Teacher Discussion Forums

In the old ancient days, we used to call words like "does (Does he have a pen?)" "did" (Did he go to school?) "is" (Is he washing the clothes?) "was" (Was he driving the car?) etc. "auxiliary verbs" or "helping verbs." What's the current PC term for them? (I'm not looking for all the exceptions, just what is generally used these days. Of course you can add the exceptions too .)

Hi Lorikeet,

I don't know what the "proper" term is, or even the current favorite. But I can say that I personally prefer to call them auxiliaries. Not auxiliary verbs. The reason is that if they are called auxiliary verbs, then it appears that they are some kind of verb. However, they don't behave like verbs. They don't take a -s in the 3sg. They don't take objects. They are not inflected in the same way or for the same reasons that verbs are. It seems a real stretch to call them verbs (of any kind). What do you think? Does that sound like a good enough reason not to call them auxiliary verbs?

Helpers might be OK, but not helping verbs, for the same reason.

Larry Latham

However, they don't behave like verbs. They don't take a -s in the 3sg.

Does he like coffee?
Is he listening?
Was he speaking?

Did doesn't take an s because verbs only take an s in the 3rd person singular of the Present Simple Affirmative, and no verb does in the Past.

Oops,

I guess I was thinking about the modal auxiliaries when I wrote that. They do not take the -s.

I still assert, however, that auxiliaries do not behave like verbs, and are therefore better not called auxiliary verbs. For example, auxiliaries co-occur with verbs in a verb phrase, whereas two verbs cannot co-occur in the same verb phrase. Auxiliaries are used as operators in the formation of negatives, and several varieties of tags. Verbs (excluding (be) and sometimes (have)) are not.

All of this leads me to think it best to leave the appellation "verb" off the label we use for these words.

Larry Latham

I can't agree with this view of "auxiliaries".

The fact is, that they siphon off the verb markers (person, tense) from their accompanying verb to the point that they indeed usurp the role of verb. What they leave behind for the original principal verb to express is
aspect.

He goes to school >- he does go to school/he is going to school
She saw the show >- she has/had seen/been seeing the show

Harzer

Harzer wrote:What they leave behind for the original principal verb to express is aspect.

He goes to school >- he does go to school/he is going to school
She saw the show >- she has/had seen/been seeing the show

Where are the auxiliaries in your examples?

He is going to school - where is the verb being helped?

She had seen the show. - had has aspect but it's not an auxiliary, just the past perfect.

He is going to go to school.
She had to see the film.

Do these examples have aspect?
Iain

Dduck!

Firstly I should say that by "aspect" I mean continuous or not continuous.

The auxiliary verbs are {do}, {have} and {be}.

When they are used with a regular verb they assume the grammatical role of that verb in showing person and tense. The regular verb may now show aspect.

he goes >- he is going
go is now no longer marked for tense or person, but does show continuous aspect.

>- he does go
go is no longer marked at all

>- he has gone
go now shows only aspect.

Re your two sentences:

He is going to go to school has the auxiliary verb {be} in the present tense showing third pserson singular.

she had to see the film has no auxiliary verb because here had is not taking the place of another verb but is being used with regular dictionary meaning of "to have to'.

Harzer

Harzer,

Your point is well taken with regard to [have] and [be]. You point out that these auxiliaries combine with verbs to form aspects. However, your analysis breaks down when it comes to consideration of [do]. It is characteristic of aspect that it reveals the speaker's interpretation of the temporal elements of the event. It is clear that verb phrases formed with [be] and the ‘-ing’ form of a verb show the speaker as interpreting the event as “continuous”, that is, having a temporary duration.

She’s taking a test.
They’re eating lunch.
I’m writing a letter to my girlfriend.

Similarly, verb phrases formed with [have] and the past participle form of a verb show the speaker as interpreting the event as “retrospective”, that is, looking back (in time) upon the event. This can be done from three different points-of-view, namely, from a point in present time, or a point in past time, or a point in future time.

He has gone home.
They had been there before.
Robert will have left before she gets there.

Your point about the auxiliary taking on markers in place of the verb is very interesting. I have not heard it explained that way before, and acknowledge that it seems to be true. That even seems to be the case with [do], although [do] does not mark aspect like the other auxiliaries you mentioned.

She does go to school every day.
They do work hard.
He did come home late last night.

These sentences do not show the speaker's temporal interpretation of the events; hence the verb phrases in them are not marked for aspect. Perhaps this is what you meant when you said that “go” in “he does go” is no longer marked at all. That’s quite correct. The verb form used is the basic, or infinitive form (without “to”). This form is also used whenever a modal auxiliary is used in a verb phrase.

Sure, he can come over tomorrow.
Could you pass the salt please?
They will be home by now.
I might take a walk in the morning.
May I help you?

Modal auxiliaries, in addition, do not take on 'person' markers for verbs as do [have] and [be] and [do] when they are used as auxiliaries. Since there are nine of them, and only three of the others, I guess I was thinking of the ‘typical’ case when I suggested they do not accept person markers. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Because, however, it is more 'typical' for auxiliaries not to take on characteristics of verbs, it is still my contention that we are better off calling them auxiliaries rather than auxiliary verbs!

Larry Latham

Hi Larry!

I certainly can't argue with your contention that the word "auxiliary" adequately covers all the cases you have mentioned, because it would be overstating the case to call the modals "verbs".
The only difference between the modal group and the others is perhaps that the former have semantic weight - in fact, I would be happy to put the auxiliary {do} in with the modals for this reason (an emphatic modal!) and because its partner verb can not show aspect, if it were not for the fact that it carries person marking.

Harzer[/b]