Yes there is. We would never say 'I will a horse to take me to London.'
I don't. What do you mean by the first sentence? Do you want the horse to move to somewhere else, or do you want a horse so that you can ride it somewhere?
What do you mean by 'I wish a car to drive'?
But you should. What's the point of speaking/writing if the listener/reader hasn't a clue what you're saying?
1) I think I know what you mean with
"I want a car to drive".
In English the phrase
I want a car to drive
can mean 2 things:
1) I want to have this car and ride it
2) I want to see\know\be sure that the car drives. In different words -
I want so a car would drive
Just the problem is in my language we never say:
I want a car to drive
meaning
I want so a car would drive .
For us it will always mean
I want to have this car and ride it .
If we want to say
I want so a car would drive
we say
I want so a car would drive
There is no other variant
2)
I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities with respect to learning English. It's impossible to learn a language without learning its syntax, which is the set of rules that listeners apply when decoding an utterance.
I wanted to say that why to say here
I would wish you were here if you were somewhere else
to discuss only if the
I would wish you were here
correct?
Isn't it easier to write only that part the grammar of which is being discussed?
If we have the sentence:
He has a 10 apples in ...
Isn't it easier to just say that it's not correct because there shouldn't be the article "a" because it's plural without mentioning that you can't say it because it's not full and we don't know where the apples are, why he has them there, who gave them to hm and so on. Who cares about these details? Everybody knows that saying it somewhere the person will continue something after "in" but here he wants to know only about the grammar of the written part.
It's like taking some small sentence from all the story of Sherlock Holmes and saying that no, you can't say it, you don't know all the context, write here all the books to see what it's all about.
I am also using
https://ell.stackexchange.com . And recently I got some very interesting comment.
I wrote something like:
"Can I say:
When she came I had already done."
And somebody told that it was incorrect. Guess why? Because I didn't mention what I had done...
What's the differnce what I had done- homework, tasks, a research or something else. I am asking about grammar, not about how to continue the sentence.
It's like:
When you came I was cooing some pies.
It's wrong. It's not correct because we don't know what the pies were with. With blueberries, strawberries, jam or what? It's a nonsense, guys...
2. It is a form of the verb will in the old fashioned meaning, "want" or "wish".
Than what is the difference for:
I wanted
and
I would
in the archaic English?
"I would that" meant "I wanted that", "I would want that", "I would like that."
But it's the end of the world. How is it possible to equal
I would that
to completely different things at once:
1) I wanted that
2) I would want that
3) I would like that
The difference is like between:
1) Cucumber
2) Computer
3) Cockroach
"I would rather a duck than a goose" sounds old fashioned but comes down to the same usage.
It's old because of the very "would rather" or because the main verb is missing here?
Would it be normal of still archaihc if we added it:
I would want rather a duck than a goose
Exclamations that begin with "Would" have both "I" and "[to] God" understood (will used to take both a direct object and an indirect object, so the following are equivalent:
Would you were here!
Would God you were here!
I would God you were here!
I wish to God you were here!
The idea of this I haven't taken.
Would you were here ---> I would (want) you were here
Would God you were here! ---> God would (want) you were here
I would God you were here! ---> ???
I wish to God you were here! ---> ???(it's like "I want to God you were here" or me)
You are confusing 2018 English with 1597 English. English grammar has changed a lot in 421 years.
You can talk about one, or the other, but don't mix them up. "I want you to be here" probably could not be said in 1597.
If not, then my life is getting easier because I was going to ask what was the difference between:
I would(in the meaning of "wanted")
you were here
and
I wanted you to be here
1539 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus Prouerbes sig. F.viiiv Whan that thynge can not be done that thou woldest, woll that thou cannest.
How could it be
"cannest" if everywhere it's written that for
"thou" it was
"canst"?
It seems to be that time everybody could write how they liked. If one guys likes
"cannest", he uses
"cannest". They other one may like
"canest", the third one -
"canst", the fourth one -
"cannst" and so on. Welcome to English...