[Grammar] Auxiliary verbs

[Venus.jam]

Hello,

I was familiar with auxiliaries, I mean I thought that only what follows are considered to be auxiliaries in English (can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, ought to) but I came across the following verbs in a book as auxiliaries (to go, to run, to help, to find, to want, to need to). I have 2 questions:

1. Why are the above mentioned verbs (go, run, etc.) are considered as auxiliaries? Is there any rule for recognising them?

2. What other auxiliaries do we have in English except the ones that I mentioned above?

 

[Venus.jam]

The primary auxiliaries are BE, HAVE and DO.

The modal auxiliaries are can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will and would.
Ought is considered by some to be a modal.
Need and dare can also function both as modal auxiliaries and asfull verbs.

GO can be considered an auxiliary in its continuous forms when used as one way of forming the future.

RUN, HELP and FIND are not auxiliaries. Which book claimed they were?

Writing better English for ESL learners book
by Edward Swick

 

[Venus.jam]

Dear teacher,

Auxiliaries are on pages 17-18 of the book. I was wondering if it is wrong. Shall I ignore the book? What’s your suggestion?

 

[Rover_KE]

Did you not read what Piscean just wrote?

Burn it!

 

[Venus.jam]

Did you not read what Piscean just wrote?

Burn it!

Yes I do, but as I’ve chosen it as a course book and we’ve studied some chapters of the book, I was wondering if it’d be a good idea to ignore it completely or just skip the problematic parts.

 

[Venus.jam]

Dear teacher,

Would you mind suggesting some better and more appropriate books for a writing class for EFL learners who are beginners?

 

[TheParser]

1. Why are the above mentioned verbs (go, run, etc.) are considered as auxiliaries?

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, Venus:

I did some googling, and I think that you may have misinterpreted what Mr. Swick wrote.

I am not the best reader myself, but I believe that I am right in saying that he gave "to go," "to run," "to help," etc. as examples of infinitives that can follow certain auxiliaries.

If you reread the passage in that book very slowly several times, I think that you may agree with my interpretation.


Best wishes

 

[Phaedrus]

Venus.jam misinterpreted nothing. Swick is very clear in his incorrect claims.

He states quite clearly (p 16) "But there are other auxiliary verbs verbs that are used with infinitives (to go, to run, to help, to find, and so on)".

In that sentence, it is ambiguous what the parenthetical list -- "(to go, to run, to help, to find, and so on)" -- is in apposition to.

I see two possible interpretations:

1) The parenthetical list is in apposition to the noun phrase "other auxiliary verbs that are used with infinitives."
2) The parenthetical list is in apposition to the noun phrase "infinitives."

According to the first interpretation, the author is stating, incorrectly, that "to go," "to run," "to help," and "to find" are auxiliary verbs.

According to the second interpretation, the author is stating that certain auxiliaries (e.g., can, a modal aux) can be used with infinitives ("to run"): "can run."*

The charitable interpretation of that particular sentence would appear to be TheParser's, even if the book as a whole is worthy of the book barbecue.

-------------
*footnote: Of course, the author is assuming that learners won't think he means the infinitive-with-"to" can follow the auxiliary verb (*[strike]can to run[/strike]).

 

[Tdol]

The book states that should is a present tense, while most argue that it is the past tense of shall. It also claims that shall is often used in the formation of the first person future tense, though then says that in casual English will is used nearly all the time, without taking into account variants or the century. I wouldn't trust this book. Regardless of our differing views of language, would many argue that rewriting sentences mechanically into the present perfect and future does much to improve our understanding? The writer is an ignoramus peddling stuff that was past its sell-by-date when I started teaching, shortly before the Roman invasion of Britain. Thomson and Martinet are probably spinning in their graves to see their approach so debased- they did know what they were talking about, while Ed Swick doesn't.

 

[Tdol]

And it gets worse on second look- Ed says that be going to is the same as will- to be fair, there are grey areas, but there are cases where only one will do. I will read it carefully at the weekend for masochistic pleasure, but this book is a turkey.

 

[Tdol]

The Ratched Hospital for the Seriously Messed-up.

 

[Venus.jam]

Dear teachers,

Would you please suggest some appropriate books for teaching writing to EFL learners who are beginners?

thanks in advance

 

[Venus.jam]

Actually, I use “understanding and using English Grammar” by Betty Azar for teaching grammar in my classes. I wonder if I can use the writing sections of the book to ask learners to write about what they’ve learnt or would it be a better idea to choose another book for teaching writing to them as they are beginners in writing but Azar’s book is for students of advanced level.

Thanks in advance

 

[Venus.jam]

Dear teacher,

They are not beginners regarding their proficiency in grammar, but they have serious problems in writing as they have not passed any writing courses so far. So I think that a course book designed for learners at beginning or intermediate level would be appropriate for them. In fact, their writing skill is weak and should be improved. Moreover, the students of two classes, Writing and English grammar classes, are different. Thus, I think I have to choose two different books for the two classes. I’d appreciate it if you could help me regarding this issue.