Search results for 'tag:Present tenses tag:helping verbs' matching tags 'Present tenses' and 'helping verbs'

Re: What this error is called?

Avangi — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:24:57 GMT

Hi,

I'd say "agreement of subject and verb." It becomes more complicated when you ask a question, because you have to worry about the person, number and tense of the principle verb (to mean) and also the person, number and tense of the auxilliary verb (helping verb) to do.

It means nothing.

It meant nothing.

"It" is third person singular. It means is correct present tense. It meant is correct past tense.

When you ask the question, use the bare infinitive of the principle verb "to mean." In your examples, it doesn't change.

The agreement is done by the auxilliary verb. It does. It did. What does it mean? What did it mean?

To be more specific about your error, you failed to use the infinitive form of the principle verb, mean. You used the simple present and past of both the principle verb and the auxilliary verb. You might call it an error in verb formation. (I guess you'd have to say the agreement of subject and verb is correct.)

- A.

Re: subject of subordinate clause

Avangi — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:03:44 GMT

#1 John who took my pen is here.

#2 John who is wearing my jacket is here.

How firm a grasp would you like to obtain? (I know I shouldn't have written that, but I couldn't resist.)

The thing that works for me is to take out the the subject and the "verb" and see if it still makes sense. (That may even be the "rule.")

The reason it works in #2 and not in #1 is the difference in tenses and in verb forms. In "who took my pen" vs "who is wearing my jacket" "who" is the subject in each case, so that's not the difference. (If you took out "who," what would you propose for the subject? Without a subject you have no clause. You might think to claim "John" as the subject, but it can't be the subject of both clauses. You could use a compound predicate: "John is wearing my jacket and is here." )

Notice that in #2 both clauses are present tense. The verb is actually "is wearing," present progressive of "to wear." So you don't actually take out the verb - only the helping verb "is," which leaves you with the present participle, "wearing." You now have a participial phrase, "wearing my jacket," which is just fine. He's wearing it now and he's here now.

In #1, there's no helping verb to take out. You could take out the "who," leaving you with a compound predicate, but you'd need to add a conjunction. "John took my pen and is here." (The two different tenses work, but "is here" is no longer the dominant idea.)

If the original were, "John, who is taking my pulse, is Russian," then it works like #2. "John, taking my pulse, is Russian."

If you use two different tenses, as in the original #1, you'd have, "John, who was taking my pulse, is Russian." That leads to, "John, taking my pulse, is Russian." What happened to your past tense?

So try it, and ask yourself if the meaning is still the same.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: The usage of 'have' and 'had'

Philip — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:30:55 GMT

Lyangsuan wrote:
When do we use "had" instead of "have"?

Is the verb behind "had" a past tense or present tense?

Example.
Teenager who had finished their secondary education.
Teenager who have finished their secondary education.
Teenager who had finish their secondary education.

Which one is correct?

"have/has" is present tense: I have a headache. "had" is past tense: I had a headache last night.

BUT, your question here is about compound tenses, using the helping verb + the past participle of the main verb. Present perfect with 'has/have' refers to an action completed before 'now', the present. Past perfect with 'had' refers to an action completed before another past action.

I have eaten there many times [before now].

He had eaten all the cake before the guests arrived.

Using this, see if you can 'clean up' your suggested sentences with more information.

Re: Last night we (have/had) some guys come in here and ransack the place

Anonymous — Fri, 19 May 2006 16:20:23 GMT

Bamtori wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Marius. With "last night" it is definately "had". Then how about leave out "last night" in the sentence. Which should I use, "we (have/had) some guys come in here and ransack the place."?

When will this ransacking take place? Will it be in the future? From your construction, I think that it is clear to all that this was an event that occurred in the past. Why would you even consider using a present tense construction for what is clearly a past tense event?

Perhaps your confusion comes from the fact that the verb have is commonly used to to create past perfect constructions. This is not such a construction, as in such case the verb have would be a helping verb.

As it is, you seem to be trying to say: we have guys come. Have does not serve as a helping verb in the past perfect construction in this manner. Have does not serve as a past tense marker. Have does not fit at all. How do you think that have can serve a useful function in this sentence?

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

MrPedantic — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:29:51 GMT

I must have been sleeptyping too, in my earlier comment about the lack of a past tense form with "must", since "must" is already a past tense form (of the obsolete "mote").

It's interesting that "I have got to" and "I must" both use past tense forms for a present tense meaning. At first, I wondered whether this was because the use of "must"/"have got to" implies an obligation that has already been imposed; but that doesn't necessarily explain e.g.

1. You must go directly to the headmaster's study...

where the obligation is imposed at the moment of utterance. But then, perhaps such an obligation would have to be based on some previous requirement, e.g. school rules.

"You have to go directly" does seem the weaker form; and it may well imply a subjective requirement on the speaker's part, rather than an objective requirement â though the latter is also possible; but then, we have the use of "had to" for both in the oblique form.

Though on reflection (and again rebutting my earlier post) this is also possible, if less common:

2. He said I must go directly...

It's a murky little modal.

MrP

Re: How many tenses in English?

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:24:59 GMT

Pemmican wrote:
As far as I know, there are these 13 tenses:

a) Past Perfect Progressive ........................had been + present participle
b) Past Perfect ..........................................had + past participle
c) Past Progressive ...................................was/were + present participle
d) Simple Past ..........................................past tense form

e) Present Perfect Progressive ...................have/has been + present participle
f) Present Perfect .....................................have/has + past participle

g)Present Progressive .................................am/is/are + present participle
h)Simple Present ........................................present tense form = almost same form as infinitive (except "to be"); when used with he/she/it: +(e)s (except modal helping verbs)

i)will-Future ...............................................will + infinitive
j)will-Future Progressive .............................will be + present participle
k)will-Future Perfect ...................................will have + past participle
l)will-Future Perfect Progressive ..................will have been + present participle

m)Going-to-Future ......................................am/is/are going to + infinitive

Sometimes, the Conditionals are also said to be tenses, but those are just modi of an actual tense, no tenses themselves.

Re: Are grammar rules helpful to non-native speakers

Pemmican — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:51:40 GMT

Hello Xavier,

you're right of course: Communication is one of the tasks of language.
The Grammar is "late": Language follows special patterns (word order, inflection, cases, conjugation, etc) - language has to follow those patterns as without them, communication wouldn't be possible.
The only reason why you understand what I say is: you know the language-structure.
This structure works without any problems for your native language. For languages that you learn(ed) later, you need to know its structure to a certain level ---> GRAMMARS "filter out" these structures , show you HOW components are set together and how the whole complex works.

Grammar therefore is necessary for anyone who learns a foreign language but also for those who want to know how their native language works. It is very helpful to know about the Grammar of your native language, too, as comparing special aspects can show you where difficulties are.

As Ancient Greek grammars (and also Latin grammars later on) had a huge influence also on Germanic languages like English, they also took over some grammatic features that haven't existed originally in Germanic languages.
You mentioned the tenses e.g.:
Germanic languages originally had TWO tenses only,
The PAST-Tense and the NON-PAST-Tense
(= today's Simple Past and Simple Present tense)

Everything could be expressed with these two tenses as the simple Present wasn't and still isn't only used for events that take place in the actual present, but also for general facts and truths (=It SNOWS a lot in Sweden), for events that happen in the future (=The train LEAVES at 4 o'clock), etc.

Beside the indicative mood, the Germanic languages also have a conjunctive (also: subjunctive) mood which describes events and happenings as irreal.

All other tenses and also the conditional-mood have been constructed and base on Greek and Latin Grammars (e.g. the Perfect tenses and the Future tenses). That is btw why these tenses have to be paraphrased in English by a helping verb and the participle or infinitive of the main verb, while the original Past and Present tenses consist of the conjugated full verb only.

So you're correct that the traditional Grammar originally came over from Greece, but no matter what language you learn, you need to know about its structure - and this structure is explained in Grammars.

I hope I could help you a bit.

Cheers
-Pemmican

Re: Modals

pemmican — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:18:29 GMT

I don't really understand the question either...

Konstantin, you're referring to the Conditional with your German example.
Indirect speech in German works differently as the Conjunctive has to be used in formal German, which however, can be replaced by the Conditional (would+infinitive).

In English, the tenses have to be shiftes back from direct to indirect speech - .... but NOW - that I've been thinking about this, I might have got an idea of what maj's question aimed at:

The modals "can" and "may" only occur in their forms in simple present and simple past tense, "must" is used in simple present tense only. Now, if you have a sentence including one of these modals, that need to be shifted back, you've to use substitute forms for all of these three modal helping verbs:

Linda: "He can speak English" -------- Linda said he "was able to" (could) speak English.
Linda: "He could speak English" ------ Linda said he "had been able to" speak English.

Linda: "He may go" -------------------- Linda said he "was allowed to" (might) go.
Linda: "He might go" ------------------ Linda said he "had been allowed to" go.

Linda: "He must leave" ----------------- Linda said he "had to" leave.
Linda: "He had to leave" --------------- Linda said he "had had to" leave.

("might" and "could" are commonly usually used as conjunctive forms though, but can express past tense also)

As you can see in these examples, some modals cannot appear in their own forms in special indirect sentences, so maybe that was the problem, maj was aiming at?!

Hope I could help...

Re: Auxilary and finite or non-finite verbs?

pemmican — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 21:18:17 GMT

"MUST" btw is the best example of a verb that only has finite forms.

Present tense: I must, you must, he must, we must, you must, they must.

Because of the fact that 'must' doesn't have a special form for the 3rd person singular (he must intead of he musts), it is an "anomolous finite". It is also a so called "defective" verb because it has neither a present nor a past participle, no infinitive, and no past tense forms.

More anomolous finites and defective verbs are can, may, used to, shall, will, and (when used as a helping verb) need.

Re: How many tenses in English?

Pemmican — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:10:51 GMT

As far as I know, there are these 13 tenses:

a) Past Perfect Progressive ........................had been + present participle
b) Past Perfect ..........................................had + past participle
c) Past Progressive ...................................was/were + present participle
d) Simple Past ..........................................past tense form

e) Present Perfect Progressive ...................have/has been + present participle
f) Present Perfect .....................................have/has + past participle

g)Present Progressive .................................am/is/are + present participle
h)Simple Present ........................................present tense form = almost same form as infinitive (except "to be"); when used with he/she/it: +(e)s (except modal helping verbs)

i)will-Future ...............................................will + infinitive
j)will-Future Progressive .............................will be + present participle
k)will-Future Perfect ...................................will have + past participle
l)will-Future Perfect Progressive ..................will have been + present participle

m)Going-to-Future ......................................am/is/are going to + infinitive

Sometimes, the Conditionals are also said to be tenses, but those are just modi of an actual tense, no tenses themselves.