ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Simple question

just the truth — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:10:55 GMT

JTT, or other native speakers of English, let me ask this.

If I said "I think he won't come" instead of "I don't think he will come", would you think like "I see Taka puts some sort of emphasis on the nagative fact that he won't come", as JTT says? Or does it simply sound a bit weird?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let me reply even though I may repeat some of what Mr M said. In fact I may reapeat what I've said.

When we use, "I don't think S will ...", it is most often a first time spoken personal opinion, in other words the normal neutral whereas, "I think he won't come", sounds like someone responding, commenting further on some previous statement.

Taka: I think he will come to the party. [= he probably will come. (could be weakened or strengthened with intonation)]

Mr M: I don't think he will come. [= he probably won't come. ( again, could be weakened or strengthened with intonation)]

MrP: I think he won't come. [ stronger than either of the first opinions because Mr P has heard both Mr M & Taka and is "overriding" them, if you will.

If there is any negation for the normal neutral situation, for English it comes in the first part. Mr P having now heard this info, is party to, or at least in his opinion he thinks he is party to some information that has him more strongly negating "his coming to the party".

Let me offer this though I may be wrong. Examples with negation in the 2nd part would be highly uncommon without some previous discussion on the issue. Have you got that? Good, explain it to me. :s

Re: Simple question

Mister Micawber — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:26:30 GMT

Well, I have just re-read through this thread with interest, and have come up with this brief (partly reiterated) opinion in this case:

(1) 'I think he won't come' vs. (2) 'I don't think he will come'

-- Both carry the same meaning-- in this case.
-- (2) is more idiomatic, by reason of transferred negation.
-- (1) is unidiomatic, less common, or unusual sounding.
-- Because (1) is unidiomatic, it therefore carries some stress, as JTT says. However, I don't think it is necessarily reinforcing the idea, that is, it is not necessarily stronger; in the mouth of a native speaker it might as easily indicate preoccupation, uncertainty, or just the linearity of speech production and the thought process.

There are certainly other cases when the non-transfer of negation is indeed consciously used by the speaker pragmatically-- to strengthen his/her statement:

Ms. A: 'What should I do to keep my boyfriend?'
Ms. B: Well, I don't think you should ignore his needs, but I do think you should not give into all of his demands."

Re: Simple question

Taka — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:51:00 GMT

Re: Simple question

Taka — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:57:42 GMT

In my opinion, paco, it's not the matter of logic itself, but rather the problem of the logic derived form direct word-for-word translation that most Japanese easily sink into the morass of.

Re: Simple question

paco2004 — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:43:15 GMT

Hello JTT

Thank you for the clear explanation.

I think now I've understand the nuance of "I don't think that ..." has. The structure is used when the speaker wants to weaken the strength of the negativity of a negative statement. Right? If it is so, I can agree to your explanation that "I don't think that ..." spoils the effect of the clause "S had better (not) V", which is used when the speaker wants to stress the negativity the clause states, as you told.

By the way, I, as a native Japanese speaker, feel there is somewhat difference between the two sentences:
(1) I think you should not go to the party. -> (1)' It is my opinion that you should not go to the party.
(2) I don't think you should go to the party. -> (2)' It is not my opinion that you should go to the party.
This may be the reason why Taka's student was skeptical about the negation raising. But the difference is rather subtle. I think you English speakers are socially refined enough to desire to be correct politically more than logically.

paco

Re: Simple question

just the truth — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:22:40 GMT

Taka,

Something that is more idiomatic is something that is more commonly used.

+++++++++++++++

How about the case like:

1)"They had better not go to the party"?

JTT: If I follow you correctly, Paco, you have to remember what the "I don't think ..." structure means. It is an expression used where the speaker doesn't feel confident; it is an expression of doubt. Your 1), above is not an expression of doubt. It is an expression of quite strong certainty.

Do you say

2) "I don't think they had better go to the party"?

JTT: No, not usually, Paco, because of what I mentioned above; "had better" is strong so it doesn't mix well with weak, "I don't think". Better, in the sense of it being more of a semantic match, is the following;

"I don't think they should go to the party"?

If not, why don't you raise "not" in this case?

JTT: If you mean, should a NOT be inserted where I've put it in the sentence below; no, "I don't think" provides all the negation the sentence needs. Some languages would require a second negation but Standard English does not.

*I don't think they had better NOT go to the party? *

Re: Simple question

paco2004 — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:52:44 GMT

Hmm... your argument is interesting!

How about the case like: "They had better not go to the party"?
Do you say "I don't think they had better go to the party"?
If not, why don't you raise "not" in this case?

paco

Re: Simple question

Taka — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:08:22 GMT

"I think + negative or positive" is used as a response to negate or strengthen a prior statement.

1) I don't think he can do it. VS I think he can't do it.

2) I don't think he should do it. VS I think he shouldn't do it.

I suggest that the second ones in each sentence are much stronger and they do not represent the normal neutral fashion as represented by the first ones.

I know that's what some "authoritative" works of reference argue.

Actucally, prior to this post, I had once asked to native speakers, which was long time ago, if there was any difference between those two. And the ansewer was the same as MM's and Jim's: there is not much difference. One is just more ideomatic than the other.

Re: Simple question

just the truth — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:39:30 GMT

A simple question from a student of mine:

When you want to combine "I think" with "he cannot do it", usually it goes like "I don't think he can do it"--not like "I think he cannot do it". Then, what about "I think" + "he shouldn't do it"? The same pattern, like "I don't think he should do it"?

I said to her "Yes, that's right", but still I need your confirmation on this one, teachers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My take on this, that is, I think, Taka, that the "I don't think + positive [or the much rarer negative]" represents the normal neutral style similar in nature to the use of contractions as the normal neutral which tends to make speech more friendly/inclusive.

"I think + negative or positive" is used as a response to negate or strengthen a prior statement.

1) I don't think he can do it. VS I think he can't do it.

2) I don't think he should do it. VS I think he shouldn't do it.

I suggest that the second ones in each sentence are much stronger and they do not represent the normal neutral fashion as represented by the first ones.

Re: Simple question

CalifJim — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:39:11 GMT

Taka,

If you need more confirmation, I'll throw mine in as well!

In the cases where "not" can be raised to the main verb, it is more idiomatic to do so, in my opinion.

"I don't want you to get confused" is more idiomatic than "I want you not to get confused".
"He doesn't think we should offer such a large sum for the car" is more idiomatic than "He thinks we shouldn't offer such a large sum for the car".
"I don't believe he is guilty" is more idiomatic than "I believe he isn't guilty".

Jim

Re: Simple question

Taka — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:14:10 GMT

I see.

By the way,

This is called 'transferred negation', Taka, and is common with verbs of opinion (think, believe, appear, seem, expect, etc.) So it is not a matter of the modal, or of any particular verb in the subordinate clause, but a matter of the verb in the main clause.

Yes, I know that. And I said almost the same thing to her. But she seemed a bit skeptical about my comments, so I needed "authentic" confirmation from natives.

Thank you very much, MM (as always) !

Re: Simple question

Mister Micawber — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:52:20 GMT

I think I did with my last post, but 'yes', Taka. The negation is simply transferred to the main verb. There is no change in the meaning, and both are acceptable; it is just that transferring the negation is very common, and so might be considered more 'natural'.

Re: Simple question

Taka — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:13:14 GMT

Oops! Time lag.

So could you answer my question about your word "equivalent"?

Re: Simple question

Mister Micawber — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:07:24 GMT

The meanings are the same.

Re: Simple question

Taka — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:28:39 GMT

Forget my comments below, MM. Now I understand what you mean.

MM, could you please paraphrase this part of your comments? I don't think I really understand it:

The meanings are for all practical purposes equivalent between "I don't think he can do it" and "I think he cannot do it".

So, when you say "equivalent", do you mean the expression "I think he cannot do it" is also acceptable?