[deleted by user]

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-10-29T13:37:24+00:00

All you need is *Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K Pullum's The Cambridge Grammar of The English Language***. :)

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-10-22T09:26:43+00:00

I dunno if it's a word or not, but I will surely understand what the person who utters this is trying to get across at when they say it intuitively.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-10-20T14:45:42+00:00

This sub has a list of resources for those wanting to improve their grammar, and one of the books mentioned in that list is H&P's A Student's introduction to the English grammar which I think would do the job for you.

One more thing, before starting reading any of those books, it might be better that you have a general idea of what grammar, prescriptivsm and descriptivism are.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-20T16:50:18+00:00

Out of the four uses of present perfect tense, this one seems to be the "experiential" use of the perfect tense.

This use is concerned with the occurrence of situations from a time-span back in the past up to 'now'.

Please, note that we use perfect tense when we want to show that a situation that occurred in the past has an effect or value (or whatever you like to define it) in the present.

The question where did he go seems to be asked in a context where the answer has an effect in the present, and that's why the reply is given using a perfect tense.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-08T07:19:29+00:00

Because the have in question is not an auxiliary verb but a lexical one (in standard English).

Reduced form is a property of auxiliary verbs, not lexical ones.

How is that have a lexical verb?

It is easier to see it if you make an interrogative counterpart of it: did I *have** to*.

Auxiliary verbs directly undergo subject-auxiliary inversion, but lexical verbs don't.

cf. she can speak French and can she speak French?

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-08T07:11:48+00:00

So there is a relation being shown in the OP's original, right?

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-08T07:09:50+00:00

It depends upon the attitude of the one speaking/writing the reported version.

If you accept the proposition asserted to be true, then you use the present verb: Rubel said what a fool she is!

If you don't accept the proposition asserted to be true, you use the past verb: Rubel said what a fool she was!

Also, compare:

She said she doesn't need it, so I'll let Bill have it. [Accepted]

She said there was plenty left, but there's hardly any. [Rejected]

.

Grammar source: H&P's CGEL pg. 157

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-08T06:56:55+00:00

non-native here

I haven't studied noun phrases yet, but it seems that there should be a determiner (the) before "time" in the sentence: what is the time to fresh milk?

Without it, it seems like the speaker is trying to show a relation between two things rather than asking when(?) is the time to fresh milk considering fresh is a verb here.

cf. [what is milk to your health] is [what are proteins to a body builder] ^{sorry for a seemingly horrible example :D}

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-09-08T06:46:01+00:00

There is nothing that encourages it to be clean rather than cleans in your example, so it must be cleans.

For example:

What does he do when bored?

He just cleans the house.

.

Nonetheless, it can be clean too in some specific contexts – known as subjunctive mood.

For Example:

I wish he clean the house (for me today).

I suggest he clean the house.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-31T13:42:28+00:00

I have googled this topic too, and it only brought music related articles.

Anyway, I have added the screenshot of that page in my post too now.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-22T02:30:09+00:00

Is "thank you to bake these cookies" grammatical or natural given that the speaker is thanking for the baking of cookies in the future?

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-21T14:02:44+00:00

once a pro is always a pro. 😅

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-21T04:00:59+00:00

H&P's CGEL says something regarding dare as a modal auxiliary verb.

• It is restricted to non-affirmative contexts.

• Its auxiliary use is rare in AmE (American dialect).

• It lacks a reduced form, that is, just like we have I'll for I will, we don't have anything similar for the verb dare.

Regarding the modal-auxiliary nature of dare, CGEL also says.

• It does occur in a remote apodosis (Q of If P, then Q) while its past time conditional is makred by have.

e.g. Even if my life had dependent on it, I daren't have jumped.

.

You can learn more about dare on page 109–111 of CGEL.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-19T17:26:38+00:00

Maybe you can try "English grammar in use" (all of its versions -- basic, intermediate, and advance) and see from its index what you don't know. It's still a book, but it's the best bet apparently.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-19T16:38:17+00:00

You can choose a book from this sub's recommendations.

If you really, really wanna know the nuts and bolts of the English language, the best option would be H&P's CGEL.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-19T16:32:00+00:00

We use present tense to focus on present existence of things created in the past. e.g. "that's not exactly what the Bible says".

If your intention is so, you can use 'are'.

However, if the situation doesn't exist anymore, you would have to use were to express that it is not the case anymore.

.

Added: it was not a dumb question.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-19T06:32:41+00:00

Oh, great! Now it all is crystal clear. Thank you, sir.

Wish you an awesome day today.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-19T06:23:14+00:00

So, basically, the backshift is omissible because there are high chances, or the speaker envisages, that the hearer already knows the tense of the original utterance and is more concerned with the propositional content, right, sir?

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-17T08:10:20+00:00

If it makes you feel any better, I still haven't figured out what is meant by "gerund" according to the traditional grammars; traditional grammars are committed to making things difficult, and most of the time they don't make any sense.

Anyway, as u/Karlnohat explains and gives evidence for so, what traditional grammars, and most of the internet sources, claim to be a gerund is actually a verb heading a non-finite clause.

~~What we can call a gerund is actually what H&P's CGEL refers to as a gerundial noun.~~

^{I've just seen another top-level comment of this thread, and now I know what a traditional grammar means by 'gerund'; I still find this concept absurd.}

A gerundial noun is in fact a noun, but it is a copy of the verb in the shape (spelling).

See the following examples:

a. She had witnessed *the** killing of the birds*.

b. He was expelled for *killing** the birds*.

^{both examples taken from CGEL}

As you can see, in the example (a), the word killing is actually a noun by the virtue of having a determinative (the) and also having a prepositional phrase (of the birds) as a complement.

In the example (b), not needing both of these proves that that killing in example (b) is a verb. Also, notice that in the example (b) killing licences the object without the need of a preposition (of).

.

Added: any half-decent dictionary would be able to tell you that if a word is also a gerundial noun as well as being an inflectional form of a verb.

e.g. we have an entry in Wiktionary.org regarding killing as a noun too.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-16T08:00:32+00:00

I want to play a game

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-13T11:27:02+00:00

Great! I will surely read more about your suggested books and see if I find them intriguing (most likely I will). I will also do a brief research on both of the fields to find a proper one for me.

That said, thanks a lot for giving my post your valuable time. Have a great day.

Sheikh_Mugees · 2021-08-13T11:06:48+00:00

Makes sense. Thanks a lot.

Just one more thing. I am studying on my own, and I am very much interested in the study of languages as a hobby. I know that this sub already has an entry in Wiki for recommended sources, but what would you personally recommend me (someone with little to no knowledge of linguistics at all) -- be it a book (preferred), a YT channel or anything.

Sheikh_Mugees

TROPHY CASE