6

Verbs

Verbs convey actions or states of being. And that’s all anybody has to say about that. Nothing more to see here, folks. Go forth into the world with the confidence that nobody knows verbs better than you know verbs.

That goes swimmingly and you proceed through life a self-anointed master of verbs right up to the minute you stumble across any of the terms copular, participle, mood, base form, transitive, irregular, modality, lexical, perfect, finite, or progressive participle.

The bad news is that verbs are complicated. The good news is that these complexities are actually quite fascinating. The very fact that I feel bad and I feel badly have different meanings hinged on the type of verb is pretty intriguing to the typical word nerd. So let’s take a thorough look at verbs.

There are a number ways to understand verbs and categorize verbs.

Tense

Aspect

Regular and irregular

Transitive, intransitive, and copular

Auxiliary, modal auxiliary, and lexical

Operators including dummy operators

Mood

Voice

Phrasal verbs

Gerunds

Participial modifiers

These are different ways of looking at verbs, not distinct categories. That is, a transitive verb can be irregular and inflected in the past tense for the third person plural, overlapping these different analytical categories.

Most verb analysis has to do with the fact that verbs change a little according to the job they’re doing. So let’s look at verb form-types before we jump into tense, aspect, mood, and so on.

Verb Forms

When verbs change form according to the job they’re doing, we call that inflection. Regular verbs follow a formula for their inflections. Irregular verbs deviate from this formula. But in either case, verbs have what we call form-types, which means a base form, an -s form, an -ing participle (also called a progressive participle), a past form (which for regular verbs ends in -ed), and a past participle (which for regular verbs also ends in -ed).

	Regular	Irregular
Base Form	walk	eat
-s form	walks	eats
-ing (progressive) participle	walking	eating
Past form (-ed form)	walked	ate
Past participle (also -ed form)	walked	eaten

The base form is just what it sounds like. It’s also the infinitive form. If you think of the infinitive as containing the particle to, as in to go, that’s usually practical but not completely accurate. According to most linguistics experts, the particle to introduces the infinitive, or uninflected, form of the verb but isn’t part of it.

The -s form is the third-person singular, as in Bob walks, The dog sleeps, or He knows. There are a few variations on this, most notably that verbs that end in y replace it with an ie before adding the s: carries, buries, ferries.

The -ing participle, also called the progressive participle, is used in progressive verb tenses like Bob was walking and Bob had been walking.

The simple past forms of regular verbs have -ed endings: Bob walked. The cake was baked. So does the past participle: Bob has walked. The cake has been baked.

The simple past forms of irregular verbs and the past participles, too, can take any number of different forms. Sometimes irregular past tense and past participle forms differ from each other, as we see with ate and eaten. Other times, they’re identical, as we see with the past forms of think, both of which are thought: Yesterday I thought about it. In the past I have thought about it.

If you’re not too comfortable with the term past participle, just think of it as the one that goes with some form of have: I have walked. She has brought. He had known. They have given.

Tense

Tense refers to the “when” of an action as expressed by the verb. Linguistic analysis usually emphasizes just two tenses: present and past. But for practical purposes, tenses represent the various verb conjugations. Here they are:

Simple present (Henry works.)

Simple past (Henry worked.)

Present perfect (Henry has worked.)

Past perfect (Henry had worked.)

Present progressive (Henry is working.)

Past progressive (Henry was working.)

Future (Henry will work.)

Future perfect (Henry will have worked.)

Modal perfect (Henry would have worked.)

A verb that expresses tense is said to be finite. A verb that does not is nonfinite.

I did my chores.

(Did is finite because it expresses tense.)

I have many things to do.

(Do is nonfinite because it doesn’t express tense.)

Aspect

Aspect refers to how an action extends over time. There are two aspects: perfect and progressive. They’re both formed with auxiliary verbs: have for the perfect aspect and be for the progressive.

Think of the progressive aspect as action ongoing over a period of time, even if that period of time is already ended or hasn’t yet begun.

Darrell is working.

Evelyn was singing.

Frankie will be studying art history.

Those -ing forms are called progressive participles. That term applies anytime you use an -ing form of a verb with a form of be to express ongoing action.

The perfect aspect emphasizes action completed by a certain point in time, even if that means it will be completed at a point in the future.

Greg has eaten.

Greg had eaten.

Greg will have eaten.

That first one uses a present tense form of have, so it’s called the present perfect. The second uses the past tense of have, so it’s called the past perfect. The third refers to an action that will have been completed in the future. It’s called the future perfect.

The term present perfect can be a little confusing. Greg has eaten is called present perfect even though it refers to something that, clearly, has already happened. But if you keep the emphasis on the fact that the auxiliary verb is in the present tense, you can keep it straight.

Irregular Versus Regular Verbs

Regular verbs follow a simple formula in their conjugations. Irregular verbs deviate from that formula. The most irregular verb in English is be.

	Walk (Regular)	Be (Highly Irregular)
First Person Singular	I walk	I am
Second Person Singular	you walk	you are
Third Person Singular	he walks	he is
First Person Plural	we walk	we are
Third Person Plural	they walk	they are
Simple Past	he walked	he was
Past Participle	he was walking	he had been

Be is an oddball. It’s the only verb that has wildly different forms in the present tense, like am, are, and is. Other irregular verbs can have wildly varying past tense forms, but their present tenses are either identical to those of regular verbs or follow a very similar pattern.

Drive, do, and have are irregular. Their past tenses don’t mirror those of regular verbs. In the present tense, you conjugate drive the same way you conjugate a regular verb. Do and have are a bit more irregular yet still resemble the pattern set by regular verbs: all but the third person singular uses the base form, while the third person singular verb conjugation employs the letter s.

PRESENT-TENSE CONJUGATION OF THREE IRREGULAR VERBS

	Drive	Do	Have
First Person Singular	I drive	I do	I have
Second Person Singular	you drive	you do	you have
Third Person Singular (-s Form)	he drives	he does	he has
First Person Plural	we drive	we do	we have
Third Person Plural	they drive	they do	they have

PAST-TENSE CONJUGATION OF THREE IRREGULAR VERBS

Simple Past	drove	did	had
Past Participle	driven	done	had

The past forms for irregular drive, do, and have don’t add ed on the end the way regular verbs do.

For some irregular verbs, the simple past tense and the past participle are the same.

I bring

I brought

I have brought

For others, they’re different.

I know

I knew

I have known

This is why they’re called irregular: there’s seemingly no rhyme or reason to how their past tense forms will deviate from the pattern seen in regular verbs.

Some verbs let you choose from multiple correct forms.

I dream

I dreamed / I dreamt

(Both correct.)

I have dreamed / I have dreamt

(Both correct.)

Dictionaries list past tense and past participle forms after the main entry. This is where you’ll see that both dreamed and dreamt are listed. (Often, dictionaries list the most common form first. That’s not always the case, but if you need a way to choose which dictionary-approved form is best, you can follow the popular guideline that says, for consistency’s sake, always use the first form listed in the dictionary.)

Transitive, Intransitive, and Copular (Linking) Verbs

A transitive verb takes a direct object.

Leslie kissed Jack.

Leslie is the doer of this action. The action is kissing. The recipient of that action—the thing the action is being done to—is Jack. That makes him the object.

Any verb that takes an object in this way is called transitive.

An intransitive verb does not take a direct object.

Emma yawned.

She’s not yawning something. She’s just yawning. The thought and even the sentence is complete in just two words. Nothing else needed.

Many verbs have both transitive and intransitive forms.

William sang.

William sang “Feelings.”

This is highly intuitive. When someone asks what you do for exercise, you can say simply I walk. When they ask what you do immediately after work, you can say, I walk the dog. When you’re using a form that doesn’t require an object, you’re using the intransitive verb walk. When you talk of walking something, you’re using the transitive form.

Most dictionaries have separate entries for these transitive and intransitive forms, with those notions usually looking something like this: v. tr. and v. i.—or something to that effect. This comes in handy when someone tells you that, while a person can “graduate from college,” they can’t “graduate college.” Because they’re saying that college can’t be the direct object of graduate, a simple check of the dictionary guided by an understanding of transitive and intransitive verbs should end that argument fast. (Spoiler alert: you can graduate college. Also: the college can graduate you. We know that because major dictionaries expressly state that graduate is both a transitive verb and an intransitive verb and they give examples showing how it can be used.)

A copular verb, also called a linking verb, is neither transitive nor intransitive. The most common copular verb is be, but the group includes many other verbs that deal with being, becoming, appearing, and the five senses.

Copular verbs link the subject of the clause to a noun phrase or adjective phrase in the predicate. As a result, the predicate refers back to the subject.

Broccoli is a vegetable.

Notice that the noun phrase a vegetable is not on the receiving end of an action the way objects of transitive verbs receive action. Broccoli contains fiber has a very different relationship between the subject and the predicate than Broccoli is a vegetable. Containing is an action and the recipient of that action is the thing being contained: fiber. But in Broccoli is a vegetable, the second noun phrase refers back to the first.

The noun phrase that follows a copular verb is called a subject predicative. The name is helpful for understanding that it’s really just a reference to the subject of the sentence that appears in the predicate. You can also say that the subject predicative is the complement of the copular verb.

A complement of a copular verb can be a noun phrase or an adjective phrase.

Larry is the coach.

(Noun phrase.)

Larry is successful.

(Adjective phrase.)

You can see it makes sense that be is the most common copular verb. To say one thing is another is the most basic way for a predicate to refer back to the subject. But all verbs that deal with being, becoming, seeming, or the five senses can function as copular verbs.

Larry became the coach.

Brianna seems upset.

Don acts crazy.

This coffee tastes terrible.

Something smells awful.

I feel bad.

That last one is worth a few words. Members of the copular verb club that are also physical senses aren’t as intuitive as the rest. After all, tasting and smelling and feeling are actions. The best way to explain when and why these can qualify as copular verbs is illustrated in comparing these examples:

This coffee tastes bad.

This coffee tastes badly.

Adverbs like badly describe actions. Yet in This coffee tastes badly an adverb seems wrong. That’s because it is wrong. We’re not describing an action, which would call for an adverb; we’re instead looking back toward the subject, a noun. Describing nouns is a job for adjectives, not adverbs. That’s why I feel bad is the correct way to express regret or shame. The alternative I feel badly suggests reduced sensation in the fingertips or something along those lines. It’s not the action of feeling that we’re modifying when we express regret. It’s a reflection back on the subject. And though this is less intuitive than I am bad or He seems bad, it’s an example of a copular verb nonetheless.

Some verbs can be either copular or not. The difference lies solely in the speaker’s intended meaning. Darcy acts good means Darcy gives off the impression of being well behaved. The predicate is about Darcy, making this a copular verb. Darcy acts well means she’s a skilled thespian. The adverb well is describing the action of acting. So this use of act is not a copular verb.

Auxiliary Verbs and Modal Auxiliary Verbs (Modality)

Auxiliary verbs are helpers. The verbs they help are called lexical verbs, which is just the term we use to mean verbs that aren’t auxiliaries. The main auxiliary verbs, have and be, team with other verbs to express when an action took place.

Bruce has left.

They also express whether the action is ongoing.

Bruce is exercising.

In some cases they convey information about things like ability…

He can do it.

…or permission…

You may speak.

…or obligation.

You must speak.

We use the word modality to describe those added properties of permission, ability, obligation, and so on. The auxiliary verbs that convey modality are called modal auxiliaries. Here’s a more complete list of their powers: modal auxiliaries express certainty, possibility, willingness, obligation, necessity, or ability.

The modal verbs are can, could, may, might, will, shall, would, should, and must.

Other terms sometimes carry modal meanings, like dare, need, ought to, have to, have got to, to be going to, and to be able to. These are sometimes called semi-modals or modal phrases.

Compare the ways that different auxiliaries affect a clause like you cook:

You have cooked.

(Auxiliary have helps express when the action occurred.)

You are cooking.

(Auxiliary be helps express that the action is ongoing.)

You should cook.

(Modal auxiliary should adds information about obligation.)

You must cook.

(Modal auxiliary must adds information about necessity.)

You can cook.

(Modal auxiliary can adds information about ability.)

Modals can sometimes stand alone. But in most cases that’s just shorthand that leaves the main verb implied.

Can he cook?

He can. = He can cook.

Modals have some very unusual properties. For example, modal auxiliary verbs cannot pair with the particle to to form an infinitive. Think about to cook, to go, and to be. Now compare that with to must, to should, and to might. These forms simply don’t exist. True, there’s a to have to, to need to, and to ought to, but that just shows why ought, need to, and have to aren’t card-carrying members of the modal auxiliary club.

Modal auxiliaries don’t have any of the form-types we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Modals don’t have an -s form: for example, whereas a regular verb would be conjugated I like, he likes, and so on, modals like can don’t add the s in the third person singular: I can, he can.

Modals don’t have an -ing form, either. So where lexical verbs have forms like buying, running, and believing, there is no musting, shalling, or woulding. (Don’t confuse terms like willing and canning with progressive participles of modal auxiliaries. These are different verbs. Will can be a transitive verb in uses like to will something to happen. Can is a transitive verb when it means to put something in a can. So willing and canning are really transitive verbs unrelated to the modals.)

Modals don’t have an -ed past tense form, either. There’s no musted, for example. Some modals can form something like a past tense. For example, could at times approximates a past form of can.

Today he can go.

Yesterday he could go.

Finally, some modals have unique properties when you start negating them or contracting them.

Ray will be happy to see you.

Ray won’t be happy to see you.

(Will not contracts to won’t.)

Gina can take the call.

Gina cannot take the call.

(A closed form with the suffix -not is unique to can.)

Operators and Dummy Operators

The easiest way to understand operators is to think of them as the verbs that move around when you want to form a question or make the verb negative.

Kate was here.

Was Kate here?

(Operator was moves to form a question.)

It is raining.

It is not raining.

(Negation applied to operator is.)

Operators are also used to add emphasis…

Do come in.

(Operator do adds emphasis.)

…and to truncate sentences.

You go to the gym on Sundays?

I do.

(Operator do stands in for the omitted predicate.)

Operators are often the auxiliary verbs have and be.

You have seen the movie.

Have you seen the movie?

You are here.

Are you here?

Modal auxiliaries can act as operators anytime they’re inverted to form questions or when they receive negation.

You must do that.

Must you do that?

You must not do that.

Danielle should swim.

Should Danielle swim?

Danielle should not swim.

He might know.

Might he know?

He might not know.

The mechanics of these sentences are pretty clear. But for the record, here’s the process for using auxiliary verbs as operators.

To negate a sentence, put not after the auxiliary verb, making it the operator.

We have seen the ocean.

We have not seen the ocean.

(Receiving the negation, have becomes the operator.)

When the verb phrase has more than one auxiliary, put not after the first one, making it an operator.

Gary could have danced all night.

Gary could not have danced all night.

(Receiving the negation, could becomes the operator.)

To make a question by process of inversion, swap the places of the subject and first auxiliary verb, making it an operator.

We have seen the ocean.

Have we seen the ocean?

(Have changes position to form a question, making it an operator.)

Gary could have danced all night.

Could Gary have danced all night?

(Could changes position to form a question, making it an operator.)

But notice how when there’s no auxiliary verb, neither the standard inversion process nor the standard negation process works. You can’t just swap the places of the subject and the first word of the verb phrase to form a question.

Gary danced.

Danced Gary?

(Incorrect.)

Evelyn bikes.

Bikes Evelyn?

(Incorrect.)

Similarly, when there’s no auxiliary, you can’t negate a sentence simply by inserting not after the verb.

Gary danced.

Gary danced not.

(Incorrect.)

Evelyn lies.

Evelyn lies not.

(Incorrect.)

This is where do comes in. Do has a special job in English: It’s called a dummy operator. You insert it specifically so you’ll have an operator that allows you to form a question or add negation.

You work.

Do you work?

Because we couldn’t invert you work to make the question work you? we inserted do as our operator, letting us form the question Do you work?

Now here’s the negation process with dummy operator do:

You work.

You do not work.

Again, we couldn’t have just inserted not into our original sentence. That would have given us You work not—an archaic form almost unheard of in modern English. So by inserting dummy operator do, we had a logical place to put not.

It should go without saying that the dummy operator can also be conjugated to does for the third person singular or to did for the past tense.

Evelyn lies.

Evelyn does not lie.

(Third person singular dummy operator does receives negation.)

Does Evelyn lie?

(Third person singular dummy operator does can be inverted to form a question.)

Evelyn lied.

Evelyn did not lie.

(Past tense did becomes the dummy operator receiving negation.)

Did Evelyn lie?

(Past tense did becomes the dummy operator inverted to form a question.)

She does.

(Dummy operator does stands in for missing words in truncated sentence.)

Oh, she does lie.

(Dummy operator does adds emphasis.)

Like regular operators, dummy operators can also be used as a sort of shorthand for a truncated noun phrase, Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband? I do. They can also be used for emphasis: I do enjoy dancing.

Mood

Have you ever said something like I wish he were here or I wouldn’t do that if I were you? If so, why did you use the word were?

Any native English speaker knows that were doesn’t normally go with he. There is no He were here yesterday. Ditto that for It’s crucial you be on time. There is no you be. The conjugated form of be that goes with you is are: you are.

But when you throw in a wish or a statement that something is crucial, suddenly the verb conjugation changes. That’s the essence of subjunctive mood.

The subjunctive is one of three moods in English, the others being indicative and imperative. Those two are simple and straightforward.

Indicative mood is merely a statement.

He is there.

She ate the bread.

We are well informed.

Any simple declarative statement is in the indicative mood—a term that’s essentially useless except when used to distinguish statements from the two other moods: subjunctive and imperative.

Imperative mood means a command.

Be there.

Eat the bread.

Get informed.

The interesting thing about the imperative mood is that it leaves the subject implied. That subject is always presumed to be you.

Be there. = You be there.

Eat the bread. = You eat the bread.

Get informed. = You get informed.

This is why imperatives are the only types of clauses that can constitute a complete sentence despite being just one word long.

Eat!

Stay!

Run!

These meet the minimum criteria for a sentence: that it contain both a subject and a verb. That’s because the subject, you, is implied.

Imperative mood is easy for any native speaker. You don’t need to be told it uses the base form of the verb instead of the conjugated form. That is, even though the subject you would take are in its conjugated form, You are there, that it’s not the form you use to issue commands. When you order someone to show up, you tell him, Be there, not Are there.

The subjunctive mood is pretty intuitive, too. You probably use it all the time in sentences like I wish he were here without understanding why or even how. It just comes naturally.

The subjunctive applies mainly in contrary-to-fact situations as well as commands, demands, statements of necessity, suggestions, requests, proposals, and suppositions. Here are some examples:

I wish he were here.

If he were here

It’s imperative that you be strong.

I insisted he walk faster.

In none of these example does the verb take the same form it would in the simple indicative. That is, without those qualifying conditions, you’d say, He was here, You are strong, and He walks faster. But in our examples above, we instead used were, be, and walk to make the mood subjunctive.

To understand the process of forming subjunctives, break it into two situations: present tense and past tense.

In the present tense, the subjunctive can apply to any verb. It’s formed by replacing the conjugated form with the base form of the verb. The base form is identical to the infinitive (when you note that the infinitive does not technically include the particle to).

So be is a base form. You’d use it to replace is, am, or are when employing the subjunctive mood.

He is here.

It’s crucial that he be here.

You are nice.

It’s crucial that you be nice.

I am ready.

It’s crucial that I be ready.

As illustrated in those examples, the most irregular verb in English, be, is the most visibly different in the subjunctive form. Because it changes so much from subject to subject (I am, you are, he is), the be stands out more in the subjunctive (I be, you be, he be).

Regular verbs, remember, change only slightly when you conjugate them. The third person singular he, she, and it take the -s form (he walks, she walks, it walks). But all other subjects use a form that’s identical to the base form (I walk, you walk, we walk, they walk). Only the third person singular does that. With that in mind, look at these statements in the subjunctive:

You walk. → It’s crucial that you walk.

She walks. → It’s crucial that she walk.

He walks. → It’s crucial that he walk.

We walk. → It’s crucial that we walk.

I walk. → It’s crucial that I walk.

Notice how all the forms but the third person don’t change walk at all in the subjunctive. They’re still subjunctive because that statement of necessity it’s crucial makes them so. The verb just doesn’t change form.

So to form the subjunctive in the present tense, just swap out any conjugated verb for the base form.

He walks. → It’s crucial that he walk.

He is. → It’s crucial that he be.

Past tense subjunctive is even easier. It applies to just one verb, be, and the formula is very simple. To form the subjunctive, just change any instance of was to were.

I was. → I wish I were.

He was. → if he were

We were. → It was critical that we were.

One contrary-to-fact situation in which this comes up a lot is if statements.

if I were you

if your father were here

if she were a better athlete

Note that the contrary-to-fact meaning is crucial in determining whether to use the subjunctive.

if Mary were alive

(The speaker knows Mary is not alive.)

if Mary was alive at the time

(Mary may have been alive.)

Our latter example is not a contrary-to-fact situation. It’s possible Mary was alive at the time. The speaker doesn’t know. Instead, he’s weighing two very real possibilities. That’s why the indicative was is used instead of the subjunctive were.

Voice

From time to time, you hear people talk about passive verbs. Interesting fact: there’s no such thing. Not in a strict grammatical sense, anyway.

True, Carmen runs has a more active quality than Carmen is. There’s no denying that some verbs are less action-oriented than others. But passive and active voice in grammar have nothing to do with kinetics. Instead, voice has to do with the structure of the sentence.

Here’s the best way to understand passive voice: in passive structure, the object of an action is made the grammatical subject of the sentence. Compare these examples:

Bill baked a cake.

(Active voice.)

The cake was baked by Bill.

(Passive voice.)

In Bill baked a cake, the subject is Bill, the verb is the transitive verb baked, and the direct object of that verb is a cake. Bill is the person doing the baking. That’s active voice.

In The cake was baked by Bill, the doer and receiver of the action do not change even though their roles in the sentence have switched. The cake is now the grammatical subject of the sentence. The main clause is The cake was. But the cake isn’t baking Bill. He remains the doer of the action even though he’s no longer the grammatical subject of the sentence. That’s passive voice.

The mechanics of forming the passive are simple. It’s formed with the verb be combined with what’s called a passive participle. The passive participle is identical to the past participle.

To put an active sentence like The moon creates the tides into passive voice, move the object of the action (the tides) to the head of the clause, insert a form of be (was is probably most common in passive voice), then combine that auxiliary with the past participle of the verb (created).

The moon creates the tides.

(Active.)

The tides are created by the moon.

(Passive.)

A few more examples:

Steve watched the soccer game.

(Active.)

The soccer game was watched by Steve.

(Passive.)

Napoleon conquered Spain.

(Active.)

Spain was conquered by Napoleon.

(Passive.)

The voters reelected Mayor Jones.

(Active.)

Mayor Jones was reelected by the voters.

(Passive.)

You’ve probably noticed that a certain word keeps cropping up in the passive forms: by. This preposition allows us to state the doer of the action when that doer is no longer the subject of the sentence. But by is not an integral part of passive voice. It’s merely a tool that allows you to mention who performed the action of the verb. Sometimes that’s crucial to the meaning. Sometimes it’s not. It’s up to you to decide whether the doer of the action is worth mentioning.

The bank was robbed by Alan.

The bank was robbed.

The soccer game was watched by Steve.

The soccer game was watched.

Spain was conquered by Napoleon.

Spain was conquered.

Mayor Jones was reelected by the voters.

Mayor Jones was reelected.

A lot of people think that passive voice is necessarily bad or, at least, inferior to active voice. In some cases that’s true. Passive can deflate the action of the sentence, making writing less lively. Robert punched Ernest has a greater immediacy and directness than Ernest was punched by Robert.

But passive voice is ideal in situations where the doer of the action is less important than the object of the action. In Louis was found unconscious, passive voice lets us keep the focus on Louis instead of shining a spotlight on the paramedic or jogger or family member who found him. Katie is beloved by all is clearly superior to All belove Katie.

Phrasal Verbs

Avoid the mistake of getting verb phrases mixed up with phrasal verbs. A verb phrase, as we saw earlier, is any verb, with or without auxiliaries, modifiers, or determiners, functioning as a verb in a sentence. A verb phrase can be a single word, like runs in the sentence Joey runs. Or a verb phrase can include auxiliaries or adverbs. Joey has run. Joey runs fast.

A phrasal verb is something altogether different. Compare the verbs in these sentences:

Helen called the bakery.

Helen called off the wedding.

We gave at the office.

We gave up.

I broke my pencil.

I broke up with Robert.

I broke into my own house.

Winnie makes pottery.

Winnie makes up stories.

We ate.

We ate out.

In each of these cases we see a verb whose meaning is totally changed by adding a preposition, an adverb, or both. Break does not mean the same thing as break up with. Call does not mean the same thing as call off. Eat does not mean the same thing as eat out.

Whenever a verb teams up this way with one or more prepositions or adverbs, it’s called a phrasal verb. Three-word forms like get away with, put up with, face up to, and live up to are sometimes called phrasal-prepositional verbs—a reference to the preposition at the end.

And, contrary to a myth, it’s not an error to insert another word like a noun in the middle of phrasal verb. Sometimes that’s the natural wording.

We put him up for the night.

(Pronoun him is inserted in the middle of the phrasal verb put up.)

The writers made him up.

(Pronoun him is inserted in the middle of the phrasal verb made up.)

Compare those to the alternatives, and you’ll see why the myth doesn’t hold water. To say, We put up him for the night or The writers made up him is unnatural and unnecessary.

Gerunds (Verbs as Nouns)

As we’ve mentioned, words normally considered one part of speech sometimes function as other parts of speech. Gerunds are a good example. Take the -ing form of any verb, use it as a noun, and you have a gerund.

Walking is good exercise.

Chewing gum will get you in trouble.

The kids don’t like coloring.

True, in other contexts these words would be verbs: I am walking. You are chewing gum. He is coloring. But when we take those same -ing participles and turn them into noun phrases, either as the subject of a clause or as the object of a verb or a preposition, they’re gerunds.

Participial Modifiers (Verbs as Adjectives)

Those same -ing verbs that become gerunds when you use them as nouns become essentially adjectives when you use them as modifiers. So do past participles.

a painted fence

a singing telegram

accrued interest

editing techniques

a known fact

a paring knife

a pointed question

writing class

his stated purpose

the following example

melted butter

In each of these examples, we see a participle form of a verb acting as an adjective to modify a noun. A painted fence starts with the concept of painting, which is normally an action, but before a noun, the past participle painted functions adjectivally.

A writing class starts with the idea of writing, another action, but it’s modifying a noun, just as an adjective does.

These are called participial modifiers. And they get most complicated and interesting in sentences like I never see him reading.

Here we see a strong emphasis on the action of reading. But the syntactical structure of the sentence makes clear that reading is actually a modifier (it’s postmodifying the pronoun him). The subject is I. The verb is see. The object of the verb is him. So the following word, reading, is effectively modifying the pronoun before it—working as a participial modifier.

Contraction

The verbs be, have, will, and would, the adverb not, the pronoun us, and a few other words are commonly contracted by omitting one or more letters and replacing them with an apostrophe.

Bob is here. = Bob’s here.

I am here. = I’m here.

They are here. = They’re here.

Kelly has been working a lot. = Kelly’s been working a lot.

They have seen it all. = They’ve seen it all.

Let us all enjoy this fine meal. = Let’s all enjoy this fine meal.

That is not funny. = That isn’t funny.

That is not funny. = That’s not funny.

The watch does not have a second hand. = That watch doesn’t have a second hand.

The contraction will not also changes its spelling a bit in the contracted form: won’t.

Contractions are considered informal. But formal writing has fallen out of vogue in all but a few situations. Feel free to use contractions wherever you feel a casual or conversational tone is appropriate.