Discussion on question by xiumai: Using two auxiliary verbs in one sentence

Feeds

12:56

Q: Using two auxiliary verbs in one sentence

I have a question about this sentence: "The reason why I study English is because it is the language that binds us together." I'm fairly sure this is correct, but I don't know how to explain why I had to use two auxiliary verbs. I need to know how to explain this and I've searched online bu...

verbs

P. E. Dant

There is no grammatical reason to avoid using as many auxiliary verbs in a sentence as you want. In this case, though, to be is not an auxiliary verb: it is the main verb in your sentence. If you'd rather not use to be twice, you can write: "I study English because it is the language that binds us together."

user178049

@P.E.Dant dunno how you analyze it. But I disagree that it's not an auxiliary. It's clearly an auxiliary because it has the NICE property.

P. E. Dant

Of course be is the main verb in that sentence. Take a simpler one: "[The reason I eat] is [to live]." If be isn't the main verb, what is? Ask yourself the same question about the OP's sentence.

@user178049 Of course be has the NICE properties; but an auxiliary verb need not act only and always as an auxiliary. "I have money." ... "He is Dave." ( "Yes, you have" and "Yes, he is.") I know this disagrees with Pullum. So be it. I think chicken is an attributive noun in chicken soup, too, but the case for the complement is compelling. ;)

BillJ

"Be" is virtually always an auxillary, even when it's the only verb in the sentence. It's certainly an auxiliary in the OP's excample.

P. E. Dant

@BillJ You hold with Mr Pullum that be cannot ever be a main verb, but you qualify "always" with "virtually". Does this mean that you see an exception? As you see it, can be ever be a main verb?

aschultz

12:56

This is a tangent, but to put my proofreading hat on, "I study English because it is the language that binds us together" says the same things with fewer words.

Ben Kovitz

@user178049 Calling "be" an auxiliary because it has the NICE properties is confusing and misleading. In ordinary English usage, we don't call the main verb of a sentence auxiliary. Correct would be to say that "A certain esoteric grammar terminology, hardly in use by anybody who knows English, would call 'be' auxiliary here." If the CGEL people wanted to define a category of verbs by the NICE properties, they should have called them NICE verbs instead of redefining "auxiliary". Hell, even computer programmers take more care when naming things.

BillJ

The term 'main verb' is meaningless, but if you must use it, then of course an auxiliary can be the 'main verb'. All the evidence points to "be" being an auxiliary (with just a couple of exceptions). 'Auxiliary' is a cross-linguistic term and hence justifies its use in English grammar.

Ben Kovitz

@BillJ Let's chat here.

Anonymous

@P.E.Dant No, but Pullum himself does not make that claim. Be can also be a lexical verb. See pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/UEG/… for a summary which agrees with the analysis used by modern linguists such as H&P.