Talk:English verbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what tense is 'He will have had to have had (a letter)'?

Smart one! It is a future perfect of "have to" (in the sense of must) used as a quasi-auxiliary, followed by a perfect infinitive of "have" (as a full verb).--Doric Loon 09:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Imperfect 2 Principal parts 3 3rd sg pres 4 Runned 5 Uses of the subjunctive in English 6 Tense/Mood 7 Is to will is a preterite-present 8 Perfect in American and British English 9 Panicking 10 Conditionals and Subjunctives

[edit] Imperfect

I am removing the term "imperfect" from the headings. Since I am not sure whether this was an error or whether some people out there are really using this term, I will not eliminate it altogether, though someone else might want to. But at any rate, it is not usual to refer to the progressive aspect as "imperfect". Indeed this is downright confusing, as older grammar books use the term "imperfect" for the past simple (he sang). --Doric Loon 09:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principal parts

As far as I know, principal parts are the forms you need to learn by heart in order to conjugate a verb, and it's understood that that means the least possible amount of forms. So it's quite misleading to say that an English verb has five principal parts. You only need three at most: the infinitive, the simple past, and the participle. And only one (the infinitive) for regular verbs, since everything else can be derived from it. --Pablo D. Flores 15:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! --Doric Loon 20:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd sg pres

Earlier in English we had -est for the 2nd sg. and -eth for the 3rd plural. Anyone have any idea where the -s 3rd sg. form comes from? I heard one time that it originated in some Scottish dialect and spread outward to other dialects but I can't find any sources to confirm this on the net.

No, nobody has any idea where that came from. It is odd that such an important morphological change should have philologians stumped, but no theory seems to command any consensus. The idea of a simple sound shift th→s runs into difficulties because that kind of sound shift should affect the entire language and not just one morpheme, but there isn't really a better theory available.--Doric Loon 15:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runned

The 17th century colonial American writer William Bradford is known to have used runned as the past tense of run, as well as ranne (=ran). Others probably also used it. A bit more about such dated irregularities should be mentioned. Alexander 007 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In English and other germanic languages, verbs naturally conjugated by vowel changes. However, when new verbs were created from nouns, they had no conjugation and so employed a dental ending to show past and past participle. These verbs are called "derived verbs". "Run", as far as etymologists can tell, does not derive from a noun and so normally takes the so called strong conjugation "run, ran, run". Sometimes however, when a noun has a derived verb, or when a verb has a derived noun, the two may switch places in the minds of speakers. This may result in typically strong verbs being conjugated as though they were derived and vis versa. An example in the modern day is the verb "sneak". Etymology tells us that the noun "sneak(related to snake)" came first and accordingly the verb, meaning "steal like a sneak" has historicly been conjugated "sneak, sneaked, sneaked". Yet recently, some people have begun to think of the noun "sneak" as deriving from an assumed strong verb "sneak" meaning "creep" and conjugated "sneak, snuck, snuck". However, another reason for the weakening of some strong conjugations is the seemingly ever popular desire to make conjugation simpler by only using -ed endings. The Normans were the first major proponants of this because speaking English was already hard enough for them without having to memorize seven patterns of strong conjugation. The trend, however, has continued to the present day. It is this latter cause that I think responsible for Mr. Bradford's "runned". Among his comtemporaries, "ran" and "runned" were probably like "swam" and "swimmed" are to us. Then again, he may have just been a special case.--Jr mints 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of the subjunctive in English

Could anyone tell something about when the subjunctive is used? I've heard it a real lot as a part of normal INFORMAL speech in many (American) dialects, so this should be added. --JorisvS 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses the subjunctive as a tense, but the subjunctive is properly a mood of the verb. (But see "Tense/Mood" below.)

The examples given (If I be, If I were) are strange. Does anyone say "If I be"? On the other hand, "If I were," which occurs in a lot of counterfactual statements, is analyzed by some grammarians not as a subjunctive but as an irrealis. (I think the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language does this, but there are other sources.)

Here's an example of the subjunctive: "The queen asked that the general be present at the council." be is subjunctive--in the indicative mood, it would be "is" (e.g., "The general is present at the council.").

--Akhilleus (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense/Mood

The article defines tense as follows: "In English grammar, tense refers to any conjugated form expressing time, aspect or mood."

This seems wrong to me; I'm used to thinking of mood as a distinct characteristic from tense. Does anyone have any sources to support the article's definition of tense? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree: mood is traditionally quite separate from tense. Furthermore, in the modern EFL classroom we distinguish tense from aspect too. But this is open to debate: are the present simple and the present progressive two tenses or the same tense in two aspects? The textbooks analyse such questions in different ways, and we need to be a little open-minded about that. --Doric Loon 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm used to discussing tense as a combination of time and aspect, e.g. the present progressive tense combines present time with progressive aspect. That seems like the standard analysis, and it works pretty well in teaching Latin and Greek. If there are different ways of analyzing tense/time/aspect, then by all means the article should say so. But as far as I know, there's no grammatical analysis that makes the subjunctive a tense. This seems more like the error of someone who doesn't understand the difference between moods and tenses. Even if there is an analysis which combines mood with tense, I'd bet that only a minority hold that view. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is to will is a preterite-present

I disagree with Doric Loon’s 30-January-2006 change under Exception, where he claimed that the verb to will is a preterite-present verb. I believe the sentence was correct before the change, when it said “the verb will, although historically not a preterite-present verb, is inflected like one when used as an auxiliary.” In Modern English to will has been regularized to look like other auxiliaries, but we can see its history in Old English. My source on the subject is Peter S. Baker, Introduction to Old English, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p 80. “Willan looks a bit like a preterite-present verb, but it is not; and its first- and third-person singular present and plural present are quite different from the preterite-present forms.” In addition to that, I would point out the e-grade ‘i’ in the root throughout the present: the present of a preterite-present verb comes from a PIE perfect—with an o-grade singular and a zero-grade plural.

Here is a comparison of the OE verbs willan, cunnan (as a typical preterite-present) and fremman (as a typical weak verb) Notice that the endings of willan match better those of fremman than those of cunnan, even down to the gemination pattern. Notice also that willan lacks the ablaut in the present of cunnan. The explanation is that willan is an irregular weak verb.

		cunnan	willan	fremman
present	ic	cann	wille	fremme
	ðu	canst	wilt	fremest
	he	cann	wile	fremeþ
	we	cunnon	willaþ	fremmaþ
past	ic	cuðe	wolde	fremede
	ðu	cuðest	woldest	fremedest
	he	cuðe	wolde	fremede
	we	cuðon	woldon	fremedon

To support his change, Doric Loon pointed to German wollen. I suspect (but can’t conveniently confirm) that the OHG form of wollen is not a preterite-present. But even if I am wrong about German, this is an article on English verbs. --teb728 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I slipped up there. But we are talking here about the verb "will", not the verb "to will", which is a different thing. I think "will" goes back to an Indo-European optative, and it would be worth getting details of this and discussing them centrally under Germanic verb or similar. But apologies if I misled here. --Doric Loon 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect in American and British English

Question: Which of the two sentences in the following pairs below would you consider correct/more natural ? Please also indicate if you are a native speaker of British or American English.

Have you eaten yet ? or Did you eat yet ?

My friends have just arrived. or My friends just arrived.

I've already done that. or I already did that.

Mary's had a baby! It's a boy. or Mary had a baby! It's a boy.

Have you heard the news ? Mary's had twins! or Did you hear the news ? Mary had twins !

I can't play because I've broken my leg. or I can't play because I broke my leg.

My car's broken down. Could you call me a cab ? or My car broke down. Could you call me a taxi ?

I've cut my finger. It's bleeding. or I cut my finger. It's bleeding.

Extensive oil reserves have been found in Alaska. or Extensive oil reserves were found in Alaska.

The president has announced a new proposal to overhaul Social Security. or The president announced a new proposal to overhaul Social Security.

Germany has advanced to the Round of 16 in the ongoing World Cup. or Germany advanced to the Round of 16 in the ongoing World Cup

-- Unsigned by 161.24.19.82 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first alternative seems more natural to me in each case (except perhaps “Mary had a baby” and “Mary had twins”). In some cases the second alternative is almost as good, but in others it seems incomplete without a qualifier specifying when the action took place. I am a native speaker of American English. --teb728 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific on when (other than Mary’s babies) I find the second alternatives natural. I might say but never write (except as a written example of speech), “D'ja eat yet?” “I already did that.” “D'ja hear the news?” and “I can't play 'cause I broke my leg.” And if I am only describing recent events, I could say or write, “My friends just arrived” and “I cut my finger.” In contrast, “My friends have just arrived” and “I've cut my finger” have a meaning more like “My friends are here” and “My finger is cut,” respectively. --teb728 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I am a speaker of British English, and I also find that these are all situations where the present perfect is better. Although there are a couple of them where I would need slightly more context to be sure. We use the present perfect whenever there is focus on the present results of actions, we use it commonly (but not always) with the adverbs "already" and "recently", and we use it when reporting very recent events. It is commonly found in news reports to stress that they are giving the latest situation (Germany has advanced). It is used when describing a situation which needs to be dealt with (I've cut my finger). It is often said that colloquial AE uses it slightly less than colloquial BE: I once even read a comment that the this tense didn't make it across with the pilgrim fathers. But my own observations of my American colleagues' speech do not really bear this out. --Doric Loon 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• As a native speaker of American English, I find the second alternative more natural in most situations. Have is no longer something I use widely as an auxiliary; it feels most at home when it's contracted, and the contraction may represent be as likely as have (My car's broken down). Have is most at home for me in discussions with a specific temporal or potential element: (I've been to Germany, but I've never been to Greece.; Have you ever jumped out of a tree?) Smerdis of Tlön 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panicking

From the article:

If the final consonant of a word subject to the doubling rule is -c, that consonant is doubled as -ck: panic → panicking.

Panic is not subject to the consonant doubling rule because the stress isn't on the final syllable. The reason the k is there is because panicing (and paniced) look like the c is /s/ because of the following i (or e). If it gets a mention at all then it should be in the irregular forms section below, because there are very few other examples of verbs ending in c. I can only think of mimic, and also sic, a verb ending in c that IS subject to the doubling rule, and follows it (siccing). 82.71.1.116 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Picnic - picnicking. --Doric Loon 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated the article.. I didn't mention siccing because it's too long winded to say 'verbs ending in c that aren't subject to the doubling rule' when i can only think of one that is. 82.71.1.116 23:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditionals and Subjunctives

I took the liberty of fleshing out the areas on conditionals, perfect conditionals, and present subjunctives. Please let me know what you think.--Jr mints 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the title "perfect conditional" is not quite accurate since the section makes no mention of the perfect subjunctive but only the pluperfect subjunctive.--Jr mints 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)