-s after will or would

Question

Dear All,

1) She will bring the card to school tomorrow.
2) She will brings the card to school tomorrow.

May i know why after will/would, there is no need to add a -s to the verb. And is it true that the verb must be past tense after the use of 'will be'. For example, will be relocate & will be changed

Many thanks for the assistance.

EnglishFanatic · Accepted Answer

I think first one is correct. How I know after will always verb in basic form. I not guarantee.....

Buggah · Answer

Only number 1 is correct. The main verb (the one that comes after the modal verb--will, would, could, can, etc.) is always in the infinitive (without "to").

Regarding to your second question, you must use a participle form of the verb to make compound tenses and not it's past tense form, as you proposed. The participle form may also be used as an adjective. See the examples:

- I will be traveling to Brazil next month. (present participle)
- Everything will be changed by tomorrow. (past participle)
- She is gone. (not went)
- Justice will be done.

Whl626 · Answer

Don't get mixed up with ' past tense ' and ' past participle '.

One of the usages of past participle is its being used in the passive voice.

eg. The admin will change the rule soon. ( active voice )

The rule will be changed by the admin soon. ( passive voice ) and changed is the past participle.

No s after will would can could shall should, the very basic rule of English. If you insist on getting an explanation. We can say that because they serve as part of the verb that is called ' auxilliary verb '.

eg. He will make a post. ( will serves as part of the verb as make ) , both will and make form a verb for the sentence.

Pemmican · Answer

I guess I should maybe explain this:

The reason is not a grammatical one, eg that they are auxiliaries, but sooner a historical one:
(It's a bit difficult but be patient while I'm trying to explain it ***)

Ok here we go:

First of all you certainly have seen, that, beside the missing -s for 3rd person singular "present tense", these verbs also either have no or at least no "real" past tense form:

I can - I could
I may - I might
I shall - I should
I must - -/-

(I'll take the verb "can" now as an example) and I'll come back to this later - first another aspect:

As you might know the so called strong verbs are the older ones, while the weak and regular verbs (that build their past tense forms and past participles by adding -ed to the stem) are the newer ones in the history of language.
The strong verbs use the "Ablaut" for building the past tense i.e. instead of adding "-ed" to the stem, they change the stems-vowel in order to get a new form:

strong: fall - fell, run - ran, grow - grew, etc.
weak: fell - felled, work - worked, live - lived, etc.

The vowel-changes for strong verbs usually follow a regular pattern e.g.

drive-drove-driven goes exactly like ride-rode-ridden or like write-wrote-written (i-o-i)
and sing-sang-sung goes exactly like drink-drank-drunk or sink-sank-sunk (i-a-u)
etc.
(Try it out with other verbs if you want to, you'll see you usually find another verb that also fits in that row)

Now compare the forms of "can" and "run" to each other:
Pay attention to where and when an -s is added to 3rd person singular!

PRESENT TENSE +++ PAST TENSE +++ "PRESENT TENSE"
I run ------------------ I ran --------------- I can
you run --------------- you ran ----------- you can
he run+s ------------- he ran ------------- he can (!!)
we run ---------------- we ran ------------ we can
you run --------------- you ran ----------- you can
they run -------------- they ran ----------- they can

As you now can notice, the stem vowel of the past tense of "run" is the same as the stem vowel of the present tense of "can" - beside this, their forms are quite the same, including the missing -s for 3rd person singular.

What I want to show by this is, that (even if it sounds quite strange):
The present tense forms of the verb "can" are actually its past tense forms!!

The verbs belonging to this group are called "Preterite-Presents" i.e. that the former past tense forms of these verbs now appear as their present tense forms.

The explanation for this is that some time long ago, the past tense forms of a few verbs took over the present-tense meaning while the original present tense forms got lost.

Past tense forms never add an -s for 3rd person singular (he took, he went, he ran, he saw, he sang...), therefore there is also no -s added to the forms of the Preterite-Presents, just because of the fact that they actually are former past tense forms.

Now, that there hasn't been a past tense form any longer for these verbs, a new form was needed - so special new ones had to be created or, if not possible, needed to be paraphrased.

"can" e.g. therefore now has "could" or "was able to" as its past tense forms.
The forms of "may" are "might" and "was allowed to", the form of must is "had to".

Even if it is a bit confusing, I hope I could have helped you out a bit!!

EnglishFanatic · Answer

2 Pemmican:

I've got much cognitive and interesting information from your post. Thanks.

Pemmican · Answer

You're very welcome, I just hope I could explain it understandable ***

Cya soon!

Car panda 874 · Answer

it will brings change

is us a correct sentence/ if incorrect why

-s after will or would

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions