3 questions (or 4)

[vredes]

Please help me with these:

1. I should've seen it glow/glowed/glowing (?)
2. When was the last time she wax/waxed (?)
3. ...who does more than look (?)

For sentence number 3 I guess the answer is "look'', but why is it so? I always thought it was verb+ing ("looking" that is). Would you be kind helping me (am I using "helping'' correctly here? please correct!) with the answers and give a little elaboration with it? Or at least direct me to threads or articles on the web discussing the subject.I will be much obliged.

[5jj]

Please:
1. ask one question per thread.
2. give each thread a title that gives us some idea what it is about.
3. give more context. #2 makes little sense as it stands. It is not possible to give a satisfactory answer to #3 without more context.

The answer to #1, depending on the situation referred to could be:

I should have seen it glow/glowing.
I should have seen (that) it glowed/was glowing.

[TheParser]

[QUOTE=vredes;834494]
3. ...who does more than look (?)

For sentence number 3 I guess the answer is "look'', but why is it so?


NOT A TEACHER


(1) Let's say three guys are at the beach. They see a pretty girl. Tom and Joe

just look at her. But George does more than look. He goes up to her and

asks her name.

(a) Maybe you need the so-called base form ("look") because the two parts of the

sentence need to match each other.

(i) George does more than [he does] look. (As you know, after the auxiliary "does,"

you always need the base form.)

[SoothingDave]

"When was the last time she waxed" could refer to her legs or her kitchen floor. In either case, "waxed" would be correct.

[vredes]

Please:
1. ask one question per thread.
2. give each thread a title that gives us some idea what it is about.
3. give more context. #2 makes little sense as it stands. It is not possible to give a satisfactory answer to #3 without more context.

I'm sorry about that. It won't happen again. I must have missed the rules. Thanks for the admonition.

[vredes]

The answer to #1, depending on the situation referred to could be:

I should have seen it glow/glowing.
I should have seen (that) it glowed/was glowing.

I don't get this. Would somebody explain this? They are all correct sentences depending on the situation? Uhh..what situation?

[Soup]

I don't get this. Would somebody explain this? They are all correct sentences depending on the situation? Uhh..what situation?

Aside from that question, which I am sure 5jj will tackle for you, consider the pattern in all your examples:

The first (1a.) is an example of a reduced relative that-clause (omit 'that' and the verb To Be):

1a. I should have seen it glowing.
=> I should have seen that it was glowing.


In 1b., adding 'that' render the sentence ungrammatical:

1b. I should have seen *that it glow.
=> I should have seen it glow. <grammatical, but not a reduced that-clause>


In 1c, omitting 'that'' renders the sentence ungrammatical:

1c. I should have seen that it glowed. <grammatical, but not a reduced that-clause>
=> I should have seen it glowed ungrammatical


Now, in looking at your other examples, a similar reduction pattern arises. In 2., we ask, "Why the verb 'waxed' and not 'wax'? The answer, omit 'that', a conjunction:

2. When was the last time she waxed?
=> When was the last time that she waxed?


In 3., we ask, "Why the verb 'look' and not 'looks' or even 'looking'? The answer, parallel structure: does + (base verb)...thanks to TheParser:

3. Who does more than look?
=> Who does look more than look?


In sum, you are dealing with an exercise in reduction:

1. I should have seen (that) it (was) glowing. (reduced relative-clause)
2. When was the last time (that) she waxed? (omitted conjunction)
3. Who does (look) more than look? (parallel structure)

[5jj]

The first (1a.) is an example of a reduced relative that-clause (omit 'that' and the verb To Be):

1a. I should have seen it glowing. .....=> I should have seen that it was glowing.

In 1b., adding 'that' render the sentence ungrammatical:

1b. I should have seen *that it glow. .....=> I should have seen it glow. <grammatical, but not a reduced that-clause>

I don't agree that we have to consider it as a reduced relative clause. Several verbs of perception can be followed by a direct object and either a bare infinitive or an -ing form. With the bare infinitive, we generally perceive the whole action; with the -ing form we perceive something in progress.

In 1c, omitting 'that'' renders the sentence ungrammatical:

1c. I should have seen that it glowed. <grammatical, but not a reduced that-clause>
=> I should have seen it glowed ungrammatical

I don't agree. I am a 'that' user, but 'I should have seen it glowed' is possible, if inelegant, in my opinion.

[vredes]

I don't agree that we have to consider it as a reduced relative clause. Several verbs of perception can be followed by a direct object and either a bare infinitive or an -ing form. With the bare infinitive, we generally perceive the whole action; with the -ing form we perceive something in progress. I don't agree. I am a 'that' user, but 'I should have seen it glowed' is possible, if inelegant, in my opinion.

I like the answers...they seem sound for me. And that's my new problem.
(I was expecting more exact answers, but OK, language is not math. Though I need a referee for a learner like me here).

[vredes]

But I will enjoy any discussions...thanks for the answers.