has or had

[jack]

"It is possible to has a son." <--incorrect? why? The subject is "It", which is singular, but "has" should be have? why?

The subject is "it", the verb is "is" (singular), so everything's fine.




But it doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it be:
"It is possible to have a son." Why "have" when the subject is singular?

[Francois]

Oh, yeah, of course "It is possible to has a son" is wrong!
My comment was misleading.
The subject in this sentence is here:

it is possible to have a son
==

The verb (3rd person) is here:

it is possible to have a son
   ==

So this part doesn't need to conjugate with the subject:

it is possible to have a son
                  ====

FRC

[jack]

I still don't really understand that. How do you know if the verb is in 3rd person? Can you give me some more examples?

[Francois]

He is likely to come late.
She is bound to miss her train.
It is better to leave now.
He is prone to break everything he touches.
It is unfair to kick your opponent in the head while he's on the floor.
It is better to wait till he's stood up.
She is expected to do what her husband says.
It is silly to keep your plants in the fridge.
It is unwise to moonie in front of a police station.
He is planning to phone his mother sometime.

In each sentence, there's a conjugated verb and an infintive form.

Note that some construction use the gerund instead. Eg.

He is used to drinking a couple of glass of whisky before going to bed.
She's looking forward to going on vacation at last.
She is not accustomed to being told she has beautiful ears.

You need to learn what constructs work with 'to + gerund'.

FRC

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jack

"It is possible to has a son." <--incorrect? why? The subject is "It", which is singular, but "has" should be have? why?

The subject is "it", the verb is "is" (singular), so everything's fine.




But it doesn't sound right. Shouldn't it be:
"It is possible to have a son." Why "have" when the subject is singular?

It is possible to have a son. (OK)

The main verb is "is". Only the main verb agrees in number with the subject. The verb "to have" is secondary.

Examples
1. She has to go. (Main verb: "has")
2. She has to goes. (Not OK)

[jack]

"She is a unwilling to change kind of person, which makes her has a stubborn trait." <--incorrect? why? what is the subject and verb?

"She is a unwilling to change kind of person, which makes her have a stubborn trait." <--correct? why?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jack

"She is a unwilling to change kind of person, which makes her has a stubborn trait." <--incorrect? why? what is the subject and verb?

"She is a unwilling to change kind of person, which makes her have a stubborn trait." <--correct? why?

Sorry. Both sentences are strange. :(

Try,

She is unwilling to change her character, which means she is stubborn.

There are three inflected verbs so there are three clauses, and within each clause the verb agrees in number with the subject, like this,

Clause 1: She is unwilling to change her character

Clause 2: which means she is stubborn

Clause 3: She is stubborn

The subject of Clause 2 is "which", a relative pronoun referring to all of Clause 1, like this,

She is unwilling to change her character, which means....
It means....

The verb 'means' agrees in number with the 3rd person pronoun "It".

All the best,

[jack]

"She is a stubborn kind of person because she is unwilling to change." <--correct?

[Tdol]

Correct.

[jack]

For this scenario:

A: Did you kill him?

B: I have killed him.
B: I had killed him.
B: I had killed him after he had harmed so many human beings.

Are these correct/incorrect? If so, why? could you correct them for me and tell me the meaning and how to use it. thanks