“Seemed to had” is it correct? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Are there tools or techniques to stop translating literally?Is this usage of the verb “had outfitted” correct?“Seemed connected” vs “Seemed to be connected.”Is “I have had to take a leave” correct?Is “I switched off television because I had exam the very next day.” correct?It seemed it's gonna take foreverUse of would had beenA teacher said to use “I don't need that” instead of “I won't be needing that” because there is no “continuous in modal verbs”Is “I had better ring him” grammatically correct?Had had (Is it a past perfect or past simple)

Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?

How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?

I am not a queen, who am I?

Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?

What does the "x" in "x86" represent?

Do you forfeit tax refunds/credits if you aren't required to and don't file by April 15?

Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?

Single word antonym of "flightless"

Does polymorph use a PC’s CR or its level?

How to recreate this effect in Photoshop?

How to draw this diagram using TikZ package?

What is a Meta algorithm?

Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?

Do I really need recursive chmod to restrict access to a folder?

What is this single-engine low-wing propeller plane?

When is phishing education going too far?

The logistics of corpse disposal

How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?

What are the pros and cons of Aerospike nosecones?

Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?

When -s is used with third person singular. What's its use in this context?

How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?

How to assign captions for two tables in LaTeX?

How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?



“Seemed to had” is it correct?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Are there tools or techniques to stop translating literally?Is this usage of the verb “had outfitted” correct?“Seemed connected” vs “Seemed to be connected.”Is “I have had to take a leave” correct?Is “I switched off television because I had exam the very next day.” correct?It seemed it's gonna take foreverUse of would had beenA teacher said to use “I don't need that” instead of “I won't be needing that” because there is no “continuous in modal verbs”Is “I had better ring him” grammatically correct?Had had (Is it a past perfect or past simple)



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















Here's a sentence I made up:



"He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him"



Is this sentence correct? I tried searching for similar sentences by putting quotation marks around 'seemed to had not', and out popped roughly 5-6 results, but that doesn't seem to be that many, especially because some of those could've been mistakes, and I couldn't find any questions like this.



Also, assuming it is correct, if I change the position of 'not', like so:



"He seemed to not had understood what I had said to him"



Would it still be grammatical?










share|improve this question






















  • after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

    – Lambie
    1 hour ago

















2















Here's a sentence I made up:



"He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him"



Is this sentence correct? I tried searching for similar sentences by putting quotation marks around 'seemed to had not', and out popped roughly 5-6 results, but that doesn't seem to be that many, especially because some of those could've been mistakes, and I couldn't find any questions like this.



Also, assuming it is correct, if I change the position of 'not', like so:



"He seemed to not had understood what I had said to him"



Would it still be grammatical?










share|improve this question






















  • after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

    – Lambie
    1 hour ago













2












2








2








Here's a sentence I made up:



"He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him"



Is this sentence correct? I tried searching for similar sentences by putting quotation marks around 'seemed to had not', and out popped roughly 5-6 results, but that doesn't seem to be that many, especially because some of those could've been mistakes, and I couldn't find any questions like this.



Also, assuming it is correct, if I change the position of 'not', like so:



"He seemed to not had understood what I had said to him"



Would it still be grammatical?










share|improve this question














Here's a sentence I made up:



"He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him"



Is this sentence correct? I tried searching for similar sentences by putting quotation marks around 'seemed to had not', and out popped roughly 5-6 results, but that doesn't seem to be that many, especially because some of those could've been mistakes, and I couldn't find any questions like this.



Also, assuming it is correct, if I change the position of 'not', like so:



"He seemed to not had understood what I had said to him"



Would it still be grammatical?







grammar grammaticality






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









FrostC0FrostC0

359210




359210












  • after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

    – Lambie
    1 hour ago

















  • after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

    – Lambie
    1 hour ago
















after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

– Lambie
1 hour ago





after to you need: the bare infinitive and perfect infinitive.

– Lambie
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4














No matter where you put the "not", a statement with "to had" isn't grammatical. The construction you are using is "seem" + to-infinitive. The infinitive for the verb have/had is "to have", not "to had."



This is discussed in detail on the BBC "Learning English" website:




seem / appear to + infinitive



After seem and appear we often use a
to + infinitive construction ( or a perfect infinitive construction
for past events).

...




So what you should say is either of:



  1. He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.


  2. He seemed to have not understood what I had said to him.


  3. He seemed to not have understood what I had said to him.


The "not" could really go in any of those 3 places, but the first possibility sounds smoother and more idiomatic. The last sentence sounds the least natural to me, even slightly awkward.






share|improve this answer

























  • The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago












  • Thank you for the help!

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

    – Colin Fine
    1 hour ago











  • @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

    – phoog
    8 mins ago



















1














No,




He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him.




is not grammatical at all, and neither is your other construction.



Here's what you should use:




He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.







share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago


















1














to has to be followed by a bare infinitive or perfect infinitive:



He seems to understand. [bare, present]



He seems to have understood. [perfect infinitive, past idea or tense]



The perfect infinitive is have + the past participle.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "481"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205625%2fseemed-to-had-is-it-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4














    No matter where you put the "not", a statement with "to had" isn't grammatical. The construction you are using is "seem" + to-infinitive. The infinitive for the verb have/had is "to have", not "to had."



    This is discussed in detail on the BBC "Learning English" website:




    seem / appear to + infinitive



    After seem and appear we often use a
    to + infinitive construction ( or a perfect infinitive construction
    for past events).

    ...




    So what you should say is either of:



    1. He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.


    2. He seemed to have not understood what I had said to him.


    3. He seemed to not have understood what I had said to him.


    The "not" could really go in any of those 3 places, but the first possibility sounds smoother and more idiomatic. The last sentence sounds the least natural to me, even slightly awkward.






    share|improve this answer

























    • The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

      – phoog
      1 hour ago












    • Thank you for the help!

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago











    • @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

      – Colin Fine
      1 hour ago











    • @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

      – phoog
      8 mins ago
















    4














    No matter where you put the "not", a statement with "to had" isn't grammatical. The construction you are using is "seem" + to-infinitive. The infinitive for the verb have/had is "to have", not "to had."



    This is discussed in detail on the BBC "Learning English" website:




    seem / appear to + infinitive



    After seem and appear we often use a
    to + infinitive construction ( or a perfect infinitive construction
    for past events).

    ...




    So what you should say is either of:



    1. He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.


    2. He seemed to have not understood what I had said to him.


    3. He seemed to not have understood what I had said to him.


    The "not" could really go in any of those 3 places, but the first possibility sounds smoother and more idiomatic. The last sentence sounds the least natural to me, even slightly awkward.






    share|improve this answer

























    • The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

      – phoog
      1 hour ago












    • Thank you for the help!

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago











    • @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

      – Colin Fine
      1 hour ago











    • @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

      – phoog
      8 mins ago














    4












    4








    4







    No matter where you put the "not", a statement with "to had" isn't grammatical. The construction you are using is "seem" + to-infinitive. The infinitive for the verb have/had is "to have", not "to had."



    This is discussed in detail on the BBC "Learning English" website:




    seem / appear to + infinitive



    After seem and appear we often use a
    to + infinitive construction ( or a perfect infinitive construction
    for past events).

    ...




    So what you should say is either of:



    1. He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.


    2. He seemed to have not understood what I had said to him.


    3. He seemed to not have understood what I had said to him.


    The "not" could really go in any of those 3 places, but the first possibility sounds smoother and more idiomatic. The last sentence sounds the least natural to me, even slightly awkward.






    share|improve this answer















    No matter where you put the "not", a statement with "to had" isn't grammatical. The construction you are using is "seem" + to-infinitive. The infinitive for the verb have/had is "to have", not "to had."



    This is discussed in detail on the BBC "Learning English" website:




    seem / appear to + infinitive



    After seem and appear we often use a
    to + infinitive construction ( or a perfect infinitive construction
    for past events).

    ...




    So what you should say is either of:



    1. He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.


    2. He seemed to have not understood what I had said to him.


    3. He seemed to not have understood what I had said to him.


    The "not" could really go in any of those 3 places, but the first possibility sounds smoother and more idiomatic. The last sentence sounds the least natural to me, even slightly awkward.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 1 hour ago









    Lorel C.Lorel C.

    4,7121510




    4,7121510












    • The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

      – phoog
      1 hour ago












    • Thank you for the help!

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago











    • @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

      – Colin Fine
      1 hour ago











    • @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

      – phoog
      8 mins ago


















    • The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

      – phoog
      1 hour ago












    • Thank you for the help!

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago











    • @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

      – Colin Fine
      1 hour ago











    • @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

      – phoog
      8 mins ago

















    The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago






    The word order in sentences 2 and 3 has only become acceptable in the last 2 or 3 decades.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago














    Thank you for the help!

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago





    Thank you for the help!

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago













    @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

    – Colin Fine
    1 hour ago





    @phoog: I don't think the sticklers ever objected to 2 particularly, though they certainly did to 3.

    – Colin Fine
    1 hour ago













    @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

    – phoog
    8 mins ago






    @ColinFine in my experience it's not so much about sticklers as just the sentences that people would actually say or write.

    – phoog
    8 mins ago














    1














    No,




    He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him.




    is not grammatical at all, and neither is your other construction.



    Here's what you should use:




    He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.







    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago















    1














    No,




    He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him.




    is not grammatical at all, and neither is your other construction.



    Here's what you should use:




    He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.







    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago













    1












    1








    1







    No,




    He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him.




    is not grammatical at all, and neither is your other construction.



    Here's what you should use:




    He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.







    share|improve this answer













    No,




    He seemed to had not understood what I had said to him.




    is not grammatical at all, and neither is your other construction.



    Here's what you should use:




    He seemed not to have understood what I had said to him.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 1 hour ago









    RobustoRobusto

    12.5k23044




    12.5k23044







    • 1





      Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago












    • 1





      Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

      – FrostC0
      1 hour ago







    1




    1





    Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago





    Could you explain why it's incorrect, if you don't mind of course.

    – FrostC0
    1 hour ago











    1














    to has to be followed by a bare infinitive or perfect infinitive:



    He seems to understand. [bare, present]



    He seems to have understood. [perfect infinitive, past idea or tense]



    The perfect infinitive is have + the past participle.






    share|improve this answer



























      1














      to has to be followed by a bare infinitive or perfect infinitive:



      He seems to understand. [bare, present]



      He seems to have understood. [perfect infinitive, past idea or tense]



      The perfect infinitive is have + the past participle.






      share|improve this answer

























        1












        1








        1







        to has to be followed by a bare infinitive or perfect infinitive:



        He seems to understand. [bare, present]



        He seems to have understood. [perfect infinitive, past idea or tense]



        The perfect infinitive is have + the past participle.






        share|improve this answer













        to has to be followed by a bare infinitive or perfect infinitive:



        He seems to understand. [bare, present]



        He seems to have understood. [perfect infinitive, past idea or tense]



        The perfect infinitive is have + the past participle.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        LambieLambie

        17.6k1540




        17.6k1540



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205625%2fseemed-to-had-is-it-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Metrô de Los Teques Índice Linhas | Estações | Ver também | Referências Ligações externas | Menu de navegação«INSTITUCIÓN»«Mapa de rutas»originalMetrô de Los TequesC.A. Metro Los Teques |Alcaldía de Guaicaipuro – Sitio OficialGobernacion de Mirandaeeeeeee