Re: V2 (plus Géarthnuns serendipity)

DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> But isn't "will" intimately tied to the notion of "want"
Historically, yes.  But not today.  If you say "I will" you mean "I will
do that", not "I want".  In Modern English it means only "future tense".

> "Will
> you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" "I will." (a little
> more "wantness" than "futureness" here, but I hope you get my point)
I've always heard it "DO you take ... I DO"

> Much as I'm tempted to call it an auxiliary and call it a day, when I began
> groping for terms to explain the shléts, I trudged through bazillions of
> dictionaries in various languages and the term "auxiliary" seemed
> inextricably tied to verb-ness (aren't they often called "helping *verbs*"
> in English?). The shléts is too weak to stand on its own, and doesn't derive
> from a verb which had a meaning at one point.
Hmm, "bound auxilliary" or something?  Seems like it should be
considered SOME kind of auxilliary.  I've seen "better" in sentences
like "You better go" called an auxilliary, so under at least some
definitions, it doesn't have to be "verby".

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor