0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage
A couple of quickies
Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about:
"After that I might to go the seaside..."
I know that the above should read, 'I might go to the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?
Also:
Which is the correct superlative: 'most ill' or 'illest' as in 'it was the illest/most ill I've ever been'.
Thanks.
"After that I might to go the seaside..."
I know that the above should read, 'I might go to the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?
Also:
Which is the correct superlative: 'most ill' or 'illest' as in 'it was the illest/most ill I've ever been'.
Thanks.
Top answer
lee (Email Removed) wrote on 22 Nov 2003: [nq:1]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about: "After ... [/nq] First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary. Second, the grammar of English requires "go to" or "have gone to" (in this sentence) after the modal aux; the "to"-infinitive is not allowed.
- lee (Email Removed) wrote on 22 Nov 2003: [nq:1]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about: "After ...
- [/nq] First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary.
- Second, the grammar of English requires "go to" or "have gone to" (in this sentence) after the modal aux; the "to"-infinitive is not allowed.
- Third, "might to go (to)" is not idiomatic English in any dialect.
- [/nq] "illest" is the correct form, but most native speakers would probably use "sickest".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
18 Answers
0
lee (Email Removed) wrote on 22 Nov 2003:
[nq:1]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about: "After ... know that the above should read, 'I might go to the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?[/nq]
First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary.
Second, the grammar of English req
[nq:1]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about: "After ... know that the above should read, 'I might go to the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?[/nq]
First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary.
Second, the grammar of English req
00
[nq:1]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar issues that a foreign friend has asked me about: "After ... know that the above should read, 'I might go to the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?[/nq]
Modal verbs those are the ones like must, will, would, shall, should, may and might always take what is called a "bare infinitive", which is the root form of a verb wi
Modal verbs those are the ones like must, will, would, shall, should, may and might always take what is called a "bare infinitive", which is the root form of a verb wi
00
That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.
[nq:1]The rule of thumb is that single-syllable adjectives usually take /-er/ for the comparative and /-est/ for the superlative, two-syllable ... the comparative and "most" or /-est/ for the superlative, and words with three or more syllables take "more" and "most".[/nq]
David
==
[nq:1]The rule of thumb is that single-syllable adjectives usually take /-er/ for the comparative and /-est/ for the superlative, two-syllable ... the comparative and "most" or /-est/ for the superlative, and words with three or more syllables take "more" and "most".[/nq]
David
==
00
david56 (Email Removed) wrote on 22 Nov 2003:
[nq:1]That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.[/nq]
Oops. I guess I should have said that rather than assuming that the poster was an AmE speaker.
[nq:1]That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.[/nq]
Oops. I guess I should have said that rather than assuming that the poster was an AmE speaker.
00
[nq:2]Could someone please help a layman with these two grammar ... the seaside', but how can I explain why it's wrong?[/nq]
[nq:1]First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary. Second, the grammar of English requires "go to" or "have gone to" (in this sentence) after the modal aux; the "to"-infinitive is not allowed.[/nq]
Um, are these supposed to be tw
[nq:1]First, "might" is a modal auxiliary here and "to" never follows a modal auxiliary. Second, the grammar of English requires "go to" or "have gone to" (in this sentence) after the modal aux; the "to"-infinitive is not allowed.[/nq]
Um, are these supposed to be tw
00
"Aaron J. Dinkin" (Email Removed) wrote on 23 Nov 2003:
[nq:1]Um, are these supposed to be two different explanations, or restatements of the same explanation? I can't figure out what the difference between them is, if there is one.[/nq]
The first one is more general than the second. I realize what follows the semi-colon in the second is essentially a restatement of the first with the addi
[nq:1]Um, are these supposed to be two different explanations, or restatements of the same explanation? I can't figure out what the difference between them is, if there is one.[/nq]
The first one is more general than the second. I realize what follows the semi-colon in the second is essentially a restatement of the first with the addi
00
[nq:2]"illest" is the correct form, but most native speakers would probably use "sickest".[/nq]
[nq:1]That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.[/nq]
It's not necessarily an AmE viewpoint; most native speakers of English speak American English, so the statement is accurate wrt to the English speakers globally.
[nq:1]That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.[/nq]
It's not necessarily an AmE viewpoint; most native speakers of English speak American English, so the statement is accurate wrt to the English speakers globally.
00
[nq:2]That is an American English viewpoint - "ill" is more common in UK English.[/nq]
[nq:1]It's not necessarily an AmE viewpoint; most native speakers of English speak American English, so the statement is accurate wrt to the English speakers globally.[/nq]
That bears some proof - if you add the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand to the native English speakers of Canada, Singapore, S
[nq:1]It's not necessarily an AmE viewpoint; most native speakers of English speak American English, so the statement is accurate wrt to the English speakers globally.[/nq]
That bears some proof - if you add the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand to the native English speakers of Canada, Singapore, S
00
[nq:1]Aha - the CIA factbook has this for the world's "first language" speakers: Chinese, Mandarin 14.37%, Hindi 6.02%, English 5.61%, ... billion is 336 million. That's just silly as it's not the sum of the USA and UK populations. Who knows?[/nq]
You're going to trust the CIA?
A partial answer may be that many millions of residents of the US do not have English as their first language. It
You're going to trust the CIA?
A partial answer may be that many millions of residents of the US do not have English as their first language. It
00
[nq:2]Aha - the CIA factbook has this for the world's ... the sum of the USA and UK populations. Who knows?[/nq]
[nq:1]You're going to trust the CIA?[/nq]
Trust? No. Take note of? Yes.
[nq:1]A partial answer may be that many millions of residents of the US do not have English as their first ... I think I could legitimately argue that my father's first language was Yiddish, although his
[nq:1]You're going to trust the CIA?[/nq]
Trust? No. Take note of? Yes.
[nq:1]A partial answer may be that many millions of residents of the US do not have English as their first ... I think I could legitimately argue that my father's first language was Yiddish, although his
0
Related Questions