Hi everyone, here is the second installment in my Grammar series. Today I'll be talking about verbs and their features. Let's dive in!
As a learner of Spanish, a language with tons of verb tenses and moods, I practically eat verb conjugation for breakfast. But that doesn't mean I'm good at it, ironically.
Main Verbs and Auxiliary Verbs
One weird thing I noticed that applies to both languages is how we omit things from time to time. For example,
"Ya no está" = "[sth./sb.] is no more"
"¡Ay, no puedo, no puedo!" = "I can't even!"
The verbs in both sentences are auxiliaries, and the words that come after them (in the English versions of the sentences) may look like main verbs, but they're definitely not. But the illusion has given rise to some interesting, funny memes. Here are some memes related to "I can't even." 1, 2, 3.
Semimodals and Catenatives
Semimodals are combinations of an auxiliary verb and the preposition to. Catenatives, informal variations of semimodals, give a completely different tone to the sentence. They're much more common in children's speech than in adults'. I'll provide some examples.
You've got to get this right.
We're depending on you, and the consequences for not doing it correctly are dire.
You gotta get this right.
Focus already! We're all going to fail because of you!
I want to go home.
I'm not feeling comfortable here.
I wanna go home.
I don't care how much it will inconvenience others to bring me home; I want it and that's all that matters.
I'm not advising you to avoid catenatives entirely, but just be aware of the casual, childlike tone they convey.
Woulda-Coulda-Shoulda
“Would have,” “could have,” and “should have” are past modal verbs used to describe hypothetical situations. Modal verbs convey mood, the attitude of whoever/whatever is performing the action. The informal forms of these words are “woulda,” “coulda,” and “shoulda,” the final A in those words representing the schwa sound.
In everyday speech in the States, the pronunciation is extremely similar between "would have," "would've," and "woulda." It might take a while for a non-native speaker to hear the difference. And to an extent, it's not particularly necessary to hear the difference, anyway.
However, in writing, it is best to stick with the more standard "would have" or "would've." "Woulda" makes your writing sound childlike.
The words "woulda-coulda-shoulda" (pronounced in rapid succession) have become a set colloquial phrase lamenting on past hypotheticals. Why? Because all three words express preference for a different outcome than what actually happened. The only problem is... it didn't happen. Thus, the phrase expresses lament, a reminder that you can't change the past.
"I would have cleaned my room... but I didn't."
"I could have cleaned my room... but I didn't."
"I should have cleaned my room... but I didn't."
Hi! Thanks for the post. Could you please explain the difference between "can't" and 'cannot'? Not in writing. It's clear enough - we use contractions like 'can't' in informal writing, full form 'cannot' in formal. But what about speaking/reading - can we read "cannot" even if it's written 'can't'? And can we use 'cannot' in informal speech? Background: all people I know struggle with pronouncing/understanding 'can't' in both BrE and AmE. Besides them there is a fear to pronounce it false (not long enough) in BrE and get into troubles. So, some of my friends prefer to say 'cannot' ( [ˈkænɒt] / [ˈkænɑːt] ) to avoid misunderstanding. But does it sounds natural?
This might depend on culture. I know that in American culture, saying "can't" vs "cannot" is not a matter of formality but of emphasis. This goes back to the fact that English is a stress-based language, i.e., we communicate emotion and other information through which syllables and which words of a sentence that we stress.
In speech, saying "cannot" all the time would sound unnatural, but there is a time and place for it. When we want to stress that something is prohibited or impossible, perhaps sternly warning a child against something harmful, it makes sense to say "cannot" instead of "can't." This is because "cannot," being two syllables long, alters the stress pattern of the sentence in which it's featured.
Does that help?
Ok, thanks. It means that we can't avoid saying "can't" :)
@Dora_Serge It's the same for me. I can't really tell apart can from can't in oral speech. I have to rely on the context. I also share the same fear of mispronouncing the word.
@Simone- Good to know that I'm not alone :))