Search results for 'tag:Tenses tag:Negations' matching tags 'Tenses' and 'Negations'

Re: about tense simplification

Mr Wordy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:13:10 GMT

Kooyeen
I remember an explanation that seems to make sense: you don't repeat the future tense if the action you are talking about is supposed to happen at about the same time...

This is an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem to always work. For example, I would say "The sun will rise and the birds will start singing" (rather than "The sun will rise and the birds start singing") even if the birds start singing the instant the sun rises.

To me, the fact that somebody finding the pen is a hypothetical scenario is important (which I think is what CJ was getting at). The seemingly logical but actually incorrect "He says he'll give five pounds to anybody who will find his pen" feels wrong to me because "will" is too definite. It implies that someone will find the pen.

In "I'll hide it somewhere he'll never find it" the event of his finding the pen is not hypothetical, it's impossible, so the negation of the future tense is appropriate.

I'm really not at all sure though... perhaps my theories are nonsense!

Re: I thought

CalifJim — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:12:17 GMT

New2grammar
What's the difference between "I thought I knew" and " I thought I know"?

I was told that the verb following "I thought" must be past tense.

Kooyeen has the answer:

you need to use the past tense after verbs like thought, didn't think, felt, knew, etc. Verbs like those seem to force a backshift in tense because they are more related to your "feelings" at a certain moment in the past than the "information" you had or got

Memorize:

I thought I knew / I thought I had to / I thought I was / I thought they were / I thought I could / I thought they would / ...

I knew I had to / I knew I was / I knew they were / I knew I could / I knew they would / I knew they wanted / ...

I felt I knew / I felt I had to / I felt I was / I felt they were / I felt I could / I felt he would / ...

I hoped I was / I hoped they were / I hoped I could / I hoped I didn't have to ...

I believed I knew / I believed I could / I believed they were / I believed I was / ...

I didn't think ... / I didn't know ... / ... / Did you know ...? / Did you feel ...? / ... (same for negations and questions)

Adding that doesn't change the basic principle here: I thought that I knew ...

_____________

And don't attempt to use present tense after thought, knew, felt, hoped, or believed -- and you'll be fine. You'll sound just like a native speaker.

But put a present tense there (I knew they are / I thought I am / I hoped I can / ...), and you'll expose yourself immediately as a non-native!!!

P.S. If you make a distinct pause in speech to indicate a direct quote, these principles do not apply:

I thought, "I know how to do that. Why are they saying I don't?"

I thought [ short pause ] I know how to ...

You absolutely cannot use the complementizer that in this case:

*I thought [ short pause ] that I know how to ... (NO!)

Re: questions about logical sequence of the meanings of verb tenses

eagleflych — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:44:39 GMT

Hi,
I am afraid I didn't understand exactly what you wanted. Hopefully someone else will be able to understand and help you a little more. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a few opinions:

I have bought a book for a year. <-- No, this is not good, as you said.
You could say:
I have lived here for a couple of years.
I have bought five books in the past few months.

I have not bought any books for a year. <-- I think this is acceptable, but I suspect "for" is less common in negative sentences like that, and native speakers tend to use "in" instead:
I have not bought any books in a year.

That's my opinion.

Hi, Kooyeen:

Thank your for your reply.

My meaning is:

In the sentence of "I have not bought any books for a year" , the meaning of the Present Perfect tense is "to continue".

And there are two possible logic sequences relating to the arrangement of the meanings of all parts of the sentence.

1.the first logic sequence:

"the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to continue not buying any books for a year."

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "buying any books".

And "buying any book " is "buy any books". This is the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

2. the second logic sequence:

"not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to negate the continuing of buying any books for a year"

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "the continuing of buying any book ".

And "the continuing of buying any book " is "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books". This is not the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

Well then, which logic sequence is right?

Is the logic sequence ("the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".) right?

Or is the logic sequence("not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year". ) right?

I think the first logic sequence is right, but I am not sure.

Through study of the Present Perfect Tense, I guess in all negative forms of all verb tenses, the objects modified by negations are always the original meanings of main verbs, not---"the meanings of verb tenses" + "the original meanings of main verbs"

Re: "can't/couldn't have done" (about tense)

CalifJim — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:36:21 GMT

Of the four, I would not use the third -- thought ... can't ...

Actually, I probably wouldn't use any of them. Normally the negation is "raised" to the main clause with verbs like think.

I would use one of these:

She [doesn't / didn't] think that her purse could have been found by any of the shoppers.

Re: How to negate "have got to"?

CalifJim — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:00:52 GMT

Viceidol
if we want to negate the sentence with "have got to", how should we do it? Shall I still use "don't/doesn't"?

No. The negation of has got to is hasn't got to. Note, however, that the expression have got to is used almost exclusively in present time in affirmative statements, not in interrogatives, negatives, or in other tenses. Change to have to for those.

Those marked with ? below should be avoided. Those with ?? are really too awkward. I don't recommend them. They are purely theoretical constructions. Use the alternate form after the = sign instead.

I have got to leave early. = I have to leave early.

?I haven't got to leave early. = I don't have to leave early.

?Have I got to leave early? = Do I have to leave early?

?Have I got to leave early? = Don't I have to leave early?

??I had got to leave early. = I had to leave early.

??I hadn't got to leave early. = I didn't have to leave early.

??Had I got to leave early? = Did I have to leave early?

??Hadn't I got to leave early? = Didn't I have to leave early?

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:49 GMT

Anonymous
In that respect, I would like to know when and how the auxiliary "do" appeared in English. What kind of people introduced it into the English language?
I would like to know who decided about the value of tenses of the Past. They do not correspond to the value of the tenses of the Past in latinoÃ¯d languages. Who can give me answers ?
In this debate, I do not think there is an evolution towards simplicity nor towards more complicated structures. The
communities of native speakers of a language constantly change the rules and the meaning of words (although the main core remains more or less stable for facility reasons.)
Ethnic languages are tools of inclusion and mainly exclusion (internal and external). That is why there are so many exceptions.
No ethnic language is that easy to learn. When I say "to learn" I mean to learn it to be on equal footing with a native speaker of the language. There will always be a difference, a discrimination.
From what I have experienced ( I am very interested by languages), there is no easy language. All has been done by training.
There is no natural language : everything has been constructed by Man.
I invite the readers to learn an interlanguage such as Esperanto, compare it with your mother tongue and with languages you have studied later. 90% to 95% of the time is spent to the learning of exceptions. That is why a language without exception such as Esperanto is ten to twenty times faster to learn than ethnic languages.
It is fascinating to see how a universal congress of Esperanto works and to compare it with an international congress in only one language. Many prejudices fall.
Maybe I am opening new interests in the debate..
George/Belgium

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say both

I know not him
and
I do not know him.

It is very common that the usage of tenses varies from language to language, especially if the languages are not closely related. No reasons can usually be given for this. You might just as well ask why the usage of tenses in the Romance languages differs from that in English. Linguistic changes are often shrouded in the past and there is no knowing why they occurred.

All words and grammatical structures people are not used to sound wrong and/or odd and therefore people usually object to changes that are about to happen in their lifetime and think the language is deteriorating. This is true about all languages, not just English. People tend to think a language is at its most beautiful right now and any change will just make it worse.

English grammar has become so simple over the centuries that I cannot envisage it becoming any simpler without the risk of English becoming even more inexact than it is now. However, not all changes have made the language simpler in structure. In Old English there was just one relative pronoun and it had only one form. That made communication with relative clauses very awkward and it wasn't a great surprise that who, whom, whose, what and which began to be used as relatives to facilitate communication.

CB

Re: Using ''need'' as a modal

CalifJim — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:24:46 GMT

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

Palmer (The English Verb) says, "The modal forms [of need] are available only with ... negation and interrogation." So She need know is not possible. It has to be She needs to know.
He also says that "modal dare can be used with past time reference though it cannot have any past tense marking", that is, there is no modal form dared. His example is:

I wanted to go, but I daren't.

CJ

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: I will give you what you want unless you...

Schetin — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:16:29 GMT

I don't think there's any problem with the tense. The problem is, as you say, with the double negation.

Re: past perfect in dependent clause

CalifJim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:12:18 GMT

Students are often led to believe that the past perfect must indicate a situation that existed before another. (This is true in general.) But, following this logic, it seems that the past perfect could never occur in a before clause. (It 'should' only occur in the main clause in such cases.)

But the use of the past perfect in a before clause is quite common regardless of the time sequence -- as in "I saw the end before we had begun". [There's usually some surprising logic and a hidden negative in these: I (already) saw the end (and that was surprising) because we had not (even) begun (yet). ]

Here are some others I found on various websites. Note the implied negatives. (had not yet ... when)

Mozart died before he had completed the Requiem Mass. [He had not yet completed the Mass when he died..]
One of the fast things suddenly zoomed by from the left and was gone before he had even realized it was coming. [He had not yet realized it was coming when it zoomed by.]
Before he had finished speaking, another servant came in and said that dinner was ready. [He had not yet finished speaking when this happened.]
He was whisked away to his next appointment before he had announced the finalists. [He had not yet announced the finalists when he was whisked away.]
A terrible scream cleaved the air before he had walked very far. [He had not yet walked far when the scream was heard.]
Before he had even recovered, ten days later he tried suicide again. [He had not yet recovered when he tried suicide.]
He was surely the first man to be a senior official in the Ryder Cup before he had even played in the grand old match. [He had not yet played in that match when he became a senior official.]
___________

Compare with the "normal" sequence of tenses, with no implied negations:

Jack had met her at a business conference before he noticed her that night at the party.
Before they proceeded with their project they had planned every detail, of course.
The politicians had used every trick in the book to pass the bill before they finally gave up.
___________

I would not be surprised to learn that before with implied negation (with the past perfect) is used more than before with the normal sequence of tenses.

CJ