4

I found this sentence,

All I could do was watch from outside.

Looks like this sentence contains 2 verbs 'was' and 'watch' but 'was' is actually working as an auxiliary verb, right?

Edwin Ashworth
  • 1,785
  • 12
  • 17
Muukii
  • 41
  • 4

5 Answers5

4

All I could do was (to) watch from outside.

This construction is fine; was is a copula (or linking verb); the infinitive phrase watch from outside is the subject complement.

The infinitive marker to, which I inserted, is optional. According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language,

The bare infinitival is restricted to cases where the subject NP contains do in a relative clause[.]

Edit to Answer Further Queries

The verb was in

All I could do was (to) watch from outside.

is not an auxiliary verb; it is a linking verb.

Linking verbs, also known as “copular verbs,” are a type of main verb [emphasis added]

As for auxiliary verbs (or helper verbs),

A helper verb will always come before the main verb in a sentence.

Hence for was to be an auxiliary verb, watch would need to be a main verb:

I was watching from ...

The scene was watched from ...

That's not the case in OP's example, where watch is an infinitive.

Collins Dictionary explains further, that the verb be is also used as a main verb. It is commonly found joining a subject to its complement..

Seowjooheng Singapore
  • 11,501
  • 2
  • 9
  • 29
  • Yes. You might also mention that with just one exception "be" is always an auxiliary verb. – BillJ Mar 06 '24 at 16:33
  • Thank you for your answer. I just want to know the link to According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language if you have it. – Muukii Mar 07 '24 at 08:14
  • @Muukii, I quoted that from somewhere. I don't think that part is accessible free of charge. – Seowjooheng Singapore Mar 07 '24 at 12:09
  • This doesn't answer the question.The OP seems to know the sentence is grammatical. They're asking if was is an auxiliary verb in the example (they asked it on EL&U] – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 09 '24 at 01:54
  • @BillJ, As I understand this analysis of OP's sentence, "watch" is not the main verb. This makes it appear odd to call "was" an auxiliary verb. Do you class "is" as an auxiliary verb in "the sky is blue"? – Peter Mar 09 '24 at 05:29
  • Thanks, @Araucaria - Not here any more. I have explained further in my answer. – Seowjooheng Singapore Mar 09 '24 at 07:52
  • 1
    @Peter Yes, I do. The verb "be" is always an auxiliary even if it is the only verb in the clause. – BillJ Mar 09 '24 at 07:58
  • 1
    @SeowjoohengSingapore I'm sorry, but you have got it wrong. The copula verb "be" is an auxiliary verb. See CGEL p113 2.5.7. It says that copula "be" has all the properties A-H, i.e. those of an auxiliary verb, CGEL p108 [48]. – BillJ Mar 09 '24 at 09:13
  • The question was if "was" in the text is an auxiliary, not if the sentence was correct use. – BadZen Mar 09 '24 at 17:17
  • @BadZen, I did state clearly both in my original answer (6 Mar) right at the front 'was is a copula (or linking verb)', and again 16 hours ago 'The verb was in "All I could do was (to) watch from outside." is *not an auxiliary* verb; it is a linking verb.' – Seowjooheng Singapore Mar 10 '24 at 00:30
  • Thanks, @BillJ. I can't access CGEL and hence can't verify this. I guess we'll just respectfully agree to disagree :). – Seowjooheng Singapore Mar 10 '24 at 00:38
  • @SeowjoohengSingapore I've attached a link to a summary of CGEL. If you scroll down to 6.4 [27] 111 you'll see that copular "be" is analysed as an auxiliary. link Note that it says "be" is the only verb, but it still behaves as an auxiliary. – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 08:43
  • @SeowjoohengSingapore I've attached a link to a summary of CGEL. If you scroll down to 6.4 [27] iii, you'll see that copular "be" is analysed as an auxiliary, link Note that it says of their example that "be" is the only verb, but it still behaves as an auxiliary. – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 09:04
  • Did you look at the link I gave you? – BillJ Mar 15 '24 at 09:35
  • Thanks very much, @BillJ. Yes, I did. "In [iii] *be* is the only verb, but it still *behaves* as an auxiliary. I'm not sure whether *it behaves* means *it is*. – Seowjooheng Singapore Mar 15 '24 at 09:54
  • Yes, it means that it behaves like an auxiliary verb, and thus it is one. Importantly, it has the NICE properties. There are several references to this in CGEL and its excellent baby brother _A Students Introduction to English Grammar__ (SIEG for short). – BillJ Mar 15 '24 at 10:04
  • I've added to my answer an extract from SIEG, which makes it clear that "be" is an auxiliary verb. I hope it helps. – BillJ Mar 15 '24 at 11:42
  • @BillJ - Read the excerpt in your answer, with the paragraph that precedes it, in light of its indended pedancy. The author is says that "be" is to be catagorized as "an auxiliary verb" in English, as if we were making a list of such verbs and found it necessary to decide which are and are not, categorically. Contrast with OP's actual question, which asked if it was "actually working as an auxiliary verb". Look at the authors converse example of static lexical verbs which are "analyzed as" aspective in some sentences, etc. 'Be' "is an auxiliary verb" because it sometimes acts as one. – BadZen Mar 24 '24 at 20:15
  • To wit: if OPs question were "is 'to be' categorized as an auxilliary verb in English", you and the author and everyone else here would enthusiatically agree. However: "in this sentence, is 'to be' functioning as an auxilliary, adding aspect to an otherwise complete lexical verb clause?" No, it is not. (Some verbs usually can provide aspect when they stand alone, for some reason he calls these 'quasi-modal' or invents another category for these uses in CGEL - here he just effectively says "let's say the verbs are auxiliary and distinguish between use, instead".) – BadZen Mar 24 '24 at 20:18
  • (Finally, most grammars that aren't CGEL / Huddleston define lexicals positively as a category, saying "if it can stand on its own in this clause, it's lexical". CGEL definitely does some stuff "thinking different" - for example Huddleston does not recognize a future tense in English... you would probably not want to tell language learners this, and cite the corresponding analysis, right?) – BadZen Mar 24 '24 at 20:22
2

All I could do was [watch from outside].

Here, "was" is an auxiliary verb, not a lexical one.

The bracketed sequence is predicative complement of "was", meaning that the latter can only be a form of copular "be".

Copular "be" is an auxiliary verb in that in has all the relevant properties of auxiliary verbs.

In fact, with just one exception, "be" is always an auxiliary verb, even if it is the only verb in the clause.

Note that the label 'main verb' is irrelevant here. "Was" is just as much a main verb as "watch" is.

enter image description here

BillJ
  • 16,811
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28
  • If "was" is a main verb, how can it be an auxiliary verb as well?

    Also: "be" in "Be kind!" is auxiliary according to your rule.

     – BadZen Mar 09 '24 at 17:22
  • @BadZen Was it you who downvoted my answer? – BillJ Mar 09 '24 at 17:27
  • Yes, because it is incorrect, and I explained why it is incorrect. Arguing about "who downvoted me" and "vote wars" make the answers here low-quality and everyone's experience bad, so "Was it you?" is 100% unhelpful. – BadZen Mar 09 '24 at 20:25
  • @BadZen Who are you to say my answer is incorrect? You are not a linguist or a grammarian, yet you seek to contradict the answers of those who are. And it's your comments that are low quality. You need to study scholarly English grammar, and learn the facts. Further, the "be" in "Be kind" is indeed a lexical verb. It's the one exception that I tacitly referred to in my answer. – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 07:53
  • Cambridge, Lingua Press and Learn Laugh and Speak says In English grammar, the verb to be is unique in that it can function both as a main verb and as an auxiliary verb. As a main verb, it is used to express a state of being, such as “I am happy.” Are all these resources and sites so wrong? – Mari-Lou A Mar 10 '24 at 11:53
  • @Mari-LouA It can be argued but it's very, very hard to maintain. It's verging on a "The Earth is flat" kind of claim. Many EFL books maintain this description, but it has basically disappeared in linguistics. It causes havoc for learners. For example, consider the following questions: How do you make yes/no questions in English? Where do you put adverbs of frequency (e.g. always) in English? How do you make a tag question in English? How do you give emphatic positive stress in English? How do you make wh-questions in English? How do you make a negative declarative clause ... (1/2) – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 10 '24 at 13:19
  • @Mari-LouA What verbs contract with the word not in English? When do we need the auxiliary verb do in English? See! Absolute havoc! The idea's a hundred years out of date. Dictionaries and EFL publications are largely still wedded to eighteenth/nineteenth century ideas about grammar. (2/2) – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 10 '24 at 13:22
  • Also, consider these pairs which compare "be" as the only verb with its use in marking the progressive aspect: "He is acting strangely" ~ "He is insane". / "Is he acting strangely?" ~ "Is he insane"? / "He isn't acting strangely" ~ "He isn't insane". In each of those pairs "be" is behaving exactly the same. – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 13:32
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. I think one of the problems is that many people use the terms 'main verb and 'auxiliary verb', as though they were in contrast. But the contrast is actually lexical verb vs auxiliary verb. Every clause, main or subordinate has a so-called 'main verb' (overt or understood), and this verb is either lexical or auxiliary. In other words, it's better not to talk of main vs auxiliary, but of lexical vs auxiliary. – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 13:52
  • @BillJ Does CGEL use "main verb"? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 10 '24 at 13:57
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Only (as far as I know) on p104, [38] where it makes the same point that I did in my last comment. Some years ago, I had a very interesting email discussion about auxiliary verbs with RDH. Would you like a copy? – BillJ Mar 10 '24 at 14:07
  • @BillJ Yes, please!!! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 10 '24 at 14:07
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Yes, I am convinced you're both right but the three sites I linked to, and one of them is Cambridge Dictionary i.e. CUP the same publisher as CGEL, appear to disagree and they weren't written in the late 19th century nor even the mid-twentieth century. I mean the authors must be hovering between 40 and 60 years old (if not younger!). – Mari-Lou A Mar 10 '24 at 14:32
  • @Mari-LouA Well, the dictionary is easier to explain: Why dictionaries are hundreds of years out of date!. As for the EFL books, I can't put my finder on exactly why, although I have a vague theory. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 10 '24 at 15:01
  • @BillJ "You are not a linguist". Assume less, maybe. – BadZen Mar 24 '24 at 20:23
1

In this post I've swapped the word I in the Original Poster's example for the word Bertha. This is just to make it easier to compare with other examples.

  1. Bertha was swimming.
  2. Bertha was praised.
  3. Bertha was in the tree.
  4. Bertha was hot.
  5. Bertha was Brenda's sister..
  6. All Bertha could do was watch from outside.

In sentence (1), the verb was is a necessary part of the present continuous construction. It is taking the verb swimming as a catenative complement. Was is clearly an auxiliary verb here.

In (2) the verb was is a necessary part of a passive construction. It's taking the verb praised as a catenative complement. Again it's clearly an auxiliary in this example.

In (3) the verb was links the subject with the locative complement in the tree. Although there's no second verb after was, it is still an auxiliary verb here. Appearing with another verb is not a necessary condition for being an auxiliary verb. Auxiliary verbs:

  • invert with subjects to make yes/no questions
  • contract with the negative word not
  • can be used without the rest of the verb phrase (when what is missing can be understood)

The word was in (3) can do all of these things:

  1. Was Bertha in the tree?
  2. Bertha wasn't in the tree.
  3. Was she in the tree? Yes, she was [in the tree].

Was is clearly an auxiliary verb here.

In (4) the verb was takes an adjective (phrase) as a predicative complement—the word hot. There is no following verb after was, but this verb still shows all of the auxiliary properties we've just talked about. For example, it can contract with not to give Bertha wasn't hot. This is an ᴀsᴄʀɪᴘᴛɪᴠᴇ use of the verb BE, where its complement, the adjective hot, tells us about some property or quality of the subject.

In (5), was is still an auxiliary because we can get sentences like Was Bertha Brenda's sister? and Bertha wasn't Brenda's sister. It is taking a noun phrase as a complement. This is not an ascriptive use of the verb BE, but a sᴘᴇᴄɪғʏɪɴɢ use. It tells us the identity of the subject (Bertha), or that the two phrases, the Subject and the predicative complement both refer to the same thing or person.

In (6) the verb was is followed by the verb watch. We might think that these are forming part of a tense/aspect/voice construction as in examples (1) and (2). And it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking that watch from the outside is the catenative complement of was here. But it isn't. Example (6) is not like examples (1) and (2), it is like example (5)! Here we see a specifying use of the verb BE. The phrase watch from the outside is the predicative complement of the verb BE, and tells us what all Bertha could do refers to.

We can see, then, why the Original Poster might ask whether was is an auxiliary in (6). It looks a bit like a typical auxiliary with a catenative complement, like the verb was in examples (1) and (2). However, it isn't. The verb phrase after was is a predicative complement, just like the noun phrase after was in example (5). And just like the was in (5), the was in (6) is an auxiliary verb. In fact, the word was is always an auxiliary verb!

Araucaria - Not here any more.
  • 27,144
  • 4
  • 53
  • 117
0

  • All I could do was watch from the outside.

  • Watch from the outside was all I could do.

was here is a copular verb aka linking verb:

This is an inverse copular construction:

In linguistics, inverse copular constructions, named after Moro (1997), are a type of inversion in English where canonical SCP word order (subject-copula-predicative expression, e.g. Fred is the plumber) is reversed in a sense, so that one appears to have the order PCS instead (predicative expression-copula-subject, e.g. The plumber is Fred). The verb in these constructions is always the copula be (am, are, is, was, were). Inverse copular constructions are intriguing because they render the distinction between subject and predicative expression difficult to maintain. The confusion has led to focused study of these constructions,1 and their impact on the theory of grammar may be great since they appear to challenge the initial binary division of the sentence (S) into a subject noun phrase (NP) and a predicate verb phrase (VP) (S → NP VP), this division being at the core of all phrase structure grammars (as opposed to dependency grammars, which do not acknowledge the binary division).

The defining trait of the inverse copular constructions is that two counts of inversion appear to have occurred: the normal subject has inverted to a post-verb position, and the predicative nominal has inverted to the pre-verb position. The verb is a finite form of the copula 'be' (am, are, is, was, were). This type of inversion is generally NOT possible with other verbs.

Subject-verb agreement Inverse copular constructions where the inverted predicative expression is a noun phrase are noteworthy in part because subject-verb agreement can (at least in English) be established with the pre-verb predicative NP as opposed to with the post-verb subject NP, e.g.

a. The pictures are a problem. - Canonical word order, standard subject-verb agreement b. A problem is/??are the pictures. - Inverse copular construction, subject-verb agreement reversed in a sense a. Those kids are an annoyance. - Canonical word order, standard subject-verb agreement b. An annoyance is/??are those kids. - Inverse copular construction, subject-verb agreement reversed in a sense In the inverse copular constructions, the copula agrees with the singular predicative expression to its left as opposed to with the plural subject to its right. This phenomenon seems to be limited to English (and possibly French); it does not occur in related languages such as German, e.g.

inverse copular construction

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
-2

All I could do was watch from outside.

"was" is used here exactly as in the following sentence:

My pocket was empty.

In both of these cases, "was" is a main verb.

Compare this with:

I was watching from the outside.

In this case, there is a second verb "watching" with the same subject. "was" is a helper that expresses a mood or tense, "watching" is the main verb.

In each of the first two examples, there is no second verb that shares a subject with "was".

BadZen
  • 3,711
  • 7
  • 23
  • Please explain your downvote if you believe the answer is incorrect. Retributive downvoting is disallowed and unhelpful. – BadZen Mar 09 '24 at 20:25
  • Could you please cite a reference which supports your idea. I have always heard (and known) that be is an auxiliary, and can/could are modal verbs "All she could do was* watch from outside." and "All they could do *were (?)* watch from outside. – Mari-Lou A Mar 10 '24 at 11:19