"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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 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
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?
"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.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Both are grammatical and both mean the same thing. Corpora show that the first is more frequent than the second in British English, but that American English has an overwhelming preference for the second.
It often happens in English that, in a particular lexical or syntactic environment, two or more constructions that resemble one another somewhat become synonymous, for whatever reason, and get harder to distinguish in that context.
Constructions are habits, and different people form them differently, and with different usages; and if they only notice them ...
On a minor point of fact, Latin portaturus sum and portabo are not simple alternatives. While the second is the straightforward future tense, the first has a variety of meanings depending on context. They include ‘about to carry’, ‘going to carry’, ‘intending to carry’, ‘determined to carry’ and ‘on the point of carrying’. However, I doubt if any of us are ...
It's already noted in another question that to be was used to form the perfect aspect, being replaced by to have in this role, but gradually so that to be was used of verbs of motion, to indicate the state arrived at (to have coming into this axillary role in Old English, and established into it in early Middle English, but to be still not entirely replaced ...
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 ...
"How dare you" is commonly-used, particularly in exclamations – as in: How dare you wake him up in the middle of his nap!
"How do you dare" seems unnatural to me. I think I'd be more inclined to say something along the lines of: Would you dare wake him up in the middle of his nap?
It means that the speaker acknowledges that his use of the word gimmick in this case could be challenged and that he is asking for the listener's indulgence to let him call it that. So yes, it is short for "if you will indulge me."
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....
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 ...
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. ...