0
Eddie88 Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Quick question
I have worked=
Subject=I
Auxillary=have
Past particple=worked
The first verb of a chain of verbs gives the tense (I have been seen), and the auxillary verb gives the tense for non-finite verbs.
Non-finite verb forms cannot be the main verbs in a clause-this is where the auxillary verb is the main verb.
However, in this sentence above, If I omit the auxillary verb I am left with the subject and the past participle. But the sentence is still a complete clause even though the auxillary verb has been omitted!
I worked- How is this a complete sentence when the non-finite verb is all that is present; that is, there is no auxillary verb.
Is it only the ing form of the participle which cannot be the main verb?
Thanks.
Subject=I
Auxillary=have
Past particple=worked
The first verb of a chain of verbs gives the tense (I have been seen), and the auxillary verb gives the tense for non-finite verbs.
Non-finite verb forms cannot be the main verbs in a clause-this is where the auxillary verb is the main verb.
However, in this sentence above, If I omit the auxillary verb I am left with the subject and the past participle. But the sentence is still a complete clause even though the auxillary verb has been omitted!
I worked- How is this a complete sentence when the non-finite verb is all that is present; that is, there is no auxillary verb.
Is it only the ing form of the participle which cannot be the main verb?
Thanks.
Top answer
Hi Eddie Though I admit I wasn't actually able to follow your question very well, I think your first sentence probably could have been better chosen. Would you still have the same question if your original sentence had been "I have driven"?
- Hi Eddie Though I admit I wasn't actually able to follow your question very well, I think your first sentence probably could have been better chosen.
- Would you still have the same question if your original sentence had been "I have driven"?
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
Hi Eddie
Though I admit I wasn't actually able to follow your question very well, I think your first sentence probably could have been better chosen. Would you still have the same question if your original sentence had been "I have driven"?
Though I admit I wasn't actually able to follow your question very well, I think your first sentence probably could have been better chosen. Would you still have the same question if your original sentence had been "I have driven"?
00
Eddie:
What you are describing is the simple past tense.
For the verb work, the past participle and the past are exactly the same. This is the case for all regular verbs.
(work, working, worked, worked)
The past and past participle can be different for the irregular verbs: for example - go, going, went, gone.
I have gone
I gone - is not correct! The simpl
What you are describing is the simple past tense.
For the verb work, the past participle and the past are exactly the same. This is the case for all regular verbs.
(work, working, worked, worked)
The past and past participle can be different for the irregular verbs: for example - go, going, went, gone.
I have gone
I gone - is not correct! The simpl
00
Eddie88 If I omit the auxillary verb I am left with the subject and the past participle.No. See my other post on this. If you omit have, you are left with the subject and the past tense of the verb.
CJ
00
Oh alright.
Is this correct then?
I have worked= worked is the past participle here
If I were to omit the auxillary the word worked now just becomes the past form of the verb walk and, therefore, is still grammatically correct.
Is this correct?
Thanks.
Is this correct then?
I have worked= worked is the past participle here
If I were to omit the auxillary the word worked now just becomes the past form of the verb walk and, therefore, is still grammatically correct.
Is this correct?
Thanks.
00
Related Questions