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

Re: HISTORY OF ENGLISH HELP!!!

Cool Breeze — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:55:13 GMT

hazeleyedgirl

What do the following words have in common?
What has happened to them in Modern English?
wilt, hast, thine, art

You all fail! Any fool can tell that the words are old. Of course they are old in an exam based on Old English!

What do the following words have in common? - They are all grammatically restricted to the second person singular; in modern English: you will, you have, yours, [you] are.

What has happened to them in Modern English?

There was no future tense in Old English even though the predecessor of will was sometimes used to indicate future action. Its meaning was "to want, to desire" and will has mostly lost this meaning. It is still present in some contexts, for example when will is used with if: You may come if you will (= if you want to).

So, the meaning of wilt/will has changed and the inflected form is no longer used.

As there was no perfect tense in Old English, hast/have has acquired a new use. In addition to the Old English use, which remains in Modern English, it is now used as a present perfect auxiliary. The perfect tense was developing in Old English and sentences corresponding to modern I have written it were sometimes uttered but the speaker understood the have as a present tense verb and the past perfect written indicated the state in which "it" was. In other words, written was adjectival in character.

Have has acquired lots of new uses since the early days, for example "to have something done": I had my hair cut yesterday.

Thine is related to thou and thee, and all three may occur in archaic texts end religious contexts even today. I think most Americans know the songs A Closer Walk With Thee and How Great Thou Art.

Re: Are there any rules for adverb?

Cool Breeze — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:24:29 GMT

Novalee
If by the usage of adverbs, you mean the position of frequency adverbs, then there are a couple of rules.

Frequency adverbs, such as "always", "sometimes", "often", "usually", "hardly ever" or "never", usually take two different positions:
-Before the main verb:
I always eat fruit after a meal

-After the verb "to be":
He is always late for work

Very true but there is more to it than the rules above.

- After a defective auxiliary: He will never do it. We should always have tried our best.

- After have, has and had when they are auxiliaries: He had never lied before.

- After not: They are not always right.

- In questions, after the subject: Have you always believed him? Did he ever lie?

Re: I am looking forward to (meet / meeting)? you

Mister Micawber — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:10:39 GMT

.
I think you misunderstood. Have to + infinitive: I have to study; We have to speak English. 'Have (got) to' is classified as a semi-auxiliary verb, and 'to', I believe, is called an infinitive particle'.

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

Tanit — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:47:12 GMT

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why do I have two cars."

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

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: who/did

Tanit — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:05:59 GMT

Newguest
Hi guys

Why in this question we do not use "did": Who brought you up? (instead of: Who did bring you up?)

And in this one we do: Who did you look up to? (instead of: Who you looked up to?)

Hi,

It has to do with the role of "who". Is it the subject (as in Who brought you up?) or is it the object (as in Who did you look up to?)?
Here's a brief extract from a page from BBC Learning English that explains the differences between these two types of sentences:

When the question word is the subject - 'who' in this example - the auxiliary 'do' isn't needed and the word order is:
subject (who) + verb (wants) + object or complement (more coffee).
A. Who wants more coffee?

...

Here's one where the question word is acting as an object:
A. Who did you meet there?
B. I met an old friend.
In this example, 'who' is the question word and 'did' is the auxiliary.
'Who' is referring to the object of the sentence, the person I met.

Compare:
Who saw you? >>> "Who" is the subject. You were seen by somebody.
Who did you see? >>> "Who" is the object. You saw somebody. (Strictly speaking, this one should be "Whom did you see?" ... but in everyday conversations "Who did you see?" is far more common).

Re: Get dead!

Huevos — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:30:18 GMT

CalifJim
So get killed is slow so it's OK, and get dead is too abrupt to be grammatical.

Now I've heard everything!!! Smile

CJ

They are two completely different constructions. One, "get + adjective", is used to signify becoming or to causing oneself to become as specified; to reach a certain condition or state. In the other, "get + past participle", "get" is being used as an auxiliary verb to form the passive.

In case one, since there is a transition involved, an adjective that lends itself to comparison is required, hence, for example, "it's getting dark" not "it's getting night".

Re: than-in a comparative context

Kooyeen — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:24:31 GMT

Anonymous
He does things better than I do
He dances better than I do ~~(or I am??~~)

The auxiliary for those verbs would be DO, so you need that, and not the verb TO BE.

Anonymous
He is taller than I am.

Here the auxiliary is TO BE (He is taller...), so using the sentence above is fine.

Hope you understand this simple rule.

Re: Function of tenses

CalifJim — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:20:09 GMT

I think you need to review the tenses.

Without an -ing word, there is no progressive tense. See 3 and 4.

With auxiliary verb have, you have a perfect tense. See 3.

You missed one that was past simple. Look for verb forms that end in d.

Can you please try again?