+0
Hey there.

Ok I'll try to explain this as simply as I can...

If we take the sentence 'The King rides the horse', King is the subject and the horse is the object. Easy stuff. Now in Old English, we would have different words for 'the' for each noun in this case, 'se' and 'oaet' which would show which of the two was subject and object, however this has now obviously fallen out of use. However my point is that due to the noun's position and usage in the sentence the definite article changes.

Using this as an example, I am trying to explain to a person I know why how she speaks is incorrect. She continually uses terms such as 'I done it', 'I seen it' and such and I figure in a similar way that there is a subject and object with nouns, there would be one with verbs in the following sentences.

I ate/I have eaten.
I did/I have done.

Now I am trying to explain to her why the latter forms of the verbs 'to eat' and 'to do' require the use of the verb 'to have' prior to them in order to be correct English, but I can't explain it withough some sort of term. Is there a term for the verb 'to have' in this case in a similar vein of the subject/object example used for nouns?

I don't know, something like 'secondary verb' which would explain why the verb 'ate' would change to 'eaten' after the addition of the verb 'have' beforehand.

I'm assuming it's a kind of tense in which I am unfamiliar with the name.

Thanks!
1 2 3
Comments  
Hi, if I'm not mistaken, "seen" and "done" are past participles, "have seen" and "have done" are verbs in the present perfect tense, and in those verbs "have" is an auxiliary verb.
Also, "saw" and "ate" are verbs in the simple past tense.

When you learn a new verb, you need three forms of that verb, infinitive, past tense, and past participle:
eat (bare infinitive) ------------ ate (past tense) ------------ eaten (past participle)
see (bare infinitive) ------------ saw (past tense) ----------- seen (past participle)
... and so on.

Past participles are used with auxiliary verbs (but sometimes they can also be used as adjectives):
I have eaten that stuff --------> (present perfect tense) auxiliary "to have" + past participle
That stuff was eaten ----------> (passive form) auxiliary "to be" + past participle
That stuff has been eaten ---> (passive form) auxiliary "to be" + past participle (NB: the auxiliary verb is "to be" in passive forms. In this example, it's in the present perfect tense, has been, which needs "to have" as auxiliary verb. That's why in the end we get has + been + eaten, one auxiliary verb and two past participles)

I don't know if that can help you at all Emotion: smile
has/have/had followed by a past participle would be called auxiliary verbs. To make it even simpler, some people call them helper or helping verbs.

CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
That's spot on, thank you.
CalifJimhas/have/had followed by a past participle would be called auxiliary verbs. To make it even simpler, some people call them helper or helping verbs.

CJ

Noooooo way. It is a finite verb phrase whose first verb is an auxiliary.

EG:

I have been ill.

(H)ave is an auxiliary here, but not have been.
<Noooooo way. It is a finite verb phrase whose first verb is an auxiliary.>

I think the poster meant to distinguish between "have"(full verb) and "have" (auxiliary). So, it's true that when has/have/had are followed by a p.p., they are being used as auxiliaries.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Noooooo way.

has/have/had followed by a past participle would be called auxiliary verbs.
I believe I see the point of confusion. The last word (verbs) refers only to has, have, and had, not also to the past participle which follows them! Emotion: smile

CJ
Thanks that helped alot!!!
thank u
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more