For all you grammar know-it-alls. - Page 2

**INTJMark** · 05-28-2009, 03:42 AM

I think I have a picky ear for grammatical issues, and I don't see any problem.
On the other hand, the use of "both" to refer to two things that could not happen independent of each other (e.g., "Smith and Jones both agreed to meet in December.") really gets to me. I asked a linguist (Neal Whitman) and he said there was nothing wrong other than redundancy (not officially an error), but I can't stomach it.
What really blows my mind, however, is the use of the present tense to talk about the past. It's as if people are having long flashbacks all the time, living in the moment of their memories. Too much to bear!

**Datamaiden** · 05-28-2009, 06:22 AM

He is correct that there are two types of verbs (aside from transitive and intrasitive) which are state verbs (state of being) and action verbs. This does (notice the use of the auxiliary "do") affect collocations with some verbs - entirely dependent upon the verb as each one in English to some degree has its own grammar. This is what drives foreign learners crazy, in that there is not a rule or set of rules that can be applied across the board to everything.

I believe the real element that he is mssing is that this is not a matter of active or state verbs, but rather it is about auxiliary verbs and the negation of the auxiliary in a sentence. Although not often taught in basic English classes 9not much is) 'to do" is an auxiliary verb just as "to be" and "to have". "To have" and "to be" cleary form compound verbs. "To do" is a component of comoound tense of the simple present and simple past which has come to be implied and not spoken, unless for emphsis, but nevertheless functions as an implied element.

Thus, like with other auxiliary verbs, when you wish to negate the sentence, we do so by negating the auxiliary verb, not the primary verb and leaving the primary verb untouched.

Your friend is noting the distinction in the choice of auxiliary to use or negate depending upon whether the primary verb is state or action. Of course, if it is state of being, we use the verb "to be" (I am happy; I am not happy) and negate that. If the primary verb is one of action (I run.) the auxiliary is "to do" and is typically no longer spoken, but implied, (I do run.) but when negated, we cannt imply, we must voice it. (I did not run.)

05-28-2009, 03:42 AM	#26
INTJMark New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 10	I think I have a picky ear for grammatical issues, and I don't see any problem. On the other hand, the use of "both" to refer to two things that could not happen independent of each other (e.g., "Smith and Jones both agreed to meet in December.") really gets to me. I asked a linguist (Neal Whitman) and he said there was nothing wrong other than redundancy (not officially an error), but I can't stomach it. What really blows my mind, however, is the use of the present tense to talk about the past. It's as if people are having long flashbacks all the time, living in the moment of their memories. Too much to bear!
INTJMark is offline post a comment

05-28-2009, 06:22 AM	#27
Datamaiden New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 71	He is correct that there are two types of verbs (aside from transitive and intrasitive) which are state verbs (state of being) and action verbs. This does (notice the use of the auxiliary "do") affect collocations with some verbs - entirely dependent upon the verb as each one in English to some degree has its own grammar. This is what drives foreign learners crazy, in that there is not a rule or set of rules that can be applied across the board to everything. I believe the real element that he is mssing is that this is not a matter of active or state verbs, but rather it is about auxiliary verbs and the negation of the auxiliary in a sentence. Although not often taught in basic English classes 9not much is) 'to do" is an auxiliary verb just as "to be" and "to have". "To have" and "to be" cleary form compound verbs. "To do" is a component of comoound tense of the simple present and simple past which has come to be implied and not spoken, unless for emphsis, but nevertheless functions as an implied element. Thus, like with other auxiliary verbs, when you wish to negate the sentence, we do so by negating the auxiliary verb, not the primary verb and leaving the primary verb untouched. Your friend is noting the distinction in the choice of auxiliary to use or negate depending upon whether the primary verb is state or action. Of course, if it is state of being, we use the verb "to be" (I am happy; I am not happy) and negate that. If the primary verb is one of action (I run.) the auxiliary is "to do" and is typically no longer spoken, but implied, (I do run.) but when negated, we cannt imply, we must voice it. (I did not run.)
Datamaiden is offline post a comment