Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

31

This is a variation on / reference to the "All your base are belong to us" meme. "All your base are belong to us" [...] is a broken English phrase that became an Internet phenomenon or meme in 2000–2002. [...] The text comes from the opening cutscene of [...] the video game Zero Wing, which was poorly translated from Japanese.


26

Rarely, must is used as a past tense. Belshazzar, by H. Rider Haggard, has we went because we must, in a prose style which is perhaps deliberately archaic to reflect the ancient Egyptian context. In this odd snippet, If Thoreau went because he would, Hawthorne went because he must, one might say the author is "playing with language". But here's Ralph Waldo ...


24

In speech, this is merely a relaxation of pronunciation - should have becomes should've, must have becomes must've. This relaxed pronunciation is fine. However, the contracted have (i.e. -ve) should not be written as of. Of sounds similar to -ve, so many people erroneously think should of and must of is how to write should've and must've. Should of and ...


20

If you are issuing this statement as a warning or confrontation then the only acceptable formulation is How dare you For example: "How dare you go behind my back and talk to my boss without telling me." How do you dare is asking a question- essentially How is it possible that you dare to ... For example: "How do you dare do that? Aren't you afraid ...


19

The "did" is there to add emphasis. Similar to: "You didn't read the book." "Yes, I DID read the book." If you look at the context where this appears in the article, "do" is being used to contrast that clause with what has come before. It's kind of like a focus marker, except that it also triggers a change in verbal morphology because "do" takes tense ...


19

No, it is not a short form of anything. Here, will is not an auxiliary verb, but a full verb. Nothing is omitted in the sentence. Will, here, is used in the meaning "want" or "wish", which is considered archaic in most other contexts, outside of set phrases. It is related to the German wollen, Dutch willen, etc., all with the same meaning "to want, desire". ...


17

Need and dare are the English semi-modal verbs, which means that need and dare can behave like a modal (no inflections, negative contractions needn't, dassn't, subject-auxiliary inversion, to-less infinitives) only in negative contexts. The modalactivity of need and dare is a Negative Polarity Item, and operates only within the scope of a Negative Polarity ...


15

The words you cited are all forms of the verb “be”, which is also known as a copula or linking verb. The term auxiliary verb applies to verbs, such as forms of be, have, and do, that conjoin with another verb to add syntantic or semantic information, such as grammatical aspects like the progressive aspect or perfective aspect: progressive aspect: be + ...


14

I think what you feel uncomfortable with is contraction of "have" as a main verb. When it's an auxiliary verb in, say, a perfect, contraction feels fine: I've had a car before. But contraction of main verb "have" meaning to own or possess feels weirder. ?And I've a car right now. However, I have a feeling that people will contract main verb have ...


14

As far as I am aware, this is a primarily UK usage. The difference comes in how American and British english speakers handle verb phrase ellipsis, a construction in which a verb phrase is left out because it's implied or repeated. Consider this example (taken from this blog post, which contains an excellent discussion of the issue): A: I ate all the ...


14

Your daughter is correct: in standard British (or US) English, it should be “Yes, they do.” The key here is that do, not have, is the auxiliary verb. Have can sometimes be an auxiliary, but in this sentence it’s the main verb. So: “Do they like pizza?” “Yes, they do.” “Have they had lunch yet?” “Yes, they have.” “Do they have some?” ...


13

This is definitely an American English/British English thing, as you can't do it in American English but you can in British English. In American English, you can't contract "have" if you are using it as a plain (not a "helping" or "auxiliary") verb. "I've a dog" and "They've a great time" are not grammatical in American English. There are a number of other ...


13

In modern English, auxiliary 'do' is used in five cases: Negative (obligatory for most verbs): "I don't like mushrooms". Interrogative (obligatory for most verbs): "Do you like mushrooms?" Emphatic: "Oh, you've done some cauliflower! I do like cauliflower!" Contrastive (a special case of emphatic). "I don't like mushrooms. But I do like cauliflower". ...


13

They could have the same meaning depending on the context. The second sentence is in the simple past. He did it; it's done; you are left wondering why he did it. The first sentence, could mean he did it and now you're wondering why he would have done such a thing. However, the first sentence could also mean that you anticipate that he is going to do ...


12

Done is used as the past participle in combination with have, obviously, but done is also used as an adjective meaning "carried out, completed, or treated in a particular way: her hunting days were done" (Webster's); as such, either statement is correct depending on the context. Usually, "I have done" would require an object (done what, precisely?) and "I am ...


12

You can safely omit it pretty much always. I think it's largely a regional variety issue. As the article explains, in the UK "I've got" might be used more commonly where Americans would say "I have". I remember being taught phrases like this in elementary English classes (due to British English emphasis in Finnish schools at that time): I've got a cat. ...


12

You should expand your contractions and keep track of what the word "not" is modifying. You don't need to play => You do not need to play (here "not" modifies need) You need to not play (Here "not" modifies play) You need not play (Here "not" modifies need) You needn't play => You need not play (same as #3) 1, 3, and 4 all mean "You are not required to ...


11

You should normally use be gone if no direction is specified, have gone with directions: Where is Cleopatra? She is gone. (= she is away, or dead) Where is Cleopatra? She has gone to the temple. This is idiom: it is irregular and only applies to very few verbs. And is gone can still be used with specific directions sometimes, though it is probably ...


10

As, he is the subject of the sentence here, you need to match the singular, so the correct construction uses is. About which things is he talking? Similarly, your other example also needs is for the same reason. Which gifts is he bringing to the party? Things and gifts are the objects of these verbs and not the subjects so don't let them fool ...


10

There are different types of constituent structures that can be conjoined by and. All of these different points of conjunction are valid, and they all fundamentally mean the same thing: [I like to dance] and [I like to sing]. I [like to dance] and [like to sing]. I like [to dance] and [to sing]. I like to [dance] and [sing]. (To answer your question ...


10

The correct negation is: The directory does not exist. Here, do functions as an auxiliary for emphasis/negation. Consider the positive form of the sentence where do is optional: The directory does exist / The directory exists It should be clearer here that is is not appropriate: The directory is exist (?) Also, note that whenever be is ...


10

The Chicago Manual of Style devotes Section 147 of its "Grammar and Usage" chapter to must: Must denotes a necessity that arises from someone’s will [we must obey the rules] or from circumstances [you must ask what the next step is] [he went to New York because he must]. Must also connotes a logical conclusion [that must be the right answer] [that ...


10

Because how many people is the subject of the sentence. If you ask a question about the subject, you don't need do. Examples: (subjects are italicized) How many people study here? Who wants chowder? Whose child stole the keys? Now, if the interrogative pronoun is not (part of) the subject, then we need do. Compare: Who did you kill? ...


10

You raise a valid concern. On the one hand, we often talk of periphrastic tenses (and other constructions); on the other, some insist that a tense should be confined to a single word. Others, again, hold that tense is a property of a sentence or clause, not of a word or phrase. Can this problem be solved at all? The short answer is: there are different ...


9

Might is also the past subjunctive of may. Because of this, in some cases these aren't interchangeable; if you're using the subjunctive to form a feeling of coniditionality, may is rather inappropriate. For example, "If you were the King, then you might be able to do that." In the same way, you can use might to form more polite questions: "Might I join ...


9

The reason that must does not seem to have a past tense in English is that etymologically it already was a past (or preterite) tense of motan. Compare with the modern Dutch where ik moet means I have to while ik moest means I had to. If you will not use had to, you can often use needed to, which fits your examples, or something similar.


9

"How dare you" is just a fossilized expression, and as Skippy says, it's basically lost its interrogativity. It isn't so much a question as it is an exclamation... It's an archaism (archaicism?) like "so be it." it's an example of the older interrogation and negation which didn't use auxiliary verbs.


8

Formally, might is the past tense of may. In situations where the past tense is required, only might may be used: Correct: He said he might go. Subordinate clauses in English must be in the past tense if the main clause is in the past tense, so this is correct. Incorrect: He said he may go. Here you cannot use the present tense may with the ...


8

Before I start, let me remind you that an auxiliary verb (to be, to have) is called like this because it helps another verb (from NOAD: late Middle English : from Latin "auxiliarius", from auxilium ‘help.’) as in, it supports the main verb. The ice was thick enough to walk on. They were in a hurry. There is enough salt in it. I am right. ...


8

It’s the first person singular of the present tense indicative of the auxiliary verb ‘be’, followed by the ‘-ing’ form of the main verb ‘go’. Together they express progressive aspect, which typically describes an action taking place at the time of speaking. In this example, however, ‘go’ carries no sense of actual movement. The construction is one of the ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible