[Grammar] Removing the auxiliaries from the sentence

[Venus.jam]

Dear teachers,

In the following sentences we are supposed to remove auxiliaries from the sentences and maintain the same tense in the original sentences.


1. I have wanted to see the Grand Canyon.

(The present perfect of the auxiliary verb “want” is “have wanted “. I wonder if we should remove only “want” as an auxiliary or its present perfect form as a whole (i.e. have wanted). After that, in order to maintain the tense of the original sentence, shall we change the main verb “see” to “have seen”? Or to see?

2. My son hadn’t been able to repair his car yet.

(Again, in this sentence shall we omit “hadn’t been able to” altogether as the present perfect form of “can” and then shall we change the main verb “repair” to “hadn’t repaired “ or didn’t repair? in order to maintain the tense of the original sentence?

Thanks in advance

 

[Venus.jam]

It was as “Remove the auxiliaries from the following sentences and rewrite them appropriately. Maintain the same tense as in the original sentence.”

 

[jutfrank]

I would be tempted to follow the instructions exactly.

So then remove the auxiliaries (which are have and had, respectively) and then try to change the sentences to make present tense for the first and past tense for the second.

But that may not be what the question setter had in mind.

 

[PaulMatthews]

It was as “Remove the auxiliaries from the following sentences and rewrite them appropriately. Maintain the same tense as in the original sentence.”

When you're attempting to rewrite them, do remember that the perfect is a past tense.

 

[jutfrank]

When you're attempting to rewrite them, do remember that the perfect is a past tense.

The present perfect has present tense with perfect aspect.

 

[jutfrank]

That's my view, but PaulMatthews is not alone in considering HAVE+past participle a past tense.

Yes, I know. But that's not the generally agreed upon view of ESL teachers.

 

[PaulMatthews]

The present perfect has present tense with perfect aspect.

Some grammarians do consider the perfect to be an aspect

I think it is better to say that English has two tense systems: an inflectional system contrasting preterite and present, and an independent analytic tense system contrasting perfect and non-perfect, where non-perfect is not a tense but the absence of perfect tense. The perfect tense can combine with preterite and present tense but can also occur in clauses without inflectional tense.

Many grammarians consider that preterite and perfect are both instances of the more general tense 'past'. Preterite is the primary (inflectional) past tense, while perfect is the secondary (analytic) past tense.

 

[jutfrank]

Some grammarians do consider the perfect to be an aspect

I think it is better to say that English has two tense systems: an inflectional system contrasting preterite and present, and an independent analytic tense system contrasting perfect and non-perfect, where non-perfect is not a tense but the absence of perfect tense. The perfect tense can combine with preterite and present tense but can also occur in clauses without inflectional tense.

Many grammarians consider that preterite and perfect are both instances of the more general tense 'past'. Preterite is the primary (inflectional) past tense, while perfect is the secondary (analytic) past tense.

Okay, but let's remember that this forum is primarily for ESL teachers and learners. As ESL teachers, it is our job to give the most helpful/useful answer according to the needs of the learner. The most accurate/complete answer is not necessarily the best answer, and the views of modern grammarians are not often relevant to the kind of 'practical grammar' that we ESL teachers prescribe.

I'm guessing here that the person who has written the instructions for this task was probably not thinking of an independent analytic tense system.

 

[PaulMatthews]

The OP made no mention of 'aspect', but they did of tense.

I can assure you that a great many ESL students are taught that the perfect is a tense. There are many resources on the 'Net that confirm that.

 

[Tdol]

But many are also taught that will is the future tense.

 

[Venus.jam]

As I have not got answer to my question, I’d really appreciate it if you could give me the answer to the above mentioned 2 sentences. What would the correct answer to two sentences above considering the instruction of the book.

 

[Venus.jam]

Sorry, what do you mean by that?
I’ve been taught that we have only three tenses in English (present, past, future) and perfect forms are aspects and not tenses. Is this correct?


How should we answer the above mentioned exercise in that book?

 

[Venus.jam]

Thank you for your reply. Do you mean that the book is wrong?
But that book has considered verbs such as “want, need, can” as auxiliaries and it has stated that the past perfect form of them are as “had wanted, had needed, had been able to”
so shall we remove “have wanted” and “hadn’t been able to “ altogether?

which one of the following answers to the exercise is correct?

I see the Grand Canyon.
I have seen the Grand Canyon.


My son didn’t repair his car yet.
My son hadn’t repair his car yet.

 

[Tarheel]

I see the Grand Canyon.
I have seen the Grand Canyon.


My son didn’t repair his car yet.
My son hadn’t repair his car yet.

Do you know how to fix the last two?

 

[Tarheel]

want
I want a car.
I want a pizza.
I want a hamburger.
I want some help.
I want some juice.

need
I need a new pair of shoes.
I need a nap.
I need a friend.
I need a loan.
I need some help.

:?:

 

[Venus.jam]

The following answers to the above mentioned exercise has been taken from “writing better English for ESL learners book”. The book has removed the auxiliaries from the following sentences and at the same time as it’s claimed, it has remained the same tense in the original sentences. Are they correct or is the book wrong? I’m really confused.

1. The tourists wanted to go to the museum early. (Original sentence)

The tourists go to the museum early. (After dropping the auxiliary)

2. We don’t want to go to the movies. (Original)

We don’t go to the movies.

3. After supper we needed to take a nap.

After supper we took a nap.

4. Theresa hasn’t been able to help her grandmother this week.

Theresa hasn’t helped her grandmother this week.

5. I have wanted to see the Grand Canyon. (Original)

I see the Grand Canyon. (After removing the auxiliary)

6. My nephew didn’t repair his car yet. (Original)

My nephew didn’t repair his car yet. (After dropping the auxiliary)


This exercise is really confusing ��

 

[PaulMatthews]

The book (writing better English for ESL learners) as an example has removed the auxiliary from the following sentence and at the same time as it’s claimed remained the same tense in the original sentence:

The tourists wanted to go to the museum early. (Original sentence) The tourists go to the museum early. (After dropping the auxiliary)

This exercise is really confusing ��

"Wanted" is not an auxiliary verb, but a catenative one. You have already been told that. In any case, the tense has changed: your first example is past tense, the second present tense. You've been told that too.

I suggest you ignore the book!

 

[Tarheel]

want
I want a car.
I want a pizza.
I want a hamburger.
I want some help.
I want some juice.

need
I need a new pair of shoes.
I need a nap.
I need a friend.
I need a loan.
I need some help.

:?:

Don: Ron, what was the point of that post?
Ron: I wanted to demonstrate that want and need are not auxiliary verbs. As you can see, they do the job on their own in those sentences.
Don: You're right. In fact, they are catenary verbs.
Ron: Wow! That's a mouthful!
Don: Isn't it though?

 

[Tarheel]

My son didn't repair his car yet.

Ron: That's not a good sentence.
Don: But it's in the book.
Ron: No matter! It's not a good sentence. However, if you remove the word "yet" it's natural, grammatical, and it makes sense.
Don: Wow! A trifecta!

 

[emsr2d2]

The following answers to the above-mentioned exercise [STRIKE]has[/STRIKE] have been taken from the book “Writing Better English for ESL Learners". [STRIKE]book”.[/STRIKE]

The book has removed the auxiliaries from the following sentences and at the same time, [STRIKE]as it’s claimed[/STRIKE] it claims, it has retained the same tense as in the original sentences. Are they correct or is the book wrong? I’m really confused.

Note my corrections above.