"Snow" is a bare infinitive here. "Seen" carries the actual tense, and "snow" remains a bare infinitive no matter what the tense is. So:
I saw it snow.
I will see it snow.
I'm seeing it snow.
I see it snow.
I had seen it snow.
I would have seen it snow.
I will have seen it snow.
At least some of these can be rephrased so that "snow" takes the tense instead ...
The difference is subtle, but important.
Two quick translations...
Do you start work at 7 or half past seven?
Do you usually get to your place of work at 7 or 7.30?
Do you start to work at 7 or half past seven?
At whatever time you actually arrive there, do you actually commence doing that job at 7 or 7.30.
As it would be fairly rude to question ...
I think the confusion comes in when we consider that "fool/fooling around" takes its rules from the type of clause we are using.
As you know, when a verb is the subject of a sentence, it is used in "-ing" form.
Fooling around is what he does.
The adding of "-ing" is also common practice for forming nouns from verbs.
When a verb is the subordinate ...
When using the verb "help," you can use either a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive without affecting the meaning or the grammaticality of the sentence. The bare infinitive version is more common especially in American English.
"[...]the better practice is to use a bare infinitive after help (if the choice is between a fully expressed infinitive [with to] ...
As Glorfindel noted, this is due to see, not because of can. This is a common construction in English. Other verbs that have the same effect include observe, watch, hear, feel.
There's a good explanation here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/verb-patterns/hear-see-etc-object-infinitive-or-ing
If an infinitive is preceded by an auxiliary verb and a phrase ending in do (such as What I did was, All we do is, etc.), the to is optional.
From Practical English Usage, 91.5:
Expressions like All I did was, What I do is, etc can be followed by an infinitive without to.
All I did was (to) give him a little push.
What a fire-door does is (to) ...
In English, modal verbs such as CAN, WILL, the verbs MAKE, LET and also verbs of perception, for example SEE, FEEL or HEAR take verbs in the plain form. These verbs appear without the word to. For this reason:
*You make me to cry (ungrammatical)
... is badly formed. It's ungrammatical. We need the plain form of CRY without the word to:
You make me cry.
StoneyB has given the right answer—it is neither the past tense nor the present tense, but the bare infinitive that follows.
However, this might be a little confusing, because with a second person subject, the infinitive looks the same as the present tense†! So how can we tell the difference?
Let's change the subject from you to he. With a third person ...
Do is the tensed verb in this construction, and it takes an infinitive. For all verbs except be this is the same form as the uninflected present, so
Did you wake up this morning and
look in the mirror and
Somehow, using 'preposition' with the word 'work' here does not convince me. The sole reason for that is 'work' here serves as a noun. So, to + nounis NO.
If I am asked to speak it naturally, I may prefer asking...
Do you start working at .... or Do you start your work at ....
Others may come up with their answers. This is a good question.
Would rather is an idiom. In this idiom, would can take a bare infinitival clause as a complement:
I would rather [ do it myself ] .
Here, do is a bare infinitive. That means it's like to do, but without the infinitive marker to.
It's possible for this complement to have a subject, particular when it's a different subject than in the main sentence:
Certain verbs require "to-infinitive" when combined with another verb, and certain verbs omit the "to" in such situations. For instance, "make" requires no particle "to" in the active voice, but in passive voice the "to" reappears:
I'll make you understand this topic!
The students were made to write it all down.
Modal verbs usually take bare ...
Your friend's correction was accurate. A native speaker would say
All he does is watch TV.
Your proposed reversal of complement and subject is also correct: it would indeed be expressed as
Watching TV is all he does.
"To watch TV is all he does" is grammatically correct, but you would almost never hear it in normal speech.
Unfortunately, there is no ...
The difference between bare infinitive and gerund (-ing) is one of aspect, not tense. The bare infinitive looks at an action as a signal point in time whereas the gerund looks at it as a process (which is currently happening).
I watched him climbing over the fence
This means at the moment you watched him, the act of climbing was still in progress. ...
It is the subjunctive.
The subjunctive isn't used much now. English tends to use words like "if" or "I hope that" to express subjunctive concepts. In the past, however, the subjunctive was used more often, and no extra words were needed to indicate it.
In expressions and idioms we can find examples of old grammar, like the subjunctive, that have been "...
There are only a few verbs which permit the bare infinitive (unmarked with to) in complementary non-finite clauses. These fall mostly into two classes (I’ve marked the absence of to with the conventional null symbol Ø):
causatives - have, help, let, make
I’ll have my assistant Ø send you the forms.
She helped him Ø correct his paper.
We cannot let ...
There is no difference in meaning between to-infinitives and bare infinitives. The use of one form or the other is generally determined by the verb controlling the infinitive clause.
Typical examples of a verb requiring the use of a to-infinitive are:
I want to go home.
I need to go home.
Other verbs admit both to-infinitives or bare infinitives, e.g.:...
Seem is not a finite verb, inflected for number, person and tense, but a non-finite form: the unmarked infinitive which is required in clauses complementing causative MAKE.
The Devil made me doINFINITIVE it.
A good teacher knows how to make her students beINFINITIVE attentive.
Likewise, your author says (I've edited some to simplify ...
To me (a non-native user) the second sentence in the form I must not do that sounds correct, the first version is incorrect.
But I want you to clarify what you want to say.
If you want to negate an obligation to do something, then you should say I don't have to do that or I don't need to do that. The meaning is then that you are not required to do ...
In the same way as
get somebody to do something
let somebody do something
requires the bare infinitive without "to".
The "rule" is what I have said just above: it is an idiosyncratic property of the verb "let", that cannot be predicted but just has to be learnt.
As Cambridge dictionary says:
We use help with an object and an infinitive with or without to:
Jack is helping me to tidy my CDs. or Jack is helping me tidy my CDs.
Both “help someone do something” and “help someone to do something” are acceptable. The form without “to” seems to be more common in everyday speech than the form with “to” (especially in ...
This is technically called "subjunctive." It's used in a subordinate clause with a bare infinitival verb to suggest that an idea or recommendation is necessary.
There are a few words that are usually used with the subjunctive: suggest, essential, recommend, insist etc.
The subjunctive is commonly used in American English; in British English, using the ...
The meanings are different.
In the sentence with the ing-form, the speaker saw only a part of the action of going to the city. He did not witness the person going from his starting point all the way to the city.
In the second sentence, however, the speaker witnessed the whole action. He saw the person leave home and also saw him doing the whole travel to ...
I have to disagree with most of the answers on this page with the exception of Maulik's use of working and start your work. "Start to work" is ambiguous and can be interpreted as when someone begins travelling toward their workplace.
I get up in the morning, get in the car, and start to work. I arrive there in about 20 minutes.
Probably a regional thing ...
Some cities have a rule requiring that a certain percentage of the budget be used to fund public art.
The clause beginning with "requiring" employs the subjunctive mood, more precisely, the so-called mandative subjunctive:
I require that the budget be used to fund public art.
We asked that it be done yesterday.
Mandative subjunctive uses the "bare ...
Generally speaking, to can be either a preposition or an infinitive marker. Now if you want to learn how they are used in sentences you should learn the words more deeply. In fact, you should learn whether or not a verb or adjective is followed by a certain preposition or not.
Some verbs can be followed by to where to is a preposition:
She admitted to ...
Verbs can have infinitive phrases as their objects. For example "I decided to go home" or "I learned to play piano". Other verbs use a bare infinitive (without to) particularly the modal verbs: "I can go home"
The verb "help" is unusual in that it can take either a bare infinitive or a to infinitive. "Please help clean the room" and "Please help to clean ...
This is a feature mostly (but not exclusively!) of English as spoken by Black Americans, called African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This use of be is called the invariant be or habitual be.
To use your example, with the corresponding "standard" English meaning,
"We be eating" = We eat (as a regular or recurring event or state)
"We be sleeping" = ...
If you cut out the extra information, the sentence reads a lot more clearly.
Staying connected is what makes the cost seem well worth it to them.
Breaking it down a bit further into components:
X is the thing that makes Y true for Z.
In this case "X" is "staying connected", Y is "the cost seeming to be worth it", and Z is "them" (whoever that ...