What is the negative sentence of -" He has a story book "?
609622
He does not have a story book.\n\nOr\n\nHe has no story book.
500886
I don't know, but I can guess- it looks like a contraction. Written out with spaces in it, it is 'You no gaw no'- just add an 'n', it becomes 'You no gawn no'; then, 'You no gawn know.' Finally, 'You are not going to know', or 'You will not know (this thing)'.\n\nObviously it's slang- I imagine that you might use if someone asks you a question that you don't want to answer in order to annoy the person asking you.\n\n"What do you have in the bag there?"\n\n"Younogawno, fool!"\n\nThat's the best I can do... I'd be interested if it meant anything very different than that though.
772315
Headline:  sometimes bold, sometimes in calligraphy script, e.g. "The San Jose Mercury News"\n\nStories triaged according to perceived importance and content--e.g., before all sorts of news broke out about E. coli infections from beef, the initial stories may have been on the front page of the local section where the outbreak occurred.  Now, these stories can end up on Page One, above the fold.\n\n"Page One, above the fold":  Stories on page 1 above the fold are generally more salient/important/relevant than stories on the same page below the fold.  These stories are what a potential newspaper buyer sees when looking at a newspaper vending machine or pile of papers for sale.\n\nObituaries:  can be an interesting glimpse of times gone by in your area, especially if the person who passed away was quite old and quite active in local politics or social life.
1028885
I think just some basic stories.  Many children's books are entirely in the simple present tense.  Try baby books or easy readers.  Hilight the verbs and demonstrate in class.  Have you heard of Total Physical Response Storytelling?  It's a fantastic way to teach languages.\n\nDon't listen to the jerks who answered this question.  I am a teacher and know where you're coming from.  I can't believe some people act like such idiots!  Hey, tarotpete, check your example sentence.  You need to remove the "a" for it to make sense!  LMAO!   Nice!  And bo_hic_a, if you think teachers are overpaid, why don't you try it?  We'll see if you last five minutes in front of a classroom full of teenagers!\n\nGood luck!
659100
It is like, when they have a story problem. Example-Tom has 3 cookies and Hank has 5 cookies. How many cookies do they have all together? The NUMBER SENTENCE would be 3+5=8 cookies.
451454
I read somewhere that children lately, even if they have parents who read to them regularly (every day or very nearly), have a hard time learning to read. The article I read specifically mentioned movie stories (like the book version of a disney film) as examples of "bad" books. The idea as I recall is that the ideas may have been suitable for children--and they were probably familiar with the story anyway from having seen the movie--but the words themselves, and perhaps the sentence structure, went way over their heads.\nSo for linguistic features of a good storybook, I'd say rhythm, rhyme, and easy words.
245499
1. There are a lot of books. (example on cooking here)\n\n2. There is a lot of books.\n\nWhen the subject (Books) is plural the verb always changes. In this case its third person plural form of the verb "to be". That is why, you have to use are instead of is.\n\nIf you have to say the same sentence with singular (Book) then its:-\n\nThere is a book (on cooking here).\n\nConjugation of the verb to be:-\nSingular\nFirst Person:- I am\nSecond Person:- You are\nThird Person:- It is\n------------\nPlural\n1st Person:- We are\n2nd Person:- They are\n3rd Person:- They are\n\nHope this helps!
186597
It's a shame the asker didn't include more of the surrounding text from this article so it could be analyzed more closely.  \n\nAnyhow, grammarians will concur that the structure:  \n\n"...active surveillance and robust peer intervention among high-risk groups such as female sex workers had had an impact in the South..." ,\n\nIS, technically, correct.  Sacramento Dweller was correct in identifying this seemingly awkward grammatical structure as a matter of tense.  Sentences utilizing this particular structure generally fall under the category of "Conditional Sentences."  Sentences featuring the 'had had' syntax are classified as "The Third Conditional," or "Conditional Type Three," and can generally be diagnosed by analyzing them for similarities with following structural formulae:\n\n(The Type 3 Conditional / Third Conditional Formula:)\n\n" IF + <insert past perfect tense verb> + <insert perfect conditional tense verb> = RESULT OF SUPPOSED CONDITIONS.*\n\n*~NOTE:  RESULT(S) of the supposed conditions usually resemble one of the following two structures, depending on when events occurred:  \n\n(1.) Result:  <insert simple present or past tense verb to express an obvious, or predictable fact / outcome>\n\n(2.) Result:  <insert modal verb  + simple present or past tense verb to express a known fact / outcome >\n\nEXAMPLE #1:  "If you had had proper training as an assassin, we would not be in this situation..."\n\nEXAMPLE #2:  "If I'd had proper training as an assassin, you probably wouldn't be here to complain."\n\n(Notice how in EXAMPLE #2, the contractions 'I'd' is used instead of saying, 'I had had' to illustrate the terms of the condition being discussed, though still allowing the reader to ascertain and understand the time-frame and sequence in which events occcurred?)\n\nRules for proper usage of the "Third Conditional / Conditional Type 3" sentence structure state that the structures are 'to be used when talking about unreal, or "hypothetical" situations occurring in the past.'  That means, the related events DID NOT 'ACTUALLY' HAPPEN in the past.  Sentences utilizing this structure are almost always phrased to reckon, "If circumstances were different, what could / would have this been like?"  \n\nThe expression of time / tense in this [third] variety of conditional sentence structure IS identified as the past, and indicates that an action was completed "in" the past.  The condition and / or result, therefore, cannot logically be fulfilled because the action in the "IF" clause never actually happened.  Action in "Third Conditional / Conditional Type 3" sentence structure is almost ALWAYS characterized by the quality of being absurd, and impossible to achieve.\n\nTense and Terminology?\n\n-Simple Present Tense:  Expresses a fact, habit/routine, or ability.\n\n-Simple Past:  Implies that the action happened before and is not happening anymore.\n\n-Past Perfect (Pluperfect) Tense:  Relates that an action or event ended prior to another action or event.\n\n-Present Perfect (Continuous) [Past-composite] Tense:  Indicates either events in recent past, or events which occurred in the past at an unknown time.\n\n-Perfect (Conditional) Tense: Relates varying degrees of certianty or uncertainty about events in recent past, or events which occurred in the past at an unknown time.\n\n-Modal Verbs:  incorporated with other verbs to illustrate the notion of possibility, impossability, necessity or other degree of probability.
856542
Has is correct.\nWhen your talking third party the proper useage would be has. For example: Mary has had a bad day.  James has forgotten how to play. You have had a bad day. I have had a bad day.  In the the phrase you are using the have doesn't refer to the reader or writer making it a has.
766772
A little boy was caught swearing by his teacher.\n“Tyson,” she said, “you shouldn’t use that kind of language. Where\ndid you hear it?”\n“My daddy said it,” he responded.\n“Well, that doesn’t matter,” she explained, “I don’t want to hear\nthat language in here again.”\nAfter a moment, she thought she whispered aloud, “At least he\ndoesn’t know what it means.”\n“I do, too,” Tyson corrected. “It means the car won’t start.”
297514
well, it is not proper English, because groans can't "know" anything, but if it was in a sentence such as "Bob said the history teacher gave him an essay on Hitler's rule, and his friends responded with knowing groans"...he probably meant that the friends 'knew what it was like to have to do an essay for that professor'..and since they were groaning...a sign of pain or distress...then it probably wasn't a good thing! hope this makes sense!
864642
anastasia said:  \n\n it would become a question. OR..a command statement without a subject..no sentence that has verb/subject. \n\nCave says:\n\nUnless Yoda says it!  "Help you, I will".\n\nJust joshin' ;-)\n\nCave
405129
Here are the errors:\n\nNeither refers to two things: neither "x" nor "y", you have used it for three.\n\n"that" is unnecessary.\n\nIt would be best written as:\n\nThe lessons, the paper, the subject; none remind me of you.
69762
It's just like a double negative in a sentence.  If he can understand that "I do NOT have NO money" means "I have money," then it's the same thing.  The negative of a negative is a positive.
614770
So as a question in logic:\n\nBook A says:\n"book B is full of lies!"\n\nBook B says:\n"book A is one big pack of LIES!"\n\nWhich do you base your life on?
957799
A: ???\nB: he dose\nC: he is scotish.\nD: he dosen't\nE: he dosen't
1093518
I am not sure why you think "never buy unnecessary things" is not proper usage.   Never (just like "not") is an adverb used to express negation, i.e., to make a sentence negative.\n\nSo looking at your sentences:  the positive of your statement would be "I buy unnecessary things" which is a logical sentence, right?  So to negate that statement we would use never or not: "I never/do not buy unnecessary things."  Both these sentences would mean the same thing and both would be considered "proper usage."\n\nNow to have a double negative, you would need to combine the negative verb (in your example, "never buy”) with a negated direct object (in your example, “things” is the direct object).  So we could make your sentence into a double negative: "I never buy NOTHING" or "I never buy NO THINGS."  BUT, your use of the adjective "unnecessary" does NOT negate your direct object "things"; you DON'T have a double negative.\n\nBut even if we assumed that "unnecessary things" was negative and that you did have a double negative (again, you DO NOT), BOTH your example statements would then be double negatives...not just the first example.\n\nSo finally, my point: other than the severity of the negations ("never" being more sever than "not"), your sentences mean the same thing and are both grammatically acceptable.