It sounds very strained, or like something from an old book. It is not a sentence that would be used in modern English. The pattern seems to work better when the verb following is "be".
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
shcho23It it's not suitable in modern English, was it in Old English?Does that matter?
shcho23Why is the sentence structure grammatically incorrect?Because native speakers do not accept it as correct. There is often no logical reason why one structured may be accepted when another is not.
shcho23It it's not suitable in modern English, was it in Old English?Old English? You don't want to go there. Only a very small minority of people on this planet can read and understand Old English, let alone tell you what was grammatical in Old English a thousand or more years ago. Here's some Old English:
shcho23It it's not suitable in modern English, was it in Old English?Note that there is a difference between "Old English" and "old English". Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, is, as CalfJim says, from a thousand and more years ago, and is mostly incomprehensible now except to specialists. "old English", which I expect is what you mean, could be English from any p
shcho23The guy who told me that the sentence was right is an English teacher (at a prominent college) here in my country.And I absolutely disagree with him, so I wanted to know why it's wrong by asking it here."think" never comes up in any list of catenative verbs that follow that particular pattern.