Can anyone tell me the special features that distinguish verb-to-do and verb-to-be?
Thanks!
Verbs
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I am not a hundred percent sure what you are expecting to read, so forgive me if I fail in my attempt.
"Special features" seems to me to imply that you do not want to read about what these verbs have in common with other verbs. So I will attempt to explain what sets them apart from the majority of verbs:
- To do is an auxiliary verb used to form negative statements in
combination with 'not'.
To do also is an auxiliary verb in most question sentences ("do you
understand?").
These are, in my view, the 'special features'; however, 'to do' also can function as an ordinary full verb, in which case it has no special features ("I do!", "I do not do it.")
The 'special features' of the verb 'to be':
It too can act as an auxiliary. Its auxiliary function can be seen in sentences that use the present continuous form ("I am trying to explain..."). This is also true of similar statements in the past tense ("I was trying to explain...").
Note that 'to be' can also be a full verb as in: "I am a teacher".
So you can see that the 'special features' I listed here all refer to syntactic functions. A lexial specialty of the verb 'to be' might be the fact that it comes in three present tense forms (am, are, is), and two past tense forms (was, were); all other full verbs and auxiliary verbs (but no modal verbs!) have two present tense forms (do, does), and one past tense form (did).
"Special features" seems to me to imply that you do not want to read about what these verbs have in common with other verbs. So I will attempt to explain what sets them apart from the majority of verbs:
- To do is an auxiliary verb used to form negative statements in
combination with 'not'.
To do also is an auxiliary verb in most question sentences ("do you
understand?").
These are, in my view, the 'special features'; however, 'to do' also can function as an ordinary full verb, in which case it has no special features ("I do!", "I do not do it.")
The 'special features' of the verb 'to be':
It too can act as an auxiliary. Its auxiliary function can be seen in sentences that use the present continuous form ("I am trying to explain..."). This is also true of similar statements in the past tense ("I was trying to explain...").
Note that 'to be' can also be a full verb as in: "I am a teacher".
So you can see that the 'special features' I listed here all refer to syntactic functions. A lexial specialty of the verb 'to be' might be the fact that it comes in three present tense forms (am, are, is), and two past tense forms (was, were); all other full verbs and auxiliary verbs (but no modal verbs!) have two present tense forms (do, does), and one past tense form (did).
-
chungapple
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:44 pm
Thanks!
Yes, you are right. By special features, I mean diffferences between these types of verbs. But, by verb-to-do, I actually mean " action verbs ", as different from the verb-to-be " is, am, are ".
Some of my students make mistakes like " is make " , " was make " ,
" can made " and " I am afraided" , " I was happied" .
I just want to figure out the reasons behind these mistakes. Is it due to a confusion between these two types of verbs?
Yes, you are right. By special features, I mean diffferences between these types of verbs. But, by verb-to-do, I actually mean " action verbs ", as different from the verb-to-be " is, am, are ".
Some of my students make mistakes like " is make " , " was make " ,
" can made " and " I am afraided" , " I was happied" .
I just want to figure out the reasons behind these mistakes. Is it due to a confusion between these two types of verbs?