10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Exercise 64. The word “if” does not belong with Form Relativity only. We can change “if” for “whether”, when we talk about circumstances or results rather than provisions or causes.

We have the “if” we can change underlined, in the exercise.

To practice spoken comprehension, we can use abbreviated auxiliaries, reorder phrases, as well as use Inversion, for style and flexibility.

Example 1:
She did not know if she was right.

Answer:
She did not know whether she was right.

Example 2:
If he hadn’t been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Answer:
Hadn’t he been extremely busy,
he would’ve remembered about the coffee.

Alternately:
Had he not been extremely busy,
he would have remembered about the coffee.

*****
TASK

1. If she weren’t reading the calligraphic,
she’d be sleeping.

2. If he was writing, reading, or talking,
the colloquium had him busy all the time.

3. If he hadn’t heard from Bill then,
he’d be writing him a letter now.

4. If it weren’t such a good quality,
she’d think it a mere prank.

5. If it sustains the quality throughout,
it’ll compare with the Bodleian Horace.

6. They will / can see in the library,
if they get the Medici print.

7. If it weren’t so conscientious,
he’d throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. If it proves necessary,
she’ll have it carbon dated.

9. If it is as good as it looks,
it might be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. If it hadn’t been deprived of the front matter,
it would be easier to find out who made it.

Further journey brings the Causative and the Passive, our “have it carbon dated”, in example 8, and “had been deprived”, in example 10.

Exercise 65. We can use the word “if” also in the sense of the word “when”. Grammatically, it is up to our choosing, if we speak the premise or the result first.

The exercise is not grammatically difficult. Let us think how we could say it, as in EXERCISE 33 and EXERCISE 34.

Example:
IF you provision in the condition,
may stipulation precede in position.

Answer:
May stipulation precede in position,
WHEN you provision in the condition.

*****
TASK

1. You’ll make your adage suit,
IF you toot the root in the foot.

(We can look up word stress patterns in dictionaries).

2. IF the comma won’t curse or ban,
a dot might bid the span.

3. IF the verb does not adjust,
the pronoun must never entrust.

4. IF a Modal will emend,
may diction recommend a robust complement.

5. IF meanings collate and debate,
may syntax negotiate.

Exercise 66. It is most often up to ourselves to decide, if we use Form Relativity. Let us practice the choosing. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time.

As in EXERCISE 43 and EXERCISE 58, we practice holding on to our grammatical thinking even against unusual wording.

Our inspiration is a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen,
“THE LITTLE TINY OR THUMBELINA”.
Let us think the exercise over, as in MIND PRACTICE.

Example:
If there 1. (be) other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny 2. (can be) one of many similar beings.

Answer, with Form Relativity:
If there were other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny could be one of many similar beings.

Alternate, without Form Relativity:
If there are other Little Tinies, the Little Tiny is / can be one of many similar beings.

A. “If I 3. (be) only one of many Little Tinies, I 4. (be) actually a Little Tiny”, the Tiny hypothesized.

B. She 5. (be) strictly an inch tall and she 6. (want) a measure for her dreams.

C. “A cubit 7. (be) the length of your forearm right to the tip of your middle finger”, she 8. (reckon).

D. However, a cubit 9. (be) factually about 17.5 inches.

E. “If you 10. (have to think) about an inch to think about a cubit”, she went on hypothesizing, “my cubit N 11. (can be) a cubit, as I 12. (be) just an inch tall.

G. She 13. (visualize) a cube. “If you really 14. (need to consider) measures, you 15. (figure) on a cube of a dream”, she made another theory.

H. Nothing was positively two-dimensional. “Even if you 16. (reason) on your forearm simply, you 17. (will make) it out for three-dimensional”, she 18. (speculate).

I. “If nothing 19. (be) truly two-dimensional, dreams 20. (be) non-two-dimensional, too.”

J. “You 21. (can have) a cube of a dream, if you 22. (want) to tell whether your dreams are big or small?”

K. She 23. (start) to entertain the theory. Once you 24. (agree) to a measure, you 25. (can add up) cubes with dreams like with anything else.

L. Well, but a Thumbelina 26. (can have) a cube of a dream, if cubes 27. (be) cubits big, too? The Tiny 28. (sigh) with uncertainty.

Exercise 67. Let us be back with the grain of sand. The word “if” is not the only word to help make hypotheses. Let us try the words “as” and “when”.

They can work as conjunctions. “As” would agree with the premise. “When” would allow an opposite sense. We can know the study of meaning as semantics.

Example:
“If I N (be) a grain of sand, I (be) more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Answer:
“If I were not a grain of sand, I would be more prone to be of a like mind with a westerly wind”, the grain of sand thought.

Task B gives the NODUS for the exercise. We put the thought in quotes in the grammatical PRESENT. All other phrasing is in the time of the nodus, or relative to the time of the nodus.

The exercise can help us prepare for further journey: the Reported Speech and other linguistic challenges.

A. “If wits N (be) a real thing, you (can evade) the matter of their shape”, the grain of sand (deliberate).

B. The grain of sand did eight hours of thinking about composite things a day.
NODUS

C. As the eight hours N (be) immaterial, the faculty the grain of sand (employ) during the time N (can be) immaterial either, it (conclude).

D. Obviously, the faculty you (use) to ponder on composite things (have to be) the reasoning faculty.

E. Wits, whatever their quality, (have to be) of a shape, the grain of sand (feel).

F. Therefore, it (be) uncanny for a grain of sand and a wind to be of the same mind.

G. “A thought (can be) genuinely the same, when the wits (be) not?”

H. Possibly, asking the wind its opinion N (can decide) on the issue, the grain of sand (analyze).

I. Alternately, the phrase “the same thought” (may become) just a way to speak about potentially very dissimilar things.

J. Still, the phrase “the same thought” truly (exist) and (have) its real shape. “What (happen), if you (translate) it to another language?”

K. The grain of sand (wonder) for five minutes. The phrase sure (may change) in its look.

L. Then, the term “shape” N (will be) as easy to comprehend.

M. “The same thought (will render) the same shape of mind if you (give) it the look of another language?”

N. The grain of sand (immerse) in thought for another five minutes.

Exercise 68. We can join Jim Colderstone in winter Alaska. Alaska has the largest population of bald eagles in the USA. We can mark Modality with the letter M.

We do not have to use a Modal everywhere the letter M is. We can use more than one Modal where the letter M is, or is not, too. The symbol is just to encourage Modality.

We are in the grammatical PRESENT, and we include Expression, but the exercise is open-ended: no one can or may prescribe on a natural language.

When Jim ran into the office (CHAPTER 6), Jill was not there. She left him a note, before going on her Paris vacation.

We cannot demand insight into private correspondence. The exercise only renders the message, in a mystified way. We can try to guess what Jill might have written, after a minor discord.

Example: You M N 1. (have) the ambition to be the colder stone, if you M 2. (be) in winter Alaska yourself.

Answer: You would not have the ambition to be the colder stone if you could be in the winter Alaska yourself.

A. It M 3. (be) enough that you 4. (go) EPIC terrestrial and you M 5. (see) that the temperatures 6. (favor) a Colderstone for the role.

(We can go epic.noaa.gov/epic, if we want to go EPIC terrestrial ourselves.)

B. Although you M N 7. (go) to Alaska to do STEM paperwork only, you M 8. (like) the ridges of new green and the cool breeze in a shiny spring Alaskan morning.

(We can go nsf.gov for STEM programs.)

C. Space and time M 9. (become) a source of perplexity, if you 10. (think) about times outside the present.

D. Well, humans M N 11. (be) logic strictly. And temperature, for the senses to come together well, M N 12. (be) the source for all feeling.

E. If they N 13. (have) a place in a human discourse, words M N 14. (tell) anything exact. The place yet 15. (be) only hypothetical. This 16. (be) the human person to make language possible.

Let us take our story to the grammatical PAST.

Answer:
Naturally, you would not have the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could be in winter Alaska yourself.
AN OPEN MODAL FRAME IN THE PAST

Alternate:

Naturally, you would not have had the ambition to be the colder stone, if you could have been in the winter Alaska yourself.
A MODAL FRAME CLOSED ON THE PAST

The alternate can “anchor” our discourse. The time-anchored alternate would tell about “there, then, that time, that winter: THE Alaska as we got to know it on the occasion, in the circumstance”.

*****

FROM THE KEY: Grammar resources vary so vastly in guidance on Modal verbs and the Conditional or Unreal Past that we may feel we need a comparison on language forms.

When we work out own, independent perspectives, we become able to use our language logic consistently.

It is enough we are consistent. We do not have to follow any particular resource, to be correct.

A.
MODAL MEDIATION in the PRESENT
It may / can be enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you may / can see that the temperatures would favor a Colderstone for the role.

FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It could / might / would be enough that you went EPIC terrestrial and you might / would see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

2ND CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If you went EPIC terrestrial, you would / might see that the temperatures might / would favor a Colderstone for the role.

NO MODAL MEDIATION or FORM RELATIVITY in the PRESENT
It is enough that you go EPIC terrestrial and you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

ZERO CONDITIONAL REFERENCE
If / When / As you go EPIC terrestrial, you see that the temperatures favor a Colderstone for the role.

*****

Feel welcome to continue with the language story in Part Three (!)

Part Three can bring
Jill’s library in plain canvas ― the speech part and the determiner manner and matter;
Chantelle’s travel to the Book Cliffs ― verbal nouns and other ways of syntax to the notional time;
Reported speech, the Passive, and many more components of our language landscape.

9.4. MODAL RELATIVITY PRACTICE

Exercise 53. We can warm up with arrow cues. Especially for Modal verbs, the cues indicate the target grammatical time, not the verb form. Here, both PRESENT and PAST forms can render a PRESENT grammatical target. For all of this exercise, our Modal time frame remains open.

Example: may

Answer: may be learning, or

might be learning

Exercise 54. We can try other verbs with the task from exercise 53. Let us remember about the stative use of verbs. We can use the variable {ON} for it, regardless of a Progressive cue.

Example: read, may

Answer: may be reading, or
might be reading

1. write; 2. have (a good memory); 3. work; 4. know; 5. love; 6. think; 7. recall; 8. consider; 9. joke; 10. play.

Exercise 55. Let us try “jumping” time extents. We can view the flow of time as on a symbolic line.

Our cues mean,

“One time extent forward”,

“One time extent backward”.

Example: In Washington D.C., you WILL BE ABLE TO visit the Library of Congress.

We give the target time cue and relative frame, for the underlined forms.
Answer: In Washington D.C., you can / may visit the Library of Congress.

1. After a day of a hop-on and hop-off the Washington trolley, you MAY feel you should have bought a two-day ticket.

2. In Washington, we were renting right on the Potomac. The area was lovely. You just HAD TO take a walk along the river.

3. You MUST book your seats in the Lisner Auditorium. The American Air Force jazz ensemble may perform live.

4. You NEED TO give up on wading in the waterfalls of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Park. It is not allowed.

5. You MAY enter the National Gallery of Art on first-come basis.

*****

From the key: natural language happens to involve text rich interpretation. The “Washington trolley” will be the Washington trolley tour, for example.

Kids or adults, students or teachers, everybody uses rich interpretation of text. It would be cumbersome to provide all details every time we speak, whatever the language.

We can learn to check on facts and trivia. Here is a sample search over Google. We just type Washington trolley in the search field.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=Washington+trolley&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=Af2dV4bSOqLFgAa-vZrABQ

Example 1 has the Modal phrase “MAY feel” for a nodal reference. The phrase “SHOULD have bought” is a subordinate. We may have a peek at SUB-CHAPTER 10.1.

HAVE TO can be a real-time closed frame and the infinitive. A phrase as, “We had to have worked hard”, would tell about facts, not theory.

Many grammars will tell we can use BE ABLE TO rather than MAY, to refer to the FUTURE. However, if we resolve on example 3 as, “the ensemble will be able to perform”, we imply the ensemble might have difficulty playing, and the matter is about probability, not ability.

We can think about MAY with an open relative frame, to suggest prospect: “(Tomorrow) the American Air Force jazz ensemble MAY perform live”.

In example 5, we talk about permission. We may choose to say, “We will be able to / We will be allowed to…”

Exercise 56. We try “targeting” time extents. Our target time extent is the one in which we “land”.

We can refer for examples to American literature. These here invoke the ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN by Mark Twain. Let us be flexible, especially with examples 3 and 5.

Example: I thought I WOULD behave a while, if I COULD.

Answer: I think I WILL behave a while, if I CAN.

I think I WOULD behave a while, if I COULD.
(We mind the grammatical Relativity.)

1. But how CAN we do it, if we don’t know what it is?

2. The widow rung a bell for supper, and you HAD TO come to time.

3. And more ― they‘VE GOT TO (HAVE TO) waltz that palace around over the country wherever you want it, you understand.

4. It fetched us a dollar a day apiece, all the year round ― more than a body COULD tell what to do with.

5. Well, three or four months run along, and it was well into the winter, now. I had been to school most all the time, and COULD spell, and read, and write just a little, and COULD say the multiplication table up to six times seven is thirty-five, and I don’t reckon I COULD ever get any further than that if I was to live forever.

*****

From the key: The phrases “you understand” (example 3), or “I don’t reckon” (example 5), tell the time of the narrator, the character that tells the story.

Human lives are not just stories, but the narrator time can help comprehend the notional time, the time of the person who speaks.

There is no universal notional time. We have to learn to keep own notional times. We can have our notional time for our psychological time, too.

The phrase “if I was to live forever” is an example of figurative thinking. CHAPTER 10 has more. Part Three expands on parts of speech, as in “three or four months run along”.

*****

Exercise 57. Let us try to choose our Modals. We can stay on associations with Huckleberry for the while.

Example: He MAY / WILL be in the woods now.
(I know that he is in the woods.)

Answer: He WILL be in the woods now.

1. Let us not worry about it. There WILL / CAN be no advantage to it.
(It is certain that there is going to be no advantage.)

2. They HAD TO go / MAY HAVE gone out to the woods.
(The woods are not the only way.)

3. You SHOULD learn / SHOULD HAVE learned the way through the woods.
(Now is the time to learn.)

4. You MAY / WILL get lost in these woods.
(It is certain.)

5. They HAD TO get / MAY HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(We are looking for them. The only way is through the woods.)

6. You SHOULDN’T/ CAN’T get lost in these woods.
(It is impossible. You know the way very well.)

7. He DIDN’T HAVE TO get / COULDN’T HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(He knew the way.)

8. They MUST HAVE / MAY HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(They took the way through the woods.)

9. You MAY / HAVE TO avoid the way through the woods.
(It is not safe.)

10. You WOULD HAVE / SHOULD HAVE gotten lost in the woods.
(That was certain.)

*****

From the key: In example 4, the Modal verb WILL tells about CERTAINTY for the PRESENT and the FUTURE. The FUTURE is usually an open context, the way life on Earth has been.

We use WILL when we are sure or resolved about something. We may compare example 3 in Exercise 55, and try to avoid the cumbersome, soothsayer style that would result from using WILL for all FUTURE forms.

*****

Exercise 58. Our story is now about general POTENTIALITY and PROBABILITY, in the grammatical PAST. We do not need the auxiliary time here. Our hypothetical frame remains open.

We can be back with the dayfly from EXERCISE 43. As in exercise 42, we keep our grammatical thinking even when words are unusual.

Example: The dayfly (can think) about physical matter, without butterflies.

Answer: The dayfly was able to think about physical matter, without butterflies.

1. The dayfly (consider) it somewhat rude of the butterfly to make reservations on the wings. They (may differ), but there (be) no reason for the remark. Anyway, now the butterfly (have to be) far away, with its wings.

2. The dayfly (start) to think about infinity. If there (be) infinity, the word “infinite” (can) only denote it. You (need) five letters to write the word. The letters and the word (be) undeniably finite.
(NEED can be a head verb. Compare APPENDIX 1.)

3. There (have to be) some matter to the alphabet, the dayfly thought. Five letters (can make) an eight-letter word (!) You just (need to compose) them.

4. The number of possible words you (can make) with the alphabet (have to be) innumerable. That (be) the closest approximation to infinity the dayfly (may envision).

5. Letters also (can express) numbers. The dayfly (think) about other alphabets.

6. If there (will be) anything universal about all letters in the world, that (can be) the essence of writing. Nothing as universal readily (occur) to the dayfly, however.

7. Letters (may take) various shapes. Only language (may give) writing its matter.

8. The dayfly (start musing) if there (may be) universal thoughts.

*****

From the key: in example 1, the phrase “might differ” tells about holding to an opinion. We can give it an open frame. It is up to our choosing if and what opinions we hold. Further journey has more detail on Modal frames and nodal time.

We can be back with the westerly from EXERCISE 44.

*****

Exercise 59. The westerly is in the mountains. So far, our Modal time frames were ready for us: we only adapted the verb. Now, we have to decide if we open the frame or close it.

Generally, we are in the grammatical PAST. On top of everything, we think about Expression: we learn to manage big, real-life language information pools.

Example: The westerly (can gambol) on the shore a little longer, but it (gather) to go see the future: the mountains.

Answer: The westerly COULD HAVE gamboled on the shore a little longer, but it gathered to go see the future: the mountains.

1. What (will happen) about the present time ? The westerly (can perceive) something indivisible and intermediate about time. Time (be) in a way continuous. It (have to consist) of parts, however.

2. The present (have to border) on the past and the future. The present (be) somehow intermediary between the past and the future. However, how long (will) the present (be)? Sometimes, you (can view) the present as lasting as long as a day. Sometimes, it (will last) a split second.

3. Well, you (can) N (exist) only in the future or only in the past. With this regard, there always (will be) a present moment that (will be) the only present. There (will be) N anything of the past or the future, in the present?

4. The wester (get) to the mountains. They (be) its present now. The wester (can) N (think) about a more beautiful present. It (need) N the ocean to see something beautiful anymore.

5. How these beautiful mountains (can emerge)? The wester (speculate) if winds (may shape) part their structure.

*****

From the key: With example 4, if we say the wester “COULDN’T think about a more beautiful present”, we place the situation in the mountains.

Alternately, if we say the wind “COULDN’T HAVE thought about a more beautiful present”, we close the frame on the time before the wind came to the mountains, when it was on the shore, in exercise 44.

*****

Grammar books will have much advice on Modal verbs with patterns named the Unreal Past or Conditional. For a comparison, let us try a grammar theory of relativity.

Our use of the word “relativity” is not about physics or families. It is linguistic. Feel welcome to CHAPTER 10.

*****

9.3. DETAIL ON MODAL STRUCTURES

Modal Expression, especially the Interrogative or Negative, can give us some trouble, unless we approach the matter as science in a field: we analyze the molecules, see how they are doing, and make a model.

We can recur to CHAPTER 5, as well as compare APPENDIX 4.

54. We CANNOT skip the exercises.

55. We MAY NOT skip the exercises.

56. We WILL NOT skip the exercises.

57. We SHOULD NOT skip the exercises.

58. We OUGHT NOT TO skip the exercises.

59. We SHALL NOT skip the exercises.

60. We MUST NOT skip the exercises.

The form SHALL NOT may imply a conclusion, a decision ― more often in British English than in American, however. American English has the Modal WILL for resolves.

The Modal CAN attracts the particle NOT directly. They become one word, CANNOT. We may come upon the form CAN NOT in historic texts, as the GETTYSBURG ADDRESS.

President Abraham Lincoln gave the speech at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in 1863.

The form “can not” is rarely used today. Feel welcome to read the ADDRESS as well as to do the VOLUNTARY EXTRA PRACTICE.

In the Affirmative, MUST NOT can mean that something is forbidden or strongly discommended. NEED can take on the regular negative. The auxiliary is the verb to do.

61. We DO NOT NEED to memorize dictionaries.

We can use the short form DON’T, when our contexts are not formal.
61a. We DON’T NEED to memorize dictionaries.

NEED can take a Modal negation, too. The Modal form may be more emphatic.

61b. We NEEDN’T memorize dictionaries.
(There is definitely no need to memorize dictionaries.)

HAVE TO takes the regular negative.

62. We DO NOT HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.
62a. We DON’T HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.

Our paths can diverge for NEED in the auxiliary PAST.

63. You DIDN’T NEED to do this.
(Something didn’t need to be done and it was not done.)

63a. You NEEDN’T HAVE done this.
(You did, but you COULD HAVE left it alone ― the thinking is about a hypothesis.)

Let us tackle the Interrogative. This is the Modal to move here.
CHAPTER 5 shows Inversion, along with the Negative Interrogative.

64. We CAN work a lot.
CAN we work a lot?

65. We MAY work a lot.
MAY we work a lot?

66. We WILL work a lot.
WILL we work a lot?

67. We SHOULD work a lot.
SHOULD we work a lot?

68. We OUGHT TO work a lot.
OUGHT we TO work a lot?

69. We SHALL work a lot.
SHALL we work a lot?

70. We MUST work a lot.
MUST we work a lot?

In Negative questions, the linguistic chemistry may depend on the form we use, short or full.

71. CAN we NOT work a lot?
71a. CAN’T we work a lot?

72. MAY we NOT work a lot?
72a. MAYN’T we work a lot?

73. WILL we NOT work a lot?
73a. WON’T we work a lot?

74. SHOULD we NOT work a lot?
74a. SHOULDN’T we work a lot?

75. OUGHT we NOT TO work a lot?
75a. OUGHTN’T we TO work a lot?

76. SHALL we NOT work a lot?
76a. SHAN’T we work a lot?

In questions, MUST NOT may ask about the proper course of things.

77. MUST we NOT work a lot?
77a. MUSTN’T we work a lot?

HAVE TO takes the regular Negative Interrogative.

78. DO we NOT HAVE TO work a lot?
78a. DON’T we HAVE TO work a lot?

Let us catch on to the Modal NEED in the grammatical PAST. It behaves more and more like a regular verb, in contemporary American.

79. DID you NOT NEED to work a lot?
79a. DIDN’T you NEED to work a lot?

Please compare,
80. NEEDN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

Expression 80 would be so rare that an American might consider it incorrect. Why is this? Asking questions involves making hypotheses.

Unless we ask a question for no reason or purpose and expect no answer at all, we make our questions thinking about some PROBABILITY at least.

Beside inversion, we can use the question mark or intonation alone, to make a question.

Let us regard language economy. In a language information pool, we may not need to provide information more than once.

80a. DIDN’T you NEED / HAVE TO work a lot?

An American could consider an alternate incorrect,
80b. *MUSTN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

NEED and MUST express a high degree of CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY. Hypotheses with them might vary from those with other Modals: so many things SHOULD BE DONE, and they never are (!)

With high CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY, we can net the hypothetical time: we have a strong hypothesis in the Modal alone. Here is our model (click to enlarge).

MODAL ECONOMY; CLICK TO ENLARGE

Please compare the absolutely correct in American,
81. SHOULDN’T you HAVE read this all?

There is a structure close to the Modal verbs MUST, NEED, OUGHT TO or SHOULD. It is TO BE (SUPPOSED) TO.

82. You WEREN’T (SUPPOSED) TO get the gizmos.

We can recur to the structure later in the grammar journey. Let us now exercise our brains in
9.4. MODAL RELATIVITY PRACTICE

*****

8.1. EARTHLING BASIC VARIABLE

PLANET EARTH FROM ONE MILLION MILES AWAY,
PICTURE BY NASA DEEP SPACE CLIMATE OBSERVATORY.

Let us compare the Simple and the Perfect, our cognitive values {ON} and {TO}, for the verb to HAVE.

As in EXERCISE 14, we can think about language content and inner framework.

In the auxiliary role, the verb to HAVE works for the framework. We mark it green. As a content verb, it can tell about ownership. We mark it mauve then, as all content verbs.

*****

Madame Règle speaks excellent American English. Her friendship with Jill Smith started over a website forum discussing philosophy and linguistics.

They agreed that Latin had had {TO} influence over English and French thought, although the languages belonged to diverse language groups.

*****

This is one of the reasons for some French reference in our grammar voyage. Latin has affected {TO} both English and French languages.

On the other hand, English and French have {ON} very dissimilar shapes. English is a Germanic language, and French belongs with the Romance language group. Some American insignia have {ON} Latin mottos.

We could hear or read sometimes that American English is an international language. There are no international languages really. Esperanto does not have {ON} many features of a natural language.

We can say that American English is a lingua franca, that is, a tongue spoken worldwide.

By origin of the phrase, we can associate a lingua franca with free speech. In Latin, the adjective “francus” also meant someone exempt from service, someone at liberty.

The Roman Empire rule over the present-day territory of France collapsed early, and ancient Romans knew the local people as Franks, READ IN WIKIPEDIA.

America and France have had {TO} historic ties. The French were American allies in the WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. The Statue of Liberty is a memorial to American independence and alliance with the French.

There are many Statues of Liberty. The most famous statues are those in New York and Paris. A French sculptor, FRÉDÉRIC BARTHOLDI, designed the Statue.

Bartholdi patented it as Liberty Enlightening the World (La Liberté éclairant le monde, in French). The American statue stands on the Liberty Island, in New York Harbor.

*****

Madame Règle has {ON} a small book of poetry with her today. She has finished {TO} the book about Descartes. At home, she has {ON} a big volume about influences between French and English thinkers.

She has been reading {AT} two book series, poetry or philosophical commentary, one at a time, all this week.

Latimer Sauf is not surprised at her reading habit. The special edition of Larousse Gastronomique he got from her last Christmas has {ON} an elevated and celebrated place in his restaurant main hall.

The guests have turned {TO} many of the pages so far. He has had {TO} another copy to read at home. He has been studying {AT} it to detail. He has {ON} extra Larousse dishes on his menu.

*****

Let us focus on the grammatical time and cognitive variable.

FUTURE
He WILL HAVE been reading; {AT}

PRESENT
He HAS been reading; {AT}

PAST
He HAD been reading. {AT}

We can compare the beginning of our language journey, the Fields of Time (CHAPTER 1).

How does the Perfect Progressive change for the PRESENT, PAST, and FUTURE? It is the verb to have to change.

The verb to have changes the same as in our Fields of Time, for our cognitive variable {ON}, the Simple Aspect.

FUTURE
He WILL HAVE a book; {ON}

PRESENT
He HAS a book; {ON}

PAST
He HAD a book. {ON}

Let us compare the cognitive variable {IN}. In the content role, the verb to have can also tell about eating. Madame Règle likes the extra Larousse dishes by Monsieur Sauf.

FUTURE
Tomorrow at this hour, Madame Règle
WILL BE having her extra Larousse and reading a book; {IN}

PRESENT
Madame Règle
IS having her extra Larousse and reading a book now; {IN}

PAST
When Jill walked into the restaurant yesterday, Madame Règle
WAS having her extra Larousse and reading a book.{IN}

Let us compare the variable {ON}. Here are our Fields of Time, again.

FUTURE
She WILL BE at the restaurant; {ON}

PRESENT
She IS at the restaurant; {ON}

PAST
She WAS at the restaurant. {ON}

For all tenses, this is always the first element in the verb pattern to change for the grammatical time. It changes the same in our Fields of Time, the same as for our variable {ON}.

Let us compare all Aspects. The elements that adapt for the grammatical time are underlined.

We can view the value {ON} as a basis for other Aspects.

We also can focus on the value {ON} and view other Aspects as syntactic expansion.

Please mind that finding a basic value does not impose any particular order to use the values, especially if we come to the resolve that our {ON, IN, TO} and {AT} can be our learned cognitive variables.

*****

Let us turn to American English as it is really. We do not intend to invent a new language.

This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it.
(NBC Today Sun as in the CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH, COCA.)

The Simple Aspect can tell what we have {ON} our cognitive map. What we perceive does not have to take up an entire extent.

Even if we regard an entire cognitive extent, it does not have to imply that we are preoccupied. Another way round, we live on planet Earth, and none of us could preoccupy it.

*****

The Progressive Aspect, the value {IN}, can help mark a matter as different from the regular and basic {ON}.

To compare space, we may feel as IN an area, rather than ON a regular cognitive map, for matters we perceive as irregular or EMPHATIC.

The Progressive can help delineate in time, on something out of the ordinary, as a dream come true: dreams coming true are not anything regular.

*****

In this view, we can have the value {AT} for the most divergent from the regular, basic {ON}.

Could we have a natural feeling to return to the basic variable, after we “go away”? The following example looks spontaneous and shows our matter well.

{AT} I’ve been loving it. But {ON} I want to keep doing different things.
(People magazine as in COCA.)

Some classic grammars might not agree to have verbs as “to love” or “to hate” in the Progressive at all. However, if to let anybody PRESCRIBE what language should be like, we might have to recur to MIDDLE ENGLISH.

*****

American English is a live language, and live languages also change. Thinking about free speech, let us consider a cognitive difference, for the two forms:
“I hate you”,
or
“I am hating you”.

We can compare human perception on physical space.

“I am hating you” is {IN} an area only.

“I hate you” is {ON} the entire extent.

Our grammar is correct when it properly renders how we feel and think.

To speak American freely, we should choose independently if we say that we are hating or loving something, or that we hate or love it.

This can be our earthling proper egoism: we have our inner grammars work for our minds, rather than adapt our minds to rules that cannot be universal, anyway.

The variable {ON} can be our earthling and basic variable. Who knows, maybe the ancient Latin rules, from which classic grammars derive, emerged owing to human variables, only they were not called variables then, hence the “stative use of verbs”?

Naturally, classicist or generativist, we do not have to be always gravely serious about everything we say.

*****

VARIABLES OR OPTIONS?

We may come across presentations of language as features.

An Aspect both Perfect and Progressive would be the Perfect Progressive. An Aspect neither Perfect nor Progressive would be the Simple.

Some approaches might attempt a picture for language as made of options. However, our brains are live structures and have simultaneous processes.

When we use the Present Simple, our paths for the Perfect Progressive for example do not become “switched off”. If we use the Progressive, we do not exclude a possibility for the same thing to happen also in a manner we describe in the Simple:

“I‘m loving you”,

would not mean

“I don’t love you”.

Planet Earth is our natural habitat. When we people think what there is {ON} a geographical map, we do not exclude possibilities for places {IN} areas, routes {TO} places, as well as locations {AT} places.

Humans are likely to learn languages {ON} a planet for an indeterminate future. Even astronauts learn {ON} Earth.

Associating language, thinking, feeling, and generally space is natural. What would feelings, thoughts, or works be — without room?

Finally, our variable {ON} does not correspond with an option as OFF. We do not turn our brains off, also when we go to sleep.

We can conclude that Aspects are not options. Options can be mutually exclusive. To take one option, we would have to exclude other choices. Variables work together, also simultaneously.

Feel welcome to practice.

8.2. PRACTICE FOR ALL ASPECTS

*****

5.3. PRACTICE: REAL SYNTAX AND MORE WORDS

All verbs here can be irregular. Feel welcome to APPENDIX 2: it marks American English forms as AE, when they differ from British forms, BR. We continue practicing abbreviated verb forms, as in EXERCISE 28.

’m: am
’re: are
’s: is
’ve: have
’s: has
’d: had

We can tell abbreviated “is” from “has” only by their contexts, as both get shortened to ’s.

Example: They ‘ve clung.
Answer:
cling, clang, clung.

1. We ’re swimming.

2. It’s shone.

3. You’d gainsaid.

4. She’s eaten.

5. They’d woken.

6. He’s heard.

7. They’re working.

8. She’d spun.

9. It’s crowing.

10. You’ve spoken.

Exercise 30. We provide the 2ND and 3RD verb forms. Not every verb in this exercise is irregular. We can write REG next to a regular verb.

Example: She ‘s read.
Answer: TO, the PRESENT; read, read, read

1. We’re drawing.

2. She’s sung.

3. You’d written.

4. You’ve colored.

5. They’ve painted.

6. She’s swinging.

7. It’s ringing.

8. She’s left.

9. I’m dreaming.

10. We’ve played.

Feel welcome to the second part of the language journey.
PART TWO, CONTENT

*****

5.2. PRACTICE: SYMBOLIC CUES AND REAL SYNTAX

Exercise 22. Ability to use symbols is very important at school tests and exams. Let us combine the Aspect and Time, to exercise our logical arrows. We try to form our answers solely in our minds: this is where true learning takes shape.

Example:
generally {ON} the map in the PAST,
{ON} a PAST time extent
Answer:

1. IN a spot within the FUTURE time extent

2. TO a time within the PAST time extent

3. ON the PRESENT time extent

4. TO a time within the FUTURE time extent

5. TO a time within the PRESENT time extent

6. ON the FUTURE time extent

7. IN a spot in the PAST time extent

8. IN a spot in the PRESENT time extent

Exercise 23. Let us now gather from elements, as in PRACTICE 4.2. Let us focus on our symbolic cues.

Example: {TO}, 3RD, the PRESENT
Answer:

1. {IN}, ING, the PAST

2. {TO}, 3RD, the PAST

3. {ON}, the FUTURE

4. {IN}, ING, the PRESENT

5. {ON}, the PAST

6. {TO}, 3RD, the FUTURE

7. {ON}, the PRESENT

8. {IN}, ING, the FUTURE

Exercise 24. Let us try our language natures another way round. We begin with our arrow cue, to think about language elements.

Example:

Answer: be, ING, in the PAST

Exercise 25. We can think about Bob and Jemma, along with the task from the previous exercise. Our head verb can be to learn.

Example:

Answer: Jemma was learning.

*****

Please mind, we are not practicing behaviorist reflexes. We are about developing flexible habits. It does not matter in the exercise here, if we say Jemma learns, or Bob learns. It matters to mind we say Bob and Jemma learn, if we want to speak about both of them.

*****

Exercise 26. Let us now try our arrows with Expression. We can mark negative questions as ? N. We leave the affirmative unmarked.

Example 1:

Answer: Will Bob and Jemma not have earned their credits?

Example 2:

Answer: Bob and Jemma will have earned their credits.

Exercise 27. Let us try our language logic for the Interrogative and Negative, within the PAST time extent only. To learn may remain our head verb. We also can choose to visit APPENDIX 2 or APPENDIX 3, and try other verbs.

Answer: Was Jemma learning?

We are staying in the PAST Field of Time.

Exercise 28. Let us focus on our cognitive values for grammatical time. We use the symbolic cues, too.

If the same head verb, to learn, brings monotony, let us remember that APPENDIX 2 or APPENDIX 3 can give us plenty of other verbs.

Example: Had Bob learned?
Answer:

Everyday language has abbreviated forms as doesn’t, hadn’t, and won’t, in everyday language. Let us think about the full forms, for our answers, exercising as in the MIND PRACTICE.

1. Jemma doesn’t worry.

2. Bob and Jemma hadn’t worried.

3. Is Jemma smiling?

4. Hasn’t Bob learned?

5. Bob didn’t worry.

6. Will Bob and Jemma have earned their credits?

7. Will Bob and Jemma smile?

8. Was Bob learning?

9. Bob won’t have failed.

10. Will Jemma be smiling?

Please mind, our arrow cues have no reference to weapons. They are the symbols people widely use for guidance. Feel welcome to some more guide exercise.
REAL SYNTAX AND MORE WORDS

*****

5.1. THE LOGIC SO FAR

Let us sum up on the logical capacities for language we have recognized so far. We can visualize them as extents.

The grammatical Time: Present, Past, or Future. We can recur to CHAPTER 1, for our Fields of Time.

We can envision grammatical time as one extent, which becomes PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE, when we make a particular reference.

We can have a peek into SUBCHAPTER 6.1.

5c. He says (that) he met Jim’s little cousin last summer.

The grammatical Aspects: Simple, Progressive, and Perfect. We have given them mapping values {ON}, {IN}, and {TO}. The same as with grammatical time, we can think about one extent we choose from, in context.

For our speaking and writing, we combine the Aspect and grammatical time.

Expression: the Affirmative, Negative, Interrogative, or Negative Interrogative. We have separate extents here, as there is no “Affirmative Interrogative” or “Negative Affirmative” syntax.

Let us picture all our extents together.

The colors here can form part a custom palette. Azure, vert vivant, aqua clair, spring bud green, and smooth marble river stone can help us mark our concepts. Obviously, everyone is welcome to choose own colors.

*****

We happen to say the FUTURE brings the things that are BEFORE us. We also happen to say that PAST things are BEHIND us.

For a good grammar, it is important that we perceive our target grammatical time. Arrows have been widely known symbols to indicate a flow or direction.

Arrow symbols can be especially useful with Modal verbs, as their forms alone never show one target time.

The Simple Aspect can work without an auxiliary. We can represent it with a plain arrow. We begin with the grammatical PRESENT.

We have pictured the Progressive Aspect as being in a spot, a place in a map. We can represent it with a dot.

The Perfect Aspect has showed our way to a place or time. We can represent it with an arrow or spearhead added to our simple dart.

Let us try to see our logic as in a chart.

Please mind that our arrows are not shooting arrows. They are just to help find own way with grammar forms. If we make models to play, we make big models of soft material, as plush, especially if there should be little children around.

We can mark our arrows for Expression. The question mark and the letter N can do for the Interrogative and the Negative; we can join the letter and the mark, for the Negative Interrogative; the Affirmative can remain unmarked.

The arrows can prove very useful with Modal verbs. Modal forms do not show the target grammatical time. Let us compare.
You might do the exercises tomorrow.

The target grammatical time here is the FUTURE. We can use our plain arrow.

The same form of the Modal verb, might, can tell about the PRESENT.
You might do the exercises now.

We may try some practice now; we also can look it up when we find fit.

5.2. SYMBOLIC CUES AND REAL SYNTAX

*****

CHAPTER 5. LET US MAKE OWN PATHS ABOUT TIME

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.

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 Ziggurat 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 Ziggurat.
SUBJECT: We
AUXILIARY: can
HEAD VERB: play.

Can we play the Ziggurat?
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 Ziggurat?”
The deep structure would be
{Can-you-play-the-Ziggurat}.
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

*****

APPENDIX 4. PATTERNS FOR ALL ASPECTS

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR:
I, me

OTHER PERSONS:
you, we, they, he, she, it

THE SIMPLE ASPECT
COGNITIVE VARIABLE: ON

THE SIMPLE AFFIRMATIVE

FUTURE SIMPLE AFFIRMATIVE:

I will write.
Short form
I’ll write.

OTHER PERSONS:
You (we, they, he, she, it) will write.
Short form
You’ll (we’ll, they’ll, he’ll, she’ll, it’ll) write.

*****

PRESENT SIMPLE AFFIRMATIVE:
I write.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) write.
He (she, it) writes.

*****

PAST SIMPLE AFFIRMATIVE:
I wrote.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) wrote.

*****

THE SIMPLE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE SIMPLE INTERROGATIVE:
Will I write?

OTHER PERSONS:
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) write?

*****

PRESENT SIMPLE INTERROGATIVE:
Do I write?

OTHER PERSONS
Do you (we, they) write?

Does he (she, it) write?

*****

PAST SIMPLE INTERROGATIVE:
Did I write?

OTHER PERSONS
Did you (we, they, he, she, it) write?

*****

THE SIMPLE NEGATIVE

FUTURE SIMPLE NEGATIVE:
I will not write.
Short form
I won’t write.

OTHER PERSONS:
You (we, they, he, she, it) will not write.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) won’t write.

*****

PRESENT SIMPLE NEGATIVE:
I do not write.
Short form
I don’t write.

OTHER PERSONS:
You (we, they) do not write.
He (she, it) does not write.
Short form
You (we, they) don’t write.
He (she, it) doesn’t write.

*****

PAST SIMPLE NEGATIVE:
I did not write.
Short form
I didn’t write.

OTHER PERSONS:
You (we, they, he, she, it) did not write.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) didn’t write.

*****

THE SIMPLE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE SIMPLE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Will I not write?
Short form
Won’t I write?

OTHER PERSONS:
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) not write?
Short form
Won’t you (we, they, he, she, it) write?

*****

PRESENT SIMPLE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Do I not write?
Short form
Don’t I write?

OTHER PERSONS:
Do you (we, they) not write?
Does he (she, it) not write?
Short form
Don’t you (we, they) write?

Doesn’t he (she, it) write?

*****

PAST SIMPLE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Did I not write?
Short form
Didn’t I write?

OTHER PERSONS
Did you (we, they, he, she, it) not write?
Short form
Didn’t you (we, they, he, she, it) write?

*****

THE PROGRESSIVE ASPECT
COGNITIVE VARIABLE: IN

THE PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE

FUTURE PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE:

I will be writing.
Short form
I’ll be writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will be writing.
Short form
You’ll be (we’ll be, they’ll be, he’ll be, she’ll be, it’ll be) writing.

*****

PRESENT PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE:
I am writing.
Short form
I’m writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) are writing.
He (she, it) is writing.
Short form
You’re (we’re, they’re) writing.
He’s (she’s, it’s) writing.

*****

PAST PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE:
I was writing.

OTHER PERSONS:
You (we, they) were writing.
He (she, it) was writing.

*****

THE PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Will I be writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) be writing?

*****

PRESENT PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Am I writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Are you (we, they) writing?
Is he (she, it) writing?

*****

PAST PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Was I writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Were you (we, they) writing?
Was he (she, it) writing?

*****

THE PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE

FUTURE PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE:
I will not be writing.
Short form
I won’t be writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will not be writing.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) won’t be writing.

*****

PRESENT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE:
I am not writing.
Short form
I’m not writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) are not writing.
He (she, it) is not writing.
Short form
You’re not (we’re not, they’re not) writing.
He’s not (she’s not, it’s not) writing.
Alternately
You (we, they) aren’t writing.
He (she, it) isn’t writing.

*****

PAST PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE:
I was not writing.
Short form
I wasn’t writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) were not writing.
He (she, it) was not writing.
Short form
You (we, they) weren’t writing.
He (she, it) wasn’t writing.

*****

THE PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Will I not be writing?
Short form
Won’t I be writing?

OTHER PERSONS:
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) not be writing?
Short form
Won’t you (we, they, he, she, it) be writing?

*****

PRESENT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Am I not writing?
(There is no standard short form;
there is only the colloquial form “ain’t”.)

OTHER PERSONS:
Are you (we, they) not writing?

Is he (she, it) not writing?
Short form
Aren’t you (we, they) writing?

Isn’t he (she, it) writing?

*****

PAST PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE:
Was I not writing?
Short form
Wasn’t I writing?

OTHER PERSONS:
Were you (we, they) not writing?
Was he (she, it) not writing?
Short form
Weren’t you (we, they) writing?
Wasn’t he (she, it) writing?

*****

THE PERFECT ASPECT
COGNITIVE VARIABLE: TO

THE PERFECT AFFIRMATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT AFFIRMATIVE:

I will have written.
Short form
I’ll have written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will have written.
Short form
You’ll have (we’ll have, they’ll have, he’ll have, she’ll have, it’ll have) written.

*****

PRESENT PERFECT AFFIRMATIVE:
I have written.
Short form
I’ve written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) have written.

He (she, it) has written.
Short form
You’ve (we’ve, they’ve) written.
He’s (she’s, it’s) written.

*****

PAST PERFECT AFFIRMATIVE:
I had written.
Short form
I’d written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) had written.
Short form
You ’d (we’d, they’d, he’d, she’d) written.
No form as * “it’d” has been practiced, spoken or written;
it is phonologically implausible. We always use the full form, e.g.
It (the computer) had written it would surrender.

*****

THE PERFECT INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT INTERROGATIVE
Will I have written?

OTHER PERSONS
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) have written?

*****

PRESENT PERFECT INTERROGATIVE
Have I written?

OTHER PERSONS
Have you (we, they) written?

Has he (she, it) written?

*****

PAST PERFECT INTERROGATIVE
Had I written?

OTHER PERSONS
Had you (we, they, he, she, it) written?

*****

THE PERFECT NEGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT NEGATIVE
I will not have written.
Short form
I won’t have written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will not have written.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) won’t have written.

*****

PRESENT PERFECT NEGATIVE
I have not written.
Short form
I haven’t written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) have not written.

He (she, it) has not written.
Short form
You (we, they) haven’t written.

He (she, it) hasn’t written.

*****

PAST PERFECT NEGATIVE
I had not written.
Short form
I hadn’t written.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) had not written.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) hadn’t written.

*****

THE PERFECT NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE
Will I not have written?
Short form
Won’t I have written?

OTHER PERSONS
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) not have written?
Short form
Won’t you (we, they, he, she, it) have written?

*****

PRESENT PERFECT NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE
Have I not written?
Short form
Haven’t I written?

OTHER PERSONS
Have you (we, they) not written?

Has he (she, it) not written?
Short form
Haven’t you (we, they) written?

Hasn’t he (she, it) written?

*****

PAST PERFECT NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE
Had I not written?
Short form
Hadn’t I written?

OTHER PERSONS
Had you (we, they, he, she, it) not written?
Short form
Hadn’t you (we, they, he, she, it) written?

*****

THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE ASPECT
COGNITIVE VARIABLE: AT

THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE
I will have been writing.
Short form
I’ll have been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will have been writing.
Short form
You’ll have been (we’ll have been, they’ll have been, he’ll have been, she’ll have been, it’ll have been) writing.

*****

PRESENT PERFECT PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE
I have been writing.
Short form
I’ ve been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) have been writing.

He (she, it) has been writing.
Short form
You’ve been (we’ve been, they’ve been) writing.
He’s been (she’s been, it’s been) writing.

*****

PAST PERFECT PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE
I had been writing.
Short form
I’ d been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) had been writing.
Short form
You’d been (we’d been, they’d been, he’d been, she’d been) writing.
As with the Perfect Simple pattern, no form as “it’d been” would have been practiced.

*****

THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE
Will I have been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) have been writing?

*****

PRESENT PERFECT PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE

Have I been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Have you (we, they) been writing?
Has he (she, it) been writing?

*****

PAST PERFECT PROGRESSIVE INTERROGATIVE

Had I been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Had you (we, they, he, she, it) been writing?

*****

THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE

I will not have been writing.
Short form
I won’t have been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) will not have been writing.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) won’t have been writing.

*****

PRESENT PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE

I have not been writing.
Short form
I haven’t been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they) have not been writing.

He (she, it) has not been writing.
Short form
You (we, they) haven’t been writing.

He (she, it) hasn’t been writing.

*****

PAST PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE

I had not been writing.
Short form
I hadn’t been writing.

OTHER PERSONS
You (we, they, he, she, it) had not been writing.
Short form
You (we, they, he, she, it) hadn’t been writing.

*****

THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

FUTURE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

Will I not have been writing?
Short form
Won’t I have been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Will you (we, they, he, she, it) not have been writing?
Short form
Won’t you (we, they, he, she, it) have been writing?

*****

PRESENT PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

Have I not been writing?
Short form
Haven’t I been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Have you (we, they) not been writing?

Has he (she, it) not been writing?
Short form
Haven’t you (we, they) been writing?

Hasn’t he (she, it) been writing?

*****

PAST PERFECT PROGRESSIVE NEGATIVE INTERROGATIVE

Had I not been writing?
Short form
Hadn’t I been writing?

OTHER PERSONS
Had you (we, they, he, she, it) not been writing?
Short form
Hadn’t you (we, they, he, she, it) been writing?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: