here "the Captain" is obviously the subject. But what is the predicate? Is it "say ___", with the gap as the object, or what is it?

And lastly, of the image only the text label was left. Man, did I mess up the post!

//AC

Analyzing WH-questions the H&P CGEL way

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:18:39 GMT

Hi!

I am reading Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL, and I've run into a problem. I don't understand how to analyze WH-questions with both subject-auxiliary inversion and . Couldn't somebody help me out?

Let us take the sentence What did the Captain say? as an example. Here the Captain is obviously the subject. But what is the predicate? Is it say ___, with the gap as the object, or what is it?

This is the solution I've come to, but I'm at all sure it is not altogether wrong:

[Clause[Prenucleus:NP_i [Head:N What]] [Nucleus:Clause [Prenucleus:V_j did] [Nucleus:Clause [Subject:NP [Det:D the] [Head:N Captain]] [Predicate:VP [Predicator:GAP_j ___] [CatComp:Clause [Predicate:VP [Predicator:V say] [Object:GAP_i ___]]]]]]]

Looks totally weird to me. Any ideas?

//AC

Re: Experience

Grammar Geek — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:09:50 GMT

Your experiences as a teacher is valuble to the forum

The MAIN verb is "to be" - it should be was, but whether it's is or was, it's the main verb (or "simple predicate," if you prefer), and it is not functioning as an auxiliary verb. (And no, I just was typing too quickly. Auxiliary is correct.)

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: Predicate again

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:49:00 GMT

Why do you feel so alone? --> if there is no auxiliary verb in your sentence you have to use do!

Re: Simple subject/Simple predicate

Clive — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:12:33 GMT

Hi,

yes you are right,but what if you had one that read "We will be working together."would the simple predicate be will be?????

No, 'will be working' is the predicate verb. 'Will be' are just the auxiliary verbs that are part of the predicate verb.

The complete predicate is what is said about the subject 'we', ie 'will be working together'.

Clive

Re: forms of "be"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:51:11 GMT

The uses of be are numerous, Sunilghai:

âverb (used without object)

1.	to exist or live: Shakespeare's âTo be or not to beâ is the ultimate question.

2.	to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.

3.	to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.

4.	to continue or remain as before: Let things be.

5.	to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.

6.	(used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.

7.	(used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): Is that right? Be quiet! Don't be facetious.

âauxiliary verb

8.	(used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): I am waiting.

9.	(used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.

10.

(used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.

11.

(used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone.

Not sure where to post this...

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:37:59 GMT

If the -ing form of a verb is used as the main verb of the predicate, the auxiliary must contain a form of
be, do, have, will...?