Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Finished

In diversi libri in inglese (di informatica) ho trovato il verbo to finish 
associato all'ausiliare TO BE come nell'esempio che segue:
When you are finished, click OK.
Ma non si dovrebbe usare l'ausiliare TO HAVE? (When you have finished, click 
OK)
Insomma, จจ sbagliata la frase riportata nei libri (come io penso sia) 
oppure mi son perso qualche lezione d'inglese a scuola?
Grazie mille
Agos 

 Ma non si dovrebbe usare l'ausiliare TO HAVE? (When you have finished, click 
Si usano entrambi. 
-- 
Enrico C
* cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:ngq71ny8qz14$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...


 Posso quindi dire: When I'm finished eating .......
Credo suoni più colloquiale di "I have finished..."
===


What Enrico has said in his posts is , of course , correct ; but I don't 
think it's accurate to talk of it as if the auxiliary 'to be' can simply 
replace 'to have' . For instance , 'When you have finished the pig-styes , 
move on to the stables' ;'She had finished the race before I was even 
half-way'; you couldn't use 'to be' as auxiliary here .
I think the use of the adjective 'finished' predicatively of a person , 
meaning 'having completed an activity' , goes back some way : 'When you're 
finished , don't forget to put away the tools.' (i.e. the verb is 'are' ; 
'finished' is an adjective ; the verb isn't 'are finished') .  My impression 
(without evidence) is that adding a verbal noun naming the activity - 'When 
you're finished eating' - is much more recent (maybe an American influence ? 
I don't know . I am UK.)
Mike 

 For instance , 'When you have finished the pig-styes , move on to the stables' ;
What about "When you're finished with the/those pig-styes, move on to the
stables"?
[...]
Bye, FB
-- 
Nasalization is just a part of life.
(Joey DoWop Dee on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)

 Insomma, ¨¨ sbagliata la frase riportata nei libri (come io penso sia)


 Insomma, ¨¨ sbagliata la frase riportata nei libri (come io penso sia) 


 [...]
That's ok , but of course 'are' still isn't an auxiliary ; the main verb is 
'are' , followed by the predicative adjective 'finished' , in a structure 
analagous to 'Are you happy with the job?'
The meaning of 'to finish with' (phrasal verb) is not the same as 'to be 
finished with' .
I was just pointing out the  misunderstanding about the auxiliary ; it would 
have been simpler to remind the OP that , unlike other European languages , 
English verbs don't differ in the auxiliaries they use ; every single verb 
in English forms its compound tenses in exactly the same way , and each uses 
both 'to have' and 'to be' as auxiliaries , depending on tense/voice .
Mike 

 When you finished -->> click OK
No, mi dispiace, "when you finished" è proprio sbagliato.
-- 
Mary

 Si usano entrambi.
Cito da
http://www.bartleby.com/68/18/2518.html
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993.
 
finished (past participle) 
 
is Standard when used with forms of either have or be, as in I have
finished or I am finished, both of which mean "I have completed
whatever it was." But note that finished itself as participial
adjective means either "completed" or "defeated, ruined," and the
like: He has finished the task. He is finished with the task. She is
finished, through, and done for. The adjective also occurs in passive
structures: He has been finished for some time now; he's all washed
up. All are Standard, although the uses with forms of be as
auxiliaries tend toward the Conversational, Semiformal, or Informal.
===

 Insomma, ¨¨ sbagliata la frase riportata nei libri (come io penso sia) 


 wrote in message 
news:1r4wvo4g...@news.lillathedog.net...

With due respect to this Guide , it appears to me confused . Either 
'finished' (in the examples) is an adjective , or it is as a non-finite part 
of the verb an integral part with an auxiliary of a finite tense form ; the 
Guide talks as if it is both at the same time ..In 'The team have finished 
the job in record time' it is surely absurd to call 'finished' an adjective 
; the words 'I have finished' together constitute the present perfect tense 
active voice of 'finish', 'have' being an auxiliary ; in 'The job was 
finished by the team in record time' 'was finished' is the simple past 
passive voice of 'finish' , 'was' being the auxiliary ; in 'Come and see me 
when you're finished' 'are' is not an auxiliary , and 'are finished' is not 
a tense of the verb 'finish' - the verb is 'are' , and 'finished' is an 
adjective used predicatively .
The latter is also the view taken by the Oxford English Dictionary . Perhaps 
the Americans use different grammatical terminology , but in this case it 
doesn't appear helpful .
Past participles do also function as adjectives ; but their function within 
a tense form is not the same as their function as an adjective . You would 
not describe 'depressed' in 'I have depressed the button' as an adjective ; 
and you would not say that in 'I am depressed' the 'am' functions as an 
auxiliary in a passive tense form .
The last sentence of the guide emphasises this confusion : 'the uses [of 
'finished'] with forms of be as auxiliaries tend towards the Conversational 
, Semiformal , or Informal'  : the obvious use of 'finished' with 'be' as 
auxiliary is in all the passive tenses : 'The job was finished in no time' ; 
'When will the job be finished ?' 'Is the job finished or not?' 'Would the 
job have been finished if Bill hadn't been ill ?'The job had been finished 
long before Tom arrived' etc - none of these are in any sense tending 
towards the informal .
Does the Guide say how it defines 'auxiliary' ??
Mike 

 doesn't appear helpful .
I sometimes get confused about whether to use the determinative
article. Why is it "the Americans" rather than "Americans" in that
sentence of yours?

 adjective used predicatively .
How would you parse 'Come and see me when you've finished' ?



(you) 'have finished' - 2nd person (sing.OR plural) present perfect tense 
active voice of  the verb 'to finish'
(You don't want the rest of the sentence , do you ?)
Mike 

 wrote in message 
news:ga3yz6ctv3q6$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...

I'm not sure ; I suppose I could have said 'Americans' ; I think possibly I 
said 'the Americans' because it is (at least implicitly) a reference back to 
the American opinion you offered for discussion ; on the other hand , I 
think that if there'd been no previous mention of Americans (or of the 
Americans) , it's quite likely I'd have said 'the Americans' anyway .
I don't know ; I shall have to ponder it and hope someone else can explain 
in the meantime !
Mike 

 wrote in message
news:ga3yz6ctv3q6$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...

If I talk about the Brits, I have to say "the English ...", or
"Englishmen...".
Americans by itself refers to just some Americans, where "the
Americans" refers to us as a heterogeneous mass.
Just as there is a difference between saying "the English are
linguistic snobs" and "Englishmen often display a superior attitude to
those outside the UK who speak English", so there is a difference
between "Americans find their language skills insufficient", and "the
Americans lack linguistic skills when compared to the Europeans".
The same holds true for "Italians" and "the Italians". To say
"Italians always greet each other when entering a public place" is
different from saying "the Italians" in the same sentence. The former
might be an observation, while the latter implies a rule cast in stone
for all Italians.
At least that's my opinion.
Joe from Massachusetts



Don't ask me why, but my hunch is that he was interested in how you'd
define "see", which is an imperative as well as "come". Am I correct,
Henryco?
Bye, FB
-- 
Senza prove il nulla resta nulla.
(Rivelazione diDarik su it.cultura.linguistica.italiano)

 in the meantime !
Thanks for your explanation, anyway!


 (You don't want the rest of the sentence , do you ?)
I am rather inquisitive, but not *that* much! ;)


 Don't ask me why
Why?
Perché nun ti fai li 'azzi tua, perché.
Ciao, FB
-- 
Just as I thought. Another test that could have cost us our lives, saved
only by the fact that I am enormously well-bred.
(Murder by Death)

 define "see", which is an imperative as well as "come".
Had that been the case, I guess I would have started what is known in
the trades as a brand new thread... :)



Yes , but 'Mister McGoldrick came second in the Champion Hurdle Trial 
half-an-hour ago' means the same as 'Mister McGoldrick was runner-up in the 
Champion Hurdle Trial half-an-hour ago ' ; that's no reason to confuse the 
diferent gramatical structures .
My only point has been that to talk of both the original phrases as if they 
were grammatically the same , and to assert that alternative auxiliaries are 
possible , is wrong , and is particularly confusing on a newsgroup like this 
, since , if the waters aren't muddied , the English verb system (not usage) 
is much more straightforward and easy to learn than that of most European 
languages I know .
Mike 

 the trades as a brand new thread... :)
Ho pensato alla domanda a trabocchetto. Di solito non sono dietrologo.
Sarà l'età.
Ciao, FB
-- 
Dans l'attente de votre réponse, je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur,
l'expression de mes remerciements anticipés ainsi que mes
salutations distinguées (ou mes sincères salutations).
(da "Dello scrivere sobrio e compatto")

 auxiliary in a passive tense form .
Also Swan's 'Practical English Usage' uses the same terminology as
OED's (and thus seems to disagree with The Columbia Guide to Standard
American English).
211. Finished can be used as a normal past participle in perfect verb
forms (e.g. "I've nearly finished"). It can be used as an adjective
after "be", meaning 'ready' (eg. "I'm nearly finished"). There is not
much difference of meaning between "I ...etc... am finished" (in this
sense) and "I ...etc... have finished". The adjective construction (be
finished) is common in an informal style.
"How soon will you be/have finished, dear?
Hang on - I'm/I've nearly finished.
I went to get the car from the garage, but they weren't/hadn0t
finished.

 languages I know .
Indeed, that would have been a remarkable exception to the
straightforwardness of the English verb system!
