|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Grammar and Linguistics > Auxiliary Verb ´was ´
Auxiliary Verb ´was ´
|
MichaelaD
|
Auxiliary Verb ´was ´
|
Ok -
She was frequently late
to be late
is this ´be ´ an auxiliary verb or a main verb?
I ask, because when using ´not only ´ we invert the auxiliary
Not only was she frequently late, but she also......
Thankyou in advance,
Michaela
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
|
Mishuna
|
"Be" is a copulative verb and "late" is the subjective complement...it describes the subject "She"...
At least, that ´s what I know...
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
|
|
lacorinita
|
|
I think that there no other option than WAS, as the main verb of the sentence.
I think that the use of the inversion, as you said with NOT ONLY... is just a matter of emphasis, at least that was what I was taught at university.
Good night everyone!!!  |
8 May 2009
|
|
|
miss noor
|
|
Was is the main verb in this sentece
Good night
Noor |
8 May 2009
|
|
|
Jayho
|
|
´She was frequently late ´ - ´was ´ is the main verb of this sentence and in this sentence inversion does not apply.
Consider: She was frequently late and sometimes she didn ´t turn up. ´Was ´ is now an auxilliary. Therefore if you add ´not only ´ then it is no longer the main verb and is thus inverted to become ´Not only was she frequently late (but also) sometimes she didn ´t turn up ´
´Not only ...but also ´ is not common in our day to day speaking. As a native speaker I only use it to emphasize my point: "Not only do I not use it (but also) I don ´t like it"
"I don ´t only not use it. I (just) don ´t like it!" |
8 May 2009
|
|
|
Abdelhadi
|
|
Well, I ´m pretty sure that the verb "be" in this sentence is the main verb and not an auxiliary verb.
She was frequently late
(S) (M. V) (M. Adv) (M. Adv)
An auxiliary verb is also called a helping verb since its role is to help the main verb in a sentence. Thus, an auxiliary verb can ´t stand alone. It always needs to be with the main verb so that it can perform its role. Here, however, we have just one verb which is (be "was"). This automatically indicates that it is the main verb of the sentence rather than an auxiliary verb.
Let ´s give another example in order to make things clearer. Consider the following example:
She frequently arrived late
(S) (F. Adv) (M. V) (M. Adv)
(S) = Subject
(Aux. V) = Auxiliary Verb
(M. V) = Main Verb
(F. Adv) = Frequency Adverb
(M. Adv) = Adverb of Manner
Here, the verb "arrive" is the main verb too. It can ´t be an auxiliary verb since it ´s alone and auxiliary verbs can ´t stand alone in a sentence.
Now let ´s consider the following sentence:
She didn ´t frequently arrive late
(S) (Aux. V) (F. Adv) (M. V) (M. Adv)
In this sentence, there are two verbs ("do" and "arrive"). the verb "arrive" is the main verb as it can stand alone while the verb "do" is the auxiliary verb which can ´t stand alone in the sentence. It is there to help the main verb to express negation.
As for the other example you stated, the form ´not only ... but.. ´ can be used in a sentence with one main verb or more by inverting the auxiliary and the main verb if the main verb of that sentence is not the verb to be.
For example:
1- "She frequently arrived late" may become "Not only did she arrive late..." Here, we invert the aux. and the main verb because the main verb is not the verb to be.
2- "She was frequently late" may become "Not only was she frequently late..." Here, the case is different, so you don ´t need to invert the aux. and the main verb since the main verb is the verb to be and it is not common to have the verb to be as an auxiliary verb and also as the main verb. So a sentence like this will be considered grammatically incorrect : "Not only was she is frequently late..."
Hope this helps!
Thats all what I know
Thanx for your attention
Abdelhadi
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
Abdelhadi
|
|
You said:
Consider: She was frequently late and sometimes she didn´t turn up. ´Was´ is now an auxilliary. Therefore if you add ´not only´ then it is no longer the main verb and is thus inverted to become ´Not only was she frequently late (but also) sometimes she didn´t turn up´
Well, I ´m not a native speaker and In my country I ´m teaching English as an EFL since English is the fourth spoken language here, but I don ´t think that "was" in the example that you stated above is an auxiliary verb. We have two independent clauses joined by the coordinator "and", so the first clause which is a sentence itself can ´t have an auxiliary verb alone. It needs to help another verb. Also, when you use the form "not only ...", you still have two independent sentences, so there is no room to say that "was" there becomes an auxiliary verb.
Have a good night
Abdelhadi
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
don´t know how to CANCEL this account
|
|
I ´m not a native english speaker either but I agree with Abdelhadi. In Argentina, I teach English as a second language and I ´m pretty sure I would never say to a student that "WAS" in the sentence: "She WAS frequently late and sometimes she didn ´t turn up " -....functions as an auxiliary. It is the main verb to my knowledge. And with the inversion "Not only was she.....it ´s just emphasis but still functions as the main verb... at least, that ´s what I was taught!..
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
MichaelaD
|
Hello and many thanks to all the replies -
Yes - it seems most logical that ´to be ´ past tense in this case cannot be an auxiliary verb since it does not help any other verb in the sentence ´ she was frequently late ´
The thing that got me confused, was that in the text book it says ´invert the auxiliary and subject ´ but in this case of course there is no auxiliary - so the question was - how does one explain this to students.
So, after all your great replies, I guess the answer would be:
´ Invert the subject and auxiliary if there is an auxiliary verb ´
´Add DID/DO as an auxiliary and invert it with the main verb (which changes its base form) ´ i.e she ran every morning and lifted weights - would become ´not only did she run every morning but she also....
But when the verbs ´to be ´ or ´to have ´ are the main verbs - one cannot add an auxiliary, and therefore it is the main verb and the subject which are inverted. (i.e she has a stopwatch - not only has she a stopwatch...., she was frequently late - not only was she frequently late....)
Right I ´ve think I ´ve worked things out in my own head. Please read and check if you are interested, and many thanks.
Michaela
|
8 May 2009
|
|
|
Abdelhadi
|
|
Everything you said is correct and this means that you ´ve understood the grammatical point explained above. However, one of your statements are not correct and I hope that you still haven ´t explained the lesson to your students. Well, you said:
But when the verbs ´to be ´ or ´to have ´ are the main verbs - one cannot add an auxiliary, and therefore it is the main verb and the subject which are inverted. (i.e she has a stopwatch - not only has she a stopwatch...., she was frequently late - not only was she frequently late....)
I wonder why did you include the verb ´to have ´ here. All what you said can be applied just to the verb ´to be ´ when it is the main verb in the sentence and not to the verb ´to have ´ because the verb ´to have ´ is just like the rest of the verbs (in the perfect tense "to have" can be used as an auxiliary verb "have/has/had" but now we are speaking about the present/past only.)
So the example that you provided is grammatically incorrect (she has a stopwatch - not only has she a stopwatch....) and the correct way of saying that example would be to add the auxiliary and then invert it with the main verb (to have "has") = (i.e she has a stopwatch - not only does she have a stopwatch....). As I said, the verb "to have" is like the rest of the other verbs when we are using the present or past tenses.
This is the same when we have that sentence in the past (i.e she had a stopwatch = not only did she have a stopwatch....) We add the auxiliary then we invert it with the main verb.
And this is the same when you have other verbs like "arrive", for example:
Present: (she arrives at a bus station - not only does she arrive at a bus station....)
Past: (she arrived at a bus station - not only did she arrive at a bus station....)
Which means that the auxiliary must always agree with the tense of the main verb. If the main verb is in the past, the auxiliary should be in the past and if the main verb is in the presentt, the auxiliary should be in the present (taking into account the third person singular wich changes in the present simple.)
I hope this is clear now
Thanx and have a good day
Abdelhadi
|
8 May 2009
|
|
1
2
Next >
|
(*waves* to Silke)