[Grammar] Multi verb clauses

[lindatyler]

I was just told a clause can only have one verb in it but this sentence sounds perfectly fine to me even though it has two verbs in a single clause. This is a problem for me because a lot of the sentences I write are just like this example.

We like staying up late to watch stars rotate around the northern sky.

Is this type of sentence structure wrong and what would be the suggestion to fixing this sentence and the hundreds of others I have?

Thank you,

LindaTyler

 

[MikeNewYork]

First, there is no rule against more than one verb in a clause.

I went to the barn and fed the cows.

Second, there is only one verb in your main clause -- "like".

"Staying is a gerund that functions as noun. "To watch" is an infinitive. "Rotate" is part of a reduced relative clause: "(that) rotate around the northern sky or a bare infinitive (no to). At least, that is my take on it.

 

[lindatyler]

Alright, thank god, this is my first protest against my wife about grammar that didn't leave me weeping into my favorite pillow.

I just looked up what an infinitive and reduced relative clause was and it seems like my native English isn't as hopeless as I thought.

Thank you for your response!

 

[MikeNewYork]

That would be one verb and three verbals.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Verbs take subjects; verbals do not. Verbs form an integral part of a complete sentence; verbals do not. verbals act as nouns and modifiers; verbs do not. The differences are well-known.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I have no idea what that means. Disgree can take a subject and it can form a complete sentence.

I disagree with you about verbals. Note the subject and the complete sentence.
To disagree with you about verbals. Note the lack of a subject and the absence of a complete sentence.
Disagreeing about verbals. Note the lack of a subject and the absence of a complete sentence.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I have heard and read those theories, In my opinion, they are a minority report and have done nothing but confuse English grammar. If I had the time I could quote numerous sources that disagree.

 

[mawes12]

You are confusing the issue. The dictionary form is generally regarded as the base form or bare infinitive

However, let's leave that. When you look up BE in the dictionary, are you not looking up the meaning of a verb?

I think what mike is saying is that verbals are verbs that act like nouns, adjectives, and adverbs but I'm going to let mike answer if I said something wrong.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That still does not look like a majority to me.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You are confusing the issue. The dictionary form is generally regarded as the base form or bare infinitive

However, let's leave that. When you look up BE in the dictionary, are you not looking up the meaning of a verb?

Yes. We list verbs by their bare infinitive form. That does not make an infinitive a verb in its use.

The bare essentials for a sentence are a subject and a verb. Verbals don't have subjects.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In the imperative mood, the subject is implied. That is not true with verbals.

The second one means that you cannot have a sentence or a clause with only a verbal. I thought that was obvious. That is why we speak of infinitive and participial phrases. The have no verbs.

 

[MikeNewYork]

<<<I'll settle for a couple.>>>

You will have to settle for the thousands of web pages that define verbs and verbals. As I said before, I have neither the time nor the interest to do your research for you.

 

[mawes12]

I do know that he is eminently capable of saying what he means, clearly and accurately. He has shown this in thousands of posts.

I never said he wasn't.

 

[lindatyler]

I don't understand the argument that's taking place, it's as if you have agreed on everything except whether or not verbals actually exist. What's the purpose of it all?

We like staying up late to watch stars rotate around the northern sky.

We like staying up late to watch stars. The stars rotate around the northern sky.

A reduced relative clause makes sense to me because 'that' can be used to connect both sentences. But infinitives are confusing when trying to break them down because it just doesn't sound right if I started adding or deleting 'to' from the sentences to make a verb infinitive or reduced infinitive.

We like staying up late (to)watch stars. The stars (to)rotate around the sky.

The act of using (bare) infinitives seems to be much more complicated than simply attaching or removing a 'to' from a verb, which seems to be what people on the internet imply, that is to say it's use is conditional.



P.S.

I can't unbold my text for some reason.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't think the argument is actually doing any good at this point. And it is time to end it. I see verbals as being distinct from verbs; Piscean sees them as the same.

We like staying up late (to)watch stars. The stars (to)rotate around the sky.

Your first sentence works with "to". The sentence has a verb -- "like".
Your second sentence works without 'to". The verb is "rotate".

 

[MikeNewYork]

I like watching the wheel rotates?

 

[MikeNewYork]

It has been edited. I don't know what the original was.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, verbals are verb forms, not verbs. Don't confuse the discussion.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The first contains one verb and one noun (gerund). The second contains one verb and one noun (infinitive). The third contains one verb that is modalized to make it future tense.. I just claimed what you said is impossible.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Can you find me sentence that has only a verbal as the main verb?