adding ed

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jack

"I am dead." <-- why is this correct?
"I am die." <--why is this wrong?

"I am scheduled for tommorow." <-- why is this correct?
"I am schedule for tommorow." <--is this wrong? why?

1. I am dead. :D
=> Adjective in form; Adverb in function; 'dead' describes the state of the Subject.

2. I am die. :(
Verb; There can only be one main verb in a sentence. Both 'am' and 'die' function as main verbs.

3. I am scheduled. :D
Passive verb form: BE + -ed participle (am + scheduled).
Active verb form: "Someone scheduled me for tomorrow."

4. I am schedule. :(
Without -ed, 'schedule' functions as a main verb; with -ed, 'scheduled' functions as a participle.)

All the best,

[jack]

"I heard a teacher say that once." <--correct? what does it mean?
"I heard a teacher said that once." <---correct? what does it mean?

[Casiopea]

1. I heard a teacher say that once. :D
==> a general fact.

2. I heard a teacher said that once. :(
==> I heard that a teacher had said that once.

[jack]

John became a writer. <--what does this sentence mean?
John become a writer. <--incorrect? why? what does it mean?
John becomes a writer. <--what does it mean??

[Tdol]

John became a writer. <--what does this sentence mean?
It means that at some stage in the past he changed from not being a writer to being one.

John become a writer. <--incorrect? why? what does it mean?

This is ungrammatical- the third person singular (he\she\it) should have 's' on the end.

John becomes a writer. <--what does it mean??
This is grammatical, but doesn't make much sense as the usual use is for a habit, and becoming a writer is a single action, not a habit. However, it could be used when describing the plot of a film or book- John leaves university, gets a job with a newspaper, then becomes a writer...

[jack]

He is killed. <---kill have ed?
He is okay. <--okay doesn't have "ed" (okayed)? why? how do you know?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jack

He is killed. <---kill have ed?
He is okay. <--okay doesn't have "ed" (okayed)? why? how do you know?

Well, for one thing, the word 'killed' is not an adjective by nature; it's a participle, which means it's derived from a verb (i.e. kill => killed), so placing it after a linking verb (i.e. 'is') doesn't work. Secondly, 'killed' is a Past participle. Note the -ed ending. -ed refers to the Past, which makes it incompatible with 'is'. That is, 'is' expresses the Present, whereas 'killed' expresses the Past,

He is killed. :( (Present: 'is', Past: 'killed')
He was killed. :D (Past: 'was', 'killed')

As for 'He is okay', the word 'okay' it a true adjective. Adjectives don't take -ed. Verbs, on the other hand, do, like this,

kill (Verb) => add -ed => killed (Participle adjective)

"He was killed" is a passive sentence. The active structure is as follows,

Someone killed him. (Active)
He was killed by someone. (Passive)

All the best,

[jack]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never use this before." <-- correct? why? what does this sentence mean?

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never used this before." <--correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "use" becomes "used"?


"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they have never used this before." <--correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "have" is added?

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they had never used this before." <-- correct? why? what does the sentence mean when "had" is added?

How do i know which one to use? have or had?

[Tdol]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never use this before." <-- correct? why? what does this sentence mean?

This isn't correct. I'd say 'It is unlikely that they would do something like this because they have never used this before.'


Now, what do you understand by that?

[jack]

"It is unlikely that they do something like this since they never used this before." <--so this one is saying that he never used this in the past but who's know if he/she has used this now?