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

Re: "as if" conditionals

Cool Breeze — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:13:43 GMT

Hi Alienvoord

Your analysis is correct. Many a grammar expert will put on airs and insist that only were is correct for unreal condition despite the fact that was is also universally used. In lofty style were is used at least in BrE even in spoken English. At least that's the impression the authors of the TV series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister wanted to give. People often say that were is fighting a losing battle here, but I'm not so sure about that. As English is virtually devoid of inflections, the highbrow section won't give up easily. I kind of wish they won't as well. The was/were distinction provides a good point for heated discussions!

It may interest you and others that a similar distinction became obsolete in Swedish a long time ago. Swedish used to have a subjunctive form (vore), which was replaced by the indicative (var). It is plain to see that the two verb forms are related to were and was. These days a Swede could really attract attention by using vore in speech or writing. It simply isn't used anymore - and Swedish is none the worse for that. In many other ways, Swedish grammar is more complicated than English grammar, though.

Re: mY cONFusION

d_say — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:28:42 GMT

Would it be a correct grammar if I used "would have been" instead of "would" in the second sentence or I'm required to use "by now " instead of "now" in the second sentence :

"If I had done it a year ago I would be rich now."

"If I had done it a year ago I would have been rich now /by now."

I'd also like to know whether the "If I did.." construction with past time adverbs is possible in any context, i.e :

"If I did it a year ago/ a week ago/long before...
--

If I had done it a year ago, I would be rich now. Or: If I had done it a year ago, I would have become rich by now.

If I did it a year ago, I certainly remember nothing about it!

Did is a simple past tense verb form in the above sentence, not a subjunctive. In languages that use more inflections than English, the difference between indicative and subjunctive is very clear and no one has to ponder whether a sentence like the one above is correct or not.
--
Sorry, I've edited my question because I need to reformulate it . I hope it hasn't made any inconvenience.

Can you shed some light on why "..would have been rich by now" is unacceptable CoolBreeze ?

Thank you again
==

I would like to ask if the construction " would have been + adjective" is incorrect generally ?

There are millions of possibilities to form a sentence and therefore it's impossible to say that something is always wrong or always right. It's the combination of would have been plus now that jars in my ear. Others may have different opinions.

Re: If I ...

Cool Breeze — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:55:48 GMT

If I had done it a year ago, I would be rich now. Or: If I had done it a year ago, I would have become rich by now.

If I did it a year ago, I certainly remember nothing about it!

Re: When -s forms should be used ?

AlpheccaStars — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:22:11 GMT

Panesh:

Sunrise (one word) is a noun.In your sentence, the word "rise" is a verb, not a noun. Every sentence must have a verb.

English used to be a highly inflected language. Over the centuries, the inflections have been changed or lost. The addition of -s in third person singular, present tense is one of the verb inflections that still remain in the language

Also the ending 's and s' is used to mean possessive case (nouns), and the ending -s (nouns) to mean plural.

Mary cooks dinner. (cook is the verb)

Mary Cook's dinner (Mary Cook is her name. It is her dinner. This is not a sentence, because there is no verb.)

Joe's Cars (a business name) gives good deals to the customers. (the verb is give, deal is a noun in the plural)

Joe deals in cars. This site deals with various topics. (deals is the verb, present tense, 3rd person singular)

Re: adjective or adverb ? - by N88 -

Nokia88 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:30:04 GMT

Cool Breeze
Nokia88

The axe will fall the heaviest in its financial services division, which includes banking, wealth management and insurance operations.

The heaviest = adjective or adverb?

An interesting point, Nokia! In some languages, including my mother tongue, both an adjective and an adverb could be used in your sentence - and they would be different in form. Comparison is a vague and inexact form of art in English. Logic says that it makes no actual difference whether we consider the heaviest an adjective or an adverb. Its grammatical form suggests that it is an adjective. Heavy is a disyllabic adjective ending in y, and adverbs are formed by using the ly inflection from such adjectives. Examples:

(A): It rained heavily today. It rained even more heavily yesterday. It rained [the] most heavily last week.

(B): Heavier and heaviest are adjectives: My brother is heavier than me/I. He is the heaviest man I know.

CB

Dear Cool Breeze,
I am sorry!
I didn't know what had happened to me that day when I was reading your perfect post. I must have been over tired that I comprehended the two sets of examples just opposite.
The first set you wrote:
(A): It rained heavily today. It rained even more heavily yesterday. It rained [the] most heavily last week (adverb modifies verb).
(A): I misunderstood it as (adjective modifies noun).
The second set you wrote:
(B): Heavier and heaviest are adjectives: My brother is heavier than me/I. He is the heaviest man I know (adjective modifies noun).
(B): I misunderstood it as (adverb modifies verb).

Great Post!
Thank you very much!
Best regards, Nokia88

Re: imperative mood in the third person?

Cool Breeze — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:08:05 GMT

Tanit

Now I am curious. How does Finnish tackle the issue of expressing the imperative mood in the third person? Do you have an inflected form of the verb for it?

Hi Tanit

I'm very pleased someone takes an interest in my mother tongue. Finnish must be one of the most inflected languages in the world. It has an inflected imperative form for both third person singular and third person plural. The inflection isn't the same for all verbs; the choice depends on the phonetic form of the verb, and some letters are omitted from the infinitive of the verb before the inflection is added. There may also be other changes in the middle of the verb as the inflection is added. In informal Finnish people often use the third person singular inflection even for the third person plural. I suppose this phenomenon can be likened to the English way of saying there's books on the table.

There is also an imperative for the passive. I'm not quite sure what would be the best way to express that in English. Perhaps:

May this be written twice! This be written twice! Let this be written twice! And of course: This must be written twice!

I know these don't all sound very good and natural. I hope a native speaker will suggest one or some of them, or something different. The idea is that someone is giving an order whereby he wants something to be written twice but he doesn't indicate who should write it. In other words, Write this twice! is wrong.

Re: adjective or adverb ? - by N88 -

Cool Breeze — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:32:26 GMT

Nokia88

The axe will fall the heaviest in its financial services division, which includes banking, wealth management and insurance operations.

The heaviest = adjective or adverb?

An interesting point, Nokia! In some languages, including my mother tongue, both an adjective and an adverb could be used in your sentence - and they would be different in form. Comparison is a vague and inexact form of art in English. Logic says that it makes no actual difference whether we consider the heaviest an adjective or an adverb. Its grammatical form suggests that it is an adjective. Heavy is a disyllabic adjective ending in y, and adverbs are formed by using the ly inflection from such adjectives. Examples:

It rained heavily today. It rained even more heavily yesterday. It rained [the] most heavily last week.

Heavier and heaviest are adjectives: My brother is heavier than me/I. He is the heaviest man I know.

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:42 GMT

Anonymous

Why do you think RayH seemed to have said this has to be "the fearful wailing"?

1)He heard a fearful wailing of a dog

I think he said it has to be:
2)He heard the fearful wailing of a dog

I think RayH is correct but I also think no. 1 can be correct under a right situation. I think it would have been better if the sentence had a plural noun after "of" like this:
He heard a fearful wailing of dogs

You'll have to wait for RayH's explanation for his preferences. He heard a fearful wailing of a dog is fine grammatically but it does suggest that you may hear different kinds of wailings of a dog and therefore the sentence may sound odd to some. The plural dogs simply indicates that there were at least two dogs, nothing else. No grammatical difference, really.

Grammatical terms cause confusion even among experts, so you have nothing to worry about! This is because not all grammarians and usage experts use them in the same way. There are people who don't use the term "verbal noun" at all. They regard what I consider a verbal noun as a gerund. Examples:

The speaking of English is easy. (A verbal noun and because speaking is a noun, the is posible before it. Even an adjectival attribute can be used: The correct speaking of English is easy.)

Speaking English is easy. (A gerund, which to my mind is neither a verb nor a noun but a little bit of both. The is not possible before a gerund, nor is an adjectival attribute and these two things are a clear sign (to me) that a gerund is not a noun: Correct speaking English is easy. (WRONG!!!)

Because there are hardly any inflections in English, there is bound to be occasional confusion as to the exact meaning of every word ending in ing as your example (beginning) in another post shows.

I can't remember what I have written about these things before but if you are interested, you may wish to read these posts that deal with the gerund, verbal nouns and participles and their differences:

subject of gerund gerund v present participle gerund v verbal noun

Re: have vs has question

Clive — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:21:11 GMT

Hi,

An enemy that is being detained does not (have/has) any rights. The writer of this sentence needs to have a look at the Geneva Conventions.

Have = plural

has = singular The inflection is in the auxiliary 'does'. Use 'have ' as the base verb..

Does the -have- refer to the rights or the enemy as the subject? The subject is 'an enemy'.

Also my second question, what is the difference in

1. An enemy that is detained When they catch him, 'he is detained (by his captors)'. After that, he is in a state of 'being detained'.

2. An enemy that is being detained

Best wishes, Clive

Re: readed?

Zerox — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:05:06 GMT

Google also gives many hits with words like 'taked' and 'gived', and the horrendous 'its' vs. 'it's'. Irregular verbs and their inflection can be hard especially for foreigner, hence the 'popularity'.

Remember that just because something is on the Internet, doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct.