Page 4 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: grammar

  1. CitySpeak
    Guest
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    They are a funny bunch and very slippery characters. You can study them for years and they still continue to surprise. I see what your getting at, but the fact that they show tense means I don't think I could ever get away from seeing them as verbs.

    Showing tense or indicating time is not enough for me. That would simply be one of the ways in which they add to or alter the meaning of verbs.

  2. RonBee's Avatar
    Moderator
    Other
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Feb 2003
    • Posts: 16,546
    #32
    If can is a modal and not a verb and do is a modal and not a verb. what about "I can do it?"

    :)

  3. CitySpeak
    Guest
    #33
    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee
    If can is a modal and not a verb and do is a modal and not a verb. what about "I can do it?"

    :)

    In, "I can do it.", "can" is adding meaning to the verb "do".

    Here, "do" is functioning as a verb, not an auxiliary. 8) :) "Can" is the auxiliary in that sentence.

    :)


    "Do" functions as a verb and an auxiliary. I don't believe I said anything about it being a modal.

    Things are getting a little bit winding, perhaps.

  4. RonBee's Avatar
    Moderator
    Other
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Feb 2003
    • Posts: 16,546
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by CitySpeak
    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee
    If can is a modal and not a verb and do is a modal and not a verb. what about "I can do it?"

    :)

    In, "I can do it.", "can" is adding meaning to the verb "do".

    Here, "do" is functioning as a verb, not an auxiliary. 8) :) "Can" is the auxiliary in that sentence.

    :)


    "Do" functions as a verb and an auxiliary. I don't believe I said anything about it being a modal.
    What about:
    We might classify "do", "does" and "did" with modals. They are all auxiliaries. The three "Ds" also serve to add meaning to a verb in their own way.
    :)

  5. CitySpeak
    Guest
    #35
    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee
    Quote Originally Posted by CitySpeak
    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee
    If can is a modal and not a verb and do is a modal and not a verb. what about "I can do it?"

    :)

    In, "I can do it.", "can" is adding meaning to the verb "do".

    Here, "do" is functioning as a verb, not an auxiliary. 8) :) "Can" is the auxiliary in that sentence.

    :)


    "Do" functions as a verb and an auxiliary. I don't believe I said anything about it being a modal.
    What about:
    We might classify "do", "does" and "did" with modals. They are all auxiliaries. The three "Ds" also serve to add meaning to a verb in their own way.
    :)

    I'll clarify what I meant there. I mean they are all "auxiliaries". I mean we can classify them with modals as auxiliaries. We can think of all of them as "auxiliaries".

    The three Ds - do does did - are not modals; however, they are auxiliaries.

    8) :)

  6. Casiopea's Avatar

    • Join Date: Sep 2003
    • Posts: 12,970
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by CitySpeak
    I don't understand how "You must have seen him" is used as the opposite of "You can't have seen him."
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    The positive [can have seen] is not used [in BE], we would use must have instead.
    Negative: You can't have seen him.
    Positive: You must have seen him.

    Not being a BE speaker myself, I, too, don't get the association: can have seen (possibility) = must have seen (insistence).

    :D

  7. jwschang
    Guest
    #37
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    You can't have is perfectly normal BE. The positive is not used, we would use must have instead.
    I agree although I ain't a BE speaker! :wink: A side issue on the present perfect:

    1. You saw him last week.
    2. You have seen him last week. (Not OK, present perfect not used with past and finished time, unless used with modal auxiliary, which gives a different meaning to the verb construction)
    3. You can have seen him last week. (Not OK)
    4. You could have seen him last week. (Modal used, OK to use present perfect with finished time)
    5. You must have seen him last week. (Modal used, OK to use present perfect with finished time)
    6. You can't have seen him last week. (Modal used, OK to use present perfect with finished time)
    7. You couldn't have seen him last week. (Modal used, OK to use present perfect with finished time)

    Am I correct re the usage of the present perfect? :wink:

  8. jwschang
    Guest
    #38
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    They are a funny bunch and very slippery characters. You can study them for years and they still continue to surprise. I see what your getting at, but the fact that they show tense means I don't think I could ever get away from seeing them as verbs.
    Absolutely. Funny, very slippery and want-to-be-difficult bunch of characters they are!! As are shall/should/will/would. Shady and opportunistic too, they ride on the backs of other people (oops, I mean other verbs). Enigmatic and inscrutable sometimes, pushy and could be ambivalent if you don't acknowledge them. But very very good for double-talk! Try using them to proposition your girl (not excluding any intention of eventually marrying her).

  9. jwschang
    Guest
    #39
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    It's a proper noun, however improper the user.
    Is it a proper noun improbably improperly used by an improper user?

  10. Casiopea's Avatar

    • Join Date: Sep 2003
    • Posts: 12,970
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    Quote Originally Posted by CitySpeak
    I view "can" as a modal, by the way. Modals are not verbs.
    I view 'can' as a modal, but I think of modals as verbs. They are often close to adverbs in meaning or effect, but they still come into the verb category in my book.
    Verbs have participle forms (e.g. see: seen, seeing)

    => see, saw, seen, seeing (verb) I have seen it.
    => is, was, been, being (auxiliary verb, linking function)
    => do, did, done, doing (auxiliary verb, referential function)
    => can, could, ? , ? (not a verb) *I have could it.

    Auxiliary verbs carry person and number inflection for the verbs they give help to (e.g. do, does)

    => She sees. She does see. Does she see?
    => She walked. She did walk. Did she walk?

    Modals do not have participle forms, nor do they carry person and number inflection for the verbs they modify:

    => can
    participle: *I am canning.
    agreement: *She cans. *She does can. *Does she can?

    Modals modify verbs:

    I can do it. (modal auxiliares)
    I would help you if I could (help you). (modal auxiliaries)

    There are two major categories: verbs & modals. There are auxiliary verbs (e.g. To Be) and modals that act like auxiliaries (e.g. can).

    :D

Page 4 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •