You should understand that, in school, you will be taught a certain kind of "formal" (or "standard") English, much the same as what native English speakers are taught. This is not necessarily the same English that many people actually speak. A regional or cultural style of language that is different from the "standard" is called a vernacular.
3d-person singular don't is quite common and unremarkable in speech communities where formal correctness is not held in particular esteem. It should not disturb you.
But it's not acceptable in communities where formal correctness is valued; and since doesn't will not mark you as a pedant or an outsider in any speech community, there is no reason why you ...
Short Answer: Because Person B is referring back to Person A's sentence.
A: I assume you know about the latest goings-on with Hessington oil.
B: I wouldn't be much of a partner if I didn't.
A: Now they've decided to take on Ava Hessington personally.
B: Who is [the] 'they' [in your sentence]?
A: The U.S. government.
Does this help?
Your question is clear and concise, and warrants a clear and concise answer, without equivocation:
Is “she don't” sometimes considered correct form?
The answer to that question is:
The construction she don't is never considered to be "correct form."
It may be acceptable, or part of a vernacular, or idiomatic in some communities (and employed ...
The first of the two consecutive weres is the verb in the relative clause headed by that; you are called upon to infer its complement, which is the same as the complement of the previous were. The second is the verb in the main clause
SUBJECT: Many of the programs
PREDICATE: were not available
In the first sentence, "got" is redundant. You can just say "I don't know how much money he has." This refers to the amount of money he already possesses.
The second sentence, "I don't know how much money he got" refers to the amount of money he just received.
This is an example of the use-mention distinction. In the sentence "Who is they [sic].", "they" isn't being used as a pronoun, but instead is being used a word. That is, it's referring back to the use of the word "they" in the previous sentence ("Now they've decided to take on Ava Hessington personally.")
Notice in that sentence by ...
Both sentences are grammatical.
When you use the phrase "none of" in front of a plural noun or pronoun, you can use either a singular or plural form of a verb.
However, the plural form is common both in formal and in informal English. The singular form is formal and isn't much used.
Besides, if there's an uncountable noun or a singular pronoun in ...
Here are the relevant rules:
A clause never has more than one finite verb - a verb that is marked for tense, person and number (to the extent that it can be marked for any of these categories.
When the verb (predicator) in a finite clause is constructed with auxiliaries (helping verbs), the finite verb is always the first auxiliary in the chain.
Heh, I think you answered your own question in your own question. It's wrong precisely because it's a response with an auxiliary verb, and therefore, we do not repeat the other verb in the short response. In other words, she should have said, "Yes, I will."
See Yes/No Questions, Auxiliary Verbs
And to predict your next question, no, she cannot say, "Yes, I'...
The subject in both sentences is "philosophy," which is singular.
The verb in both sentences is in the present tense. Singular, third person verbs in the present tense (except for modals) terminate in "s" or "es." Subject and verb must agree in number. Therefore your first example "do any philosophy believe" is not correct whereas your second example "does ...
English auxiliary verbs combine into more complex constructions according to wholly inflexible rules: the sequence is always
the modal component first (if it is present), with the following verb in its infinitive form
the perfect component next (if it is present), using the auxiliary HAVE, with the following verb in its past participle form
The answer is
How much do Pacquiao-Mayweather tickets cost? (Better off without capitalization when you're asking a question from your friend)
The misunderstanding, I believe, is caused by these two guys: Pacquaio and Mayweather.
If you run into this kind of problem, I suggest
1. Finding out what the verb is pertaining to:
Isn't the sentence like this?
When the verb in a statement is neither a primary auxiliary verb (be, have, do) nor a modal auxiliary verb (will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must, ought to, used to), do is used to form a question from it. Thus, ‘You know where my house is’ becomes ‘Do you know where my house is?’
Meanwhile, when the verb in a statement is a primary ...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not grammatically correct standard English. This is deliberate. It's meant to sound simple, blunt, and uncultured because it's old, common-sense advice. You can treat the whole sentence as a single idiom.
Don't use "ain't" in formal situations. Don't use "broke" like this at all. Doing so will make you sound uneducated.
In all the varieties of English that I am familiar with, a tag question on a sentence with an auxiliary (or a form of be even when it is a full verb) uses the auxiliary in the tag question, not do:
You are coming, aren't you?
He will win, won't he?
I can finish it, can't I?
He is, isn't he?
Only when there is no auxiliary, do we use a form ...
What the other respondents fail to mention is that there is a whole dialect in American English (i.e., black inner-city English), that uses "don't" in the third person singular as a matter of course.
Although you can hear that, and things like it, in practically every rap or hip-hop track put down recently, and nearly every rock song since the '50s—...
His son was smart and his daughter ___ intelligent.
This website has been shut down and its name ___ turned over by court
This is called ‘gapped coordination’ (or just ‘gapping’).
The middle part of a non-initial coordinate can be omitted, if it is recoverable from the corresponding part of the initial coordinate, called the antecedent. The ...
In this sentence:
But, as time went on, it became increasingly obvious that many of the programs were not available, and the ones that were [available] were written in a particularly obscure form of BASIC.
The author has chosen not to repeat the word available. If we put that word back in, and if we mark the subject and predicate, it might make more ...
To omit the rest of the sentence, you need an auxiliary verb. And sometimes, have is an auxiliary verb:
Have you taken out the trash?
Yes, I have [taken out the trash].
Here, have is an auxiliary verb, so the rest of the sentence can be omitted as long as it can be understood from context.
If you don't have an auxiliary verb, you can insert the ...
The other answers are correct, but as a native speaker, I'd like to note that "Do you hurt?" may have unwanted connotations here. To me, it sounds like you're asking about a periodic or indefinite sort of pain, rather than an immediate and present pain (i.e. "Do you hurt often?" instead of "Are you in pain right now?). It also sounds more like emotional ...
These sentences are examples of ellipsis, where text that is duplicated in two clauses is omitted from the second clause. They are both
The particular type in these example is called gapping. With gapping, the omitted text usually includes a finite verb.
John can play the guitar, and Mary the violin
John can play the guitar, and ...
In general when describing a person's location we say they "are in" or "are at" some place. "She is at Aunt Sally's house." "He is in the store." "He is at work." Etc.
If we are using a preposition to describe the place, either as a separate word or part of a compound word, we do NOT use "in" or "at". In this case we don't need two prepositions. "He is ...
Because you're using "taste", you need to use "did".
Did the cheese taste delicious?
However, if you omit "taste", you would use "was". I would argue that this form is much more common because, in general, "taste" is implied with "delicious".
Was the cheese delicious?
The former would be more (or at least equally) common if you used just about any ...
I don't think it's relevant that OP frames the question around an interrogative construction. Grammatically, it's no different to:
[this] is to do with [that]
...which has tens of millions of (mostly relevant) instances in print. From Macmillan Dictionary:
have (something/anything) to do with
be something/anything/nothing to do with
to be ...
Generally speaking, only the first verb in each clause is finite:
They knew what it meant.
Here, know is the finite verb. It changes form to agree with the subject (I know, she knows) and to indicate tense (They know, they knew).
To turn this into a question, we need to apply Subject-Auxiliary Inversion. But to do that, we need an auxiliary, so we add ...
Have to is an accidental collocation, not the verbal idiom = must.
Parse it like this:
The access [which] smartphones have . . .
What kind of access?
access to vast amounts of information
That is, smartphones have access to vast amounts of information.
HAVE got is an idiom equivalent to HAVE.
I've got a report to do = I have a report to do
Have you got time to read this? = Do you have time to read this?
In Standard English (whatever that is), bare got, without a form of HAVE, is simply the past form of GET. It cannot be substituted for HAVE or HAVE got. Your example would be understood to be asking ...