"Did" in questions.

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Is it possible to remove ''did'' in questions and negative sentences? For example, instead of ''I didn't have time'', ''I hadn't time'', Did you have time?'' ''Had you time?''

 

[tedmc]

No. But, for the first, you can say:

I had no time.

I know certain languages do not use auxiliary verbs like English. Chinese and Malay are two of them.

 

[emsr2d2]

My grandfather (born in 1921) would have said "Had you time?" and "I hadn't time" but they're not really heard these days.

 

[jutfrank]

Not for you, Rachel.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes, if an English learner says that, it's broken English.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Hello.

Is it possible to remove ''did'' in questions and negative sentences? For example, instead of ''I didn't have time'', ''I hadn't time'', Did you have time?'' ''Had you time?''

Yes, it is. When "have" is used to describes states, i.e. expressing such meanings as possession or obligation, most people treat it as a lexical verb, though in some varieties of English it is treated as an auxiliary. Compare:

[1a] I didn't have time.
[1b] Did you have time?

[2a] I hadn't time.
[2b] Had you time?

In [1a-b] the presence of do-support marks "have" as being a lexical verb. By contrast, the absence of do-support in [2a-b] indicates that "have" is an auxiliary verb.

If in doubt, I would stick with the lexical use.

 

[GoesStation]

[2a] I hadn't time.
[2b] Had you time?

These are grammatically correct but very unnatural for nearly all modern speakers.

 

[PaulMatthews]

These are grammatically correct but very unnatural for nearly all modern speakers.

I did actually say that most people treat stative "have" as a lexical verb.

Statistically (I believe) auxiliary "have" is used more by older speakers than younger ones, and is more characteristic of BrE than AmE.

 

[bubbha]

It's possible to speak English without "do" has a helping verb, but it ends up sounding very old-fashioned.

The more "old-sounding" English is, the more the grammatical patterns resemble Germanic. The use of "do" as a helping verb is a result of Celtic influence on English.

 

[PaulMatthews]

HAVE is an lexical verb in all those sentences. It is an auxiliary verb only when it us used with a lexical verb to construct a the perfect aspect.

I wouldn't go along with that.

Unlike lexical verbs, auxiliaries do not require do support in negation and inversion.

Negation and inversion are two of the four NICE constructions found with auxiliary verbs, but not with lexical verbs.

 

[jutfrank]

If I may butt in ...

This is clearly a disagreement over terms.

Piscean—I'm interested to know how you'd define 'auxiliary verb'. In the sentence Had you time?, what makes you consider Had a lexical verb? Is it because the verb is alone in the sentence, and so cannot be considered auxiliary to anything?

 

[jutfrank]

Another reason is that, unlike auxiliary HAVE, it has 'meaning', exactly the same meaning as it has in the affirmative form.

Yes, this is an important point, I think.

 

[jutfrank]

You may (modal) have (auxiliary) noticed that I have not attempted to define either 'modal verbs' or 'auxiliary verbs'.

You don't think you have? It seems to me that's pretty much what you've done.

I doubt if a completely satisfactory and universally accepted definition of either term exists - or can exist.

Okay, but my point was that the disagreement you're having with PaulMatthews is all about a definition of the term 'auxiliary verb'. Something either counts or doesn't count as an auxiliary verb. You're each following different definitions, irrespective of how universally agreed upon they may be. That's all I'm saying.

 

[PaulMatthews]

HAVE is an lexical verb in all those sentences. It is an auxiliary verb only when it us used with a lexical verb to construct a the perfect aspect.

No it isn't. Auxiliary verbs are those with the NICE properties, where N=negation and I=inversion.

In my earlier examples, stative "have" in [2a] exhibits negation and inversion in [2b], and hence must be an auxiliary.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Only if you stipulate that all verbs with NICE properties are auxiliaries verbs whether or not they are used with another verb to construct an aspect, voice, mood or negative, interrogative, code or emphatic form.
Many grammarians (not all) do not accept that stipulation. It seems to me a little perverse to use a term that means (crudely) 'helping' when it does no helping.

I never use the term "helping verb", since no substance can be given to the idea that auxiliaries are helping verbs.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I did say 'crudely' of my use of the word 'helping' when talking of the meaning. If you look up either 'auxiliary'' or 'auxiliary verb' most dictionaries and indeed most grammars, you will see some suggestion of 'with'. A verb that is not used in some way with another verb for the functions we are talking about is hardly 'auxiliary'.

BE, HAVE, DO and, ought, DARE and NEED are different from virtually all other verbs in our language in that they can be used like that large group of verbs we often label 'lexical' or 'full' verbs (with auxiliary DO), and they can also be used like that much smaller group of verbs we often label ''auxiliary' verbs (without auxiliary DO).

The point is that they are used in two different ways. I see no point in insisting that they are members of only one of these two groups.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the "have" in "You haven't enough money" / "Have you enough money?" is a lexical verb. By contrast, the evidence in favour of it being an auxiliary comes from the fact that it exhibits the NICE properties of negation and inversion.

Yes, a handful of the modals are also dually-classified.

For those not familiar with the acronym NICE, here is a useful link:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/verbs/nice.htm

 

[PaulMatthews]

Dogs are animals with 4L properties, where 4 = four and L = legged.
My cat exhibit four-leggedness, and hence must be a dog.




Nearly all* auxiliary verbs are used in NICE situations without auxiliary DO; indeed they must be used without auxiliary DO.
That is fine, but it does not mean that all verbs that can be used in NICE situations without auxiliary DO are auxiliary verbs.

Exceptions include the emphatic and negative imperative forms of BE; many people use auxiliary DO with used to.

I wouldn't describe NICE as a "situation" as you put it. It's an acronym for Negation, Inversion, Code and Emphasis, the four properties which determine auxiliary status for a verb.

If you're referring to the "be" that occurs in, for example, "Why don't you be more tolerant?", it is a lexical verb.