“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)

Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?

When to stop saving and start investing?

Gastric acid as a weapon

What is the correct way to use the pinch test for dehydration?

What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

Why is black pepper both grey and black?

Why does Python start at index -1 when indexing a list from the end?

Right-skewed distribution with mean equals to mode?

How does cp -a work

Sorting numerically

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

I am not a queen, who am I?

List *all* the tuples!

The logistics of corpse disposal

When is phishing education going too far?

Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?

Why one of virtual NICs called bond0?

Is it true to say that an hosting provider's DNS server is what links the entire hosting environment to ICANN?

What makes black pepper strong or mild?

Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?

Should I call the interviewer directly, if HR aren't responding?

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?



“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




























    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
























      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 4 hours ago









      FrostC0FrostC0

      359210




      359210




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          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




















          • 1





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

            – phoog
            4 hours ago












          • Thank you for the help!

            – FrostC0
            4 hours ago











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

            – Colin Fine
            3 hours ago











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

            – phoog
            2 hours 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
            4 hours ago


















          0














          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









            7














            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




















            • 1





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

              – phoog
              4 hours ago












            • Thank you for the help!

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago











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

              – Colin Fine
              3 hours ago











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

              – phoog
              2 hours ago
















            7














            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




















            • 1





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

              – phoog
              4 hours ago












            • Thank you for the help!

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago











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

              – Colin Fine
              3 hours ago











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

              – phoog
              2 hours ago














            7












            7








            7







            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 4 hours ago

























            answered 4 hours ago









            Lorel C.Lorel C.

            4,7521510




            4,7521510







            • 1





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

              – phoog
              4 hours ago












            • Thank you for the help!

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago











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

              – Colin Fine
              3 hours ago











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

              – phoog
              2 hours ago













            • 1





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

              – phoog
              4 hours ago












            • Thank you for the help!

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago











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

              – Colin Fine
              3 hours ago











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

              – phoog
              2 hours ago








            1




            1





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

            – phoog
            4 hours ago






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

            – phoog
            4 hours ago














            Thank you for the help!

            – FrostC0
            4 hours ago





            Thank you for the help!

            – FrostC0
            4 hours ago













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

            – Colin Fine
            3 hours ago





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

            – Colin Fine
            3 hours ago













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

            – phoog
            2 hours ago






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

            – phoog
            2 hours 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
              4 hours 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
              4 hours 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 4 hours ago









            RobustoRobusto

            12.5k23044




            12.5k23044







            • 1





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

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago












            • 1





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

              – FrostC0
              4 hours ago







            1




            1





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

            – FrostC0
            4 hours ago





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

            – FrostC0
            4 hours ago











            0














            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



























              0














              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

























                0












                0








                0







                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 4 hours 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

                    Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                    Partai Komunis Tiongkok Daftar isi Kepemimpinan | Pranala luar | Referensi | Menu navigasidiperiksa1 perubahan tertundacpc.people.com.cnSitus resmiSurat kabar resmi"Why the Communist Party is alive, well and flourishing in China"0307-1235"Full text of Constitution of Communist Party of China"smengembangkannyas

                    ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result