"Have you got a chance to X?" asks if the person has a chance to do something. E.g. "Have you got a chance to win the lottery?"
It essentially implies that being able to do something is mostly out of your control.
Asking "Have you got a chance to look into this?" would imply that "looking into this" is something that one is unlikely to do with out a lot of ...
The most common use of need is as a regular catenative verb, taking a to-infinitive as its complement. In that use, it inflects normally (need/needs/needing/needed), can follow an auxiliary verb, and so on: "I might need to talk to him."
However, in a rather formal style of English, there also exists an auxiliary verb ("helping verb") need, which is ...
I'm no expert, however it seems to me that "Have you got a chance to look at this?" sounds a little forced- I think you're confusing tenses here.
For the past tense case, in which you are asking the second person whether or not they have looked at a document, stick to either:
"Did you get a chance to look at this?"
"Have you had a chance to look at it?"
Both are examples of hyperbaton. You can read more about it here, hyperbaton. In their current form, both sentences are ungrammatical. Correct them for tense as follows.
Write it I have.
Written it I have.
Wrote it I did.
Write it I did.
Once corrected for tense, both sentences can be acceptable English usage, ...
The ever in questions such as Have you ever flown a kite? can be understood as in your life to this present moment. The present perfect (have/has + past participle) is used because in your life is conceived of as unfinished time.
It is the reason why the present perfect is used with other expressions that imply unfinished time:
Have you seen Mary today?
The OED dates this sense of the word back to 1715:
Where a Statute directs the doing of a Thing for the sake of Justice or the publick Good, the Word may is the same as the Word shall; thus 23 H.6. says, the Sheriff may take Bail; this is construed, he shall; for he is compellable so to do.
—Reports of cases adjudg'd in the Court of King's bench
There's no special magic with "had had", they don't really go together as a pair anymore than "had wanted" go together.
So don't worry so much about how to use "had had" as a unit of grammar, they will come together naturally when you want to express the verb 'to have' in the past perfect.
Let's consider a different verb for a moment like "to want". ...
The first site is wrong:
He has been being treated for imbecility for almost twenty years and has not yet recovered his wits.
In 2007 he had been being treated for imbecility for ten years and had not yet recovered his wits.
He will be being treated for imbecility on Monday when you arrive, and may not be able to greet you.
By then he will have been ...
Yes, there is a name for this kind of alternation between constructions.
It's called Negative-Raising, or Neg-Raising (NR), among other things,
and it's governed by the predicate seem in this case;
there are a number of other predicates that govern it.
NR is a minor cyclic alternation rule.
That means that it is governed by the matrix predicate (all cyclic ...
(AmE, non-linguist) It's a little tricky to say would is the past form of will, as will is an auxiliary verb that doesn't conjugate normally. It does work with will as the wish meaning. Here is part of the problem, I think.
Will for the future is correct. I will go to MIT in 2 years.. If someone says I would go to MIT someday without further elaboration, I ...
In most cases, have is used as an auxiliary verb. Examples of auxiliary verbs,
I have to go to school.
I need to go to school.
They have eaten breakfast.
She has never played football.
He does not eat breakfast.
However, the verb have is also often used as a proper verb (as opposed to being an auxiliary verb) in place of proper verbs such as eat ...
We can use wish + subject + past tense to express regret that a present situation is not how we want it:
I wish I had a car. = I don't have a car.
I wish I knew the answer. = I don't know the answer.
I wish I woke up early. = I don't wake up early.
We use wish + subject + would to express regret about an action that a third party is unwilling ...
A says to B "I love you"
B says to A "And I you"
Perfectly acceptable. Where is the verb in the latter sentence ? It's in the former sentence and understood to be also in the latter, the repetition is unnecessary. "love" could be replaced by a range of other verbs, such as "hate" or "admire" or "despise"; in fact I can't think of a transitive verb ...
In this particular case, there is a difference. But only because -- as usual -- the sentence has been modified by a transformation. Twice. By the same transformation.
The noun phrase in question:
another funny noise, like a mouse being trodden on
consists of the NP another funny noise, modified by a reduced nonrestrictive relative clause, which itself ...
Both would and will can be used in reference to a proposed future event. When the speaker is the agent of the future event, as in this case, will can be used both conditionally, to indicate that the event may or may not happen, and unconditionally, to indicate that the event is definitely going to happen:
I will be working on another script later this month....
Your German friend is wrong.
Did you (ever) mail that letter?
This question, without 'ever', is a simple enquiry about a specific letter, in the past. Using 'ever' here suggests that the questionner thinks it at least possible that you never mailed the letter.
Have you mailed that letter?
This is very similar to the first version except that the ...
Your first example is correct most of the time. When speaking about something in the future, you will be doing it. When you've made plans to do something, and you are informing another person this is the form you'd use.
The second example is usable in some situations. You're dealing here with the "future in the past" tense, if I understand it correctly. ...
What did just happen?
– is not a correct neutral way of forming this question. ‘What’ here is not the object of ‘happen’, but the subject: It happened => What happened? ‘Happen’ is an intransitive verb and cannot take an object (“†It happened an earthquake” is grammatically incorrect).
You can, however, say “What did just happen?” as an emphatic question:
In your list, only the various forms of be (the first eight) and become, seem, appear, look, smell, taste, sound and feel are copular verbs. Others include remain, keep, stay, get, go, come, grow, prove, turn, turn out, end up and wind up.
It is perfectly acceptable.
As to "So why did he not reply 'So do I buddy'?", this would be saying "I like me, too". Which may be true in any case, but doesn't express reciprocity. In other words, instead of the two of them saying that they like each other, they would each be saying that they like one of them.
I might say "I enjoy eating crab for dinner."...
Saying I/we are finished implies that the person in question is in a state of being finished with some task. It is referring to the person and not specifically the task.
I/we have finished refers to the task itself being finished or complete, and perhaps the person has moved on to another task or is waiting for something to occur.
The only one that fits grammatically is should.
Another idiomatic possibility is to insert no word at all - It is essential that the documents be destroyed immediately.
Ought to be, would and had better cannot be qualified by it is essential that...
If something ought to be done it ought to be done. It is not gradable and subject to essentiality ...
In spoken American English, I believe you can only contract "did" if it is an auxiliary verb, you can't use the contraction "didn't" instead, and "did" is not used for emphasis. This presents a lot of constraints on how the sentence can be constructed. For example:
I did tell you.
I'd cannot be contracted because "did" is used for emphasis.
Who did ...
The ‘rule’ with Wh-questions is a bit more complicated than that.
If a fronted Wh-word represents the subject of the question, neither inversion nor Do-support is required.
Who is the man with the shovel? <<< Bob is the man with the shovel.
What keeps him going? <<< Whisky keeps him going.
If a fronted Wh-word does not represent ...
There are three common usages for the auxiliary verb do:
Emphatic do - strongly stressed, often contradicting something in context
Q: Why didn't you tell her? A: I did tell her.
Active do - pro-verb substituting for active (non-stative) verb
What I want to do is buy that house now ~ *What I want to do is own that house now
Do-Support do - dummy verb, no ...
Are the following two examples grammatical?
Write it I have.
Wrote it I did.
Consider as possible contexts:
They said that I have to write it, and write it I have. -- (for #1)
They said that I wrote it, and wrote it I did. -- (for #2)
ANSWER TO MAIN QUESTION: In the appropriate context, those two expressions (#1 and #2) would most likely be acceptable ...
I think it's a close call. If you leave it out, there can be no ambiguity because 'drawn' is the past participle and therefore can only belong with the previous 'have'. On the other hand the gap is just long enough to give pause when reading.
It is grammatically correct with a single 'have' but, on balance I suggest repeating it.
Only often triggers "inversion", where the subject and verb switch places. A simpler example of that might be:
Only later are we told why.
(meaning "We aren't told why until later"), with "are we" instead of "we are".
In your example, this involves inserting do, exactly the same as in questions:
When do I go home?