Let us visualize the logic we have worked so far. We have combined our core verbs (be, have, do, will), the grammatical time (PRESENT, PAST, FUTURE), and tense patterns (Simple, Progressive, and Perfect).
Visuals can help mindwork. We may picture colorful extents. One extent may convey the Aspect — Simple, Progressive, or Perfect.
In CHAPTER 4, we gave the Aspect cognitive mapping values, for the sake of a better language economy:
Simple: {ON}
Progressive: {IN}
Perfect: {TO}.
Another extent can symbolize the grammatical Time — the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE.
We need one more logical quality in our picture, to be able to affirm, deny, or ask questions. With the regard, grammars recognize the Affirmative, Negative, and Interrogative. The can make our third logical capability, Expression.
We yet do not visualize Expression as one extent.
Why is it we can picture the Aspect as one extent? Our mapping values work together, as we saw in CHAPTER 4. We cannot be {IN} an area of a cognitive map, without being {ON} it. CHAPTER 8 shows we can combine the values {IN} and {TO}, and make our fourth mapping variable, {AT}.
Why is it we can visualize the grammatical time as one extent? We can never work the PAST or FUTURE without our PRESENT. Part 4 of the grammar journey shows how to make the nodi of time.
The word nodus comes from Latin. It also could mean the knot we make, as when we tie our shoes.
However, there are no “Affirmative Interrogative” structures, or syntax for a “Negative Affirmative”. We only may join the Negative and Interrogative, into the Negative Interrogative.
Our visuals can combine extents.
We can set our third logical effect in the foreground of our picture.
Let us now have a look at the making of language patterns, for the Affirmative, Interrogative, Negative, and Negative Interrogative.
We can talk about Bob and Jemma.
Feel welcome to meet them
OFF THE RECORD.
We are within the PRESENT time compass now.
Simple: Jemma learns.
Progressive: Bob is reading.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma have worked on language.
We are remaining in our PRESENT time extent, and look at the Interrogative.
Simple: Does Jemma worry?
Progressive: Is Bob reverberating?
Perfect: Have Bob and Jemma failed?
Let us make observations. In our human and logical potential for asking questions, the elements move. Grammars name it the inversion.
Jemma is helping Bob.
Is Jemma helping Bob?
To grasp inversion, let us think about verbals and nominals. Verbals can make verb phrases, as in tense patterns. Nominals can make noun phrases.
Language forms as to play, to be playing, is playing, or having played are verbals. Verbals can tell what there is, happens, or what someone or something does.
Language forms as a game, a card game, or the game of the Sound are nominals. Nominals can answer the question Who or What?
(We can learn the game in Part 4 of our journey).
The nominal and the verbal are roles. Let us see them marked for a phrase as
The verb “to be” is an irregular verb:
NOMINAL (What?): The verb “to be”
VERBAL: is
NOMINAL (What?): an irregular verb.
Our color code works those roles, not isolated words.
I am a learner.
I am learning.
American English (the same as any English) is an SVO (SUBJECT―VERB―OBJECT) language. To affirm, we begin with the subject and follow up with the verb, which we may complement with an object.
If we agree to make subjects from nominals, we can have word movement generally for a highlight.
In the famous To be or not to be, that is the question, by Shakespeare, the nominal, the question, is the SUBJECT, only the order of words is changed, for the sake of style. This is why generative grammars recognize language deep structures.
The question is, to be or not to be.
Otherwise, we might have difficulty, in telling the verb from the name for it:
Is the verb “to be” an irregular verb?
To be or not to be, that is the question.
Stylistic movement of words is not anything extraordinary. We may compare Exercise 14 in SUB-CHAPTER 4.2. The auxiliary can take a feature, as –ES, and go before a nominal, or after a pronoun.
The orchard has a little nut tree.
A little nut tree, does the orchard have.
A little nut tree, it does have.
The matter is not in formal or colloquial styles. We could say that language has pronouns for shorter nominals.
For emphasis, the Simple Aspect also allows saying,
Do read this all, please.
When we ask questions, auxiliaries move to places before subjects. Dependent on the grammar approach, we may view the word order as VSO then, or basically SVO, still.
We can play the Sound.
SUBJECT: We
AUXILIARY: can
HEAD VERB: play.
Can we play the Sound?
AUXILIARY: Can
SUBJECT: we
HEAD VERB: play?
In the question, “to be playing” remains the verb phrase, and the verb “to play” its head. Our mauve head verb does not move.
Dependent on the context and style, we also might ask a question, saying
“You can play the Sound?”
The deep structure would be
{Can-you-play-the-Sound}.
There is no syntactic marker for such questions, however, and we cannot show Expression entire as one extent.
Anyway, good language means making many extents.
Let us now have a look at patterns that help deny, in the PRESENT time extent.
Simple: Jemma does not worry.
Progressive: Bob is not reverberating.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma have not failed.
We often abbreviate our patterns, in everyday speech.
Simple: Jemma doesn’t worry.
Progressive: Bob isn’t reverberating.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma haven’t failed.
We can combine the Interrogative and Negative extents, to ask negative questions.
We could ask, “Isn’t Jemma smiling?”
(We really say that Jemma is smiling).
Simple: Doesn’t Jemma travel in grammar?
Progressive: Isn’t Bob traveling in grammar?
Perfect: Haven’t Bob and Jemma traveled in grammar?
Let us compare formal American English, as for school. Formal syntax does not follow abbreviated auxiliaries.
Simple: Does Jemma not travel in grammar?
Progressive: Is Bob not traveling in grammar?
Perfect: Have Bob not traveled in grammar?
To focus on word movement and language elements, we can use the Simple Aspect. The verb to do has the auxiliary role here. It takes the ending ‒(ES for the third person singular (he, she, or it), also in the role of the head verb.
The Affirmative: Jemma smileS.
The Interrogative: DoES Jemma travel in grammar?
Our logical capacity for denying has the negative element, not. This element can join the auxiliary.
The Negative: Jemma doES not worry.
The Negative Interrogative: DoES Jemma not earn her credits?
In everyday language, the forms are most often abbreviated.
The Negative: Jemma doESN’T worry.
The Negative Interrogative: DoESN’T Jemma earn her credits?
Appendix 4 has patterns for all aspects, also with abbreviations.
What happens, if we change our PRESENT time compass to the FUTURE time extent?
Our Expression retains all qualities.
Simple: Jemma will smile.
Progressive: Bob will be smiling, too.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma will have earned their credits.
The logic for the FUTURE is likely to bring the auxiliary WILL into our scopes. The auxiliary be stays to its basic form (be). PRACTICE 2.1. has notes on verb base forms.
Simple: Will Jemma smile?
Progressive: Will Bob be smiling, too?
Perfect: Will Bob and Jemma have earned their credits?
The negative element, not, joins the auxiliary WILL, for the Negative.
Simple: Jemma will not worry.
Progressive: Bob will not be reverberating.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma will not have failed.
The phrase will not becomes won’t, in everyday American.
Simple: Jemma won’t worry.
Progressive: Bob won’t be reverberating.
Perfect: Bob and Jemma won’t have failed.
Again, formal American English will not follow abbreviation.
Simple: Will she not smile?
Progressive: Will he not be smiling, too?
Perfect: Will they not have earned their credits?
Feel welcome to APPENDIX 4
*****
