Search results for 'tag:Negations tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Negations' and 'Constructions'

Re: Am I right?

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:16:20 GMT

wholegrain
from what reference book you learned that "but" has no meaning in the given context

Personally, I learned it from observation, not from a reference book. I am a native speaker, and I have read quite a few books over the years, and so I don't need to consult a reference book to understand the meaning or usage of this formulation any more than I need a reference book to understand hundreds of others.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a reference book to recommend that might contain information about this construction. It would have to be something of a historical nature, because this pattern so rarely occurs in modern English that the most of the more recent books probably don't even discuss it.

Later edit:

Take a look at Curme's English Grammar of 1925. There you will find a little discussion of but, but that, and but what as less common and older substitutes for that in contexts such as those we have been discussing. Note that nearly a hundred years ago (1925) a grammarian was already saying that these substitutes for that were falling into disuse. Here is one of his examples:

"It could not be doubted that (or now less commonly but, but that, or but what) his life would be aimed at."

And another: "I do not doubt, or Who doubts that, or now less commonly but, or but that, or but what, he will win."

_____

It appears to me that some of the typical historical uses of but that are those which occur after the negation or interrogation of the verbs doubt or deny or wonder.

Note also that neither Curme, nor any others I know of, say that but means only or merely or except or anything else in these patterns. but that is treated as a single unit -- a compound conjunction. You certainly don't find patterns like the following in the literature: I don't doubt [only / merely] that he will win. If you did, it would support the claim that but means only or merely. But I think it will be hard to find examples like that.

Re: have yet to be discussed & have not yet to be discussed

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:52:48 GMT

Native speaker here. :)

I know this question was asked three years ago, so this answer won't help the original poster; but since I found the topic in a web search, maybe my opinion will help someone else down the line.

I agree with the other posters. "Have yet to be discussed" is correct and means "remains to be discussed."

I've never heard "have not yet to be discussed." I would consider this incorrect, since it seems to negate the common construction above, and thus the meaning becomes confusing. If one interprets it to be a negation of the above phrase, it might mean "does not remain to be discussed," but nobody would ever use it to mean that. If I ever heard anyone use the phrase, I would assume they made a mistake. Such a mistake could occur if they started to say "have not yet / been discussed" and halfway transitioned into "have yet / to be discussed." Those two phrases would probably both be true, but when they are accidentally spliced together, it ends up meaning the opposite (if it means anything at all). I think anyone hearing such a phrase would assume the speaker meant "have yet to be discussed."

There is some recent discussion about this on the Language Log, which post led me to search about this topic:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=382
The consensus seems to be that construction like "have not yet to be discussed" is occasionally used, even in writing, but is incorrect.

Not one but ...

wholegrain — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:14 GMT

Herman Melville - The Confidence Man

http://www.online-literature.com/melville/confidence-man/10

"You would not hint that the colored cravats would be so bungling as to lose, and the dark cravats so dextrous as to cheat? Sour imaginations, my dear sir. Dismiss them. To little purpose have you read the Ode you have there. Years and experience, I trust, have not sophisticated you. A fresh and liberal construction would teach us to regard those four playersindeed, this whole cabin-full of players--as playing at games in which every player plays fair, and not a player but shall win."

Does it mean

Not only one person but all but...

Is it a negation when he says "not a player" instead of all players?

Re: How to negate "have got to"?

CalifJim — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:00:52 GMT

Viceidol
if we want to negate the sentence with "have got to", how should we do it? Shall I still use "don't/doesn't"?

No. The negation of has got to is hasn't got to. Note, however, that the expression have got to is used almost exclusively in present time in affirmative statements, not in interrogatives, negatives, or in other tenses. Change to have to for those.

Those marked with ? below should be avoided. Those with ?? are really too awkward. I don't recommend them. They are purely theoretical constructions. Use the alternate form after the = sign instead.

I have got to leave early. = I have to leave early.

?I haven't got to leave early. = I don't have to leave early.

?Have I got to leave early? = Do I have to leave early?

?Have I got to leave early? = Don't I have to leave early?

??I had got to leave early. = I had to leave early.

??I hadn't got to leave early. = I didn't have to leave early.

??Had I got to leave early? = Did I have to leave early?

??Hadn't I got to leave early? = Didn't I have to leave early?

Re: He came into room, his hat on?

CalifJim — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:18:15 GMT

some is not OK.

I didn't know that you had [any / *some] sisters.

The negation in the main clause carries through to require any.

Also, in the total negation reading:

I didn't want him to have [any / *some] dessert, because it's too fattening.
They didn't let me have [any / *some] of the money.¹
Tom couldn't believe that [any / *some] deception was involved.
Wanda didn't trust her sister to remember [any / *some] of the details.¹
Fred and Mary can't coax their son into taking [any / *some] job.

¹In these, there is a different reading (partial negation) with some:

They didn't let me have some of the money. = There was some money that he didn't let me have. (And presumably some money that he did let me have.)
Wanda didn't trust her sister to remember some of the details. = There were some details that Wanda didn't trust her sister to remember. (And presumably some that details that Wanda did trust her sister to remember.)

(Both of these have an of construction after any/some. This may or may not be coincidental.)

CJ

Re: Help...

Clive — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:24:09 GMT

Hi,

Engels explains a whole series of examples to illustrate "the negation of the negation" in his book Anti-Duhring.

What does "the negation of the negation" mean here ?

This is one of the famous three Laws of Dialectics. For a good understanding, you need to study the work and philosophy of Hegel and Karl Marx.

I excerpted the following passage from this site that you should look at for more detail - http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1940/12/dialnat.htm

The Negation of the Negation

The law of the negation of the negation, which Hegel used as the fundamental law for the construction of his whole system of thought, has a far wider sphere of application in the system of nature. This law really expresses the fundamental form of development in nature.

The opposing forces at work in every single thing bring, about constant changes in its constitution. These changes accumulate in quantity until, at a certain determinate stage in the process of development, a distinct qualitative transformation or leap occurs. The thing loses its original identity and passes over into its opposite.

But the evolutionary process does not halt at the point of simple negation. The new form of material existence is no less self-contradictory than the old and subject to the same internal restlessness. The first negation in turn undergoes self-differentiation and division until it, too, passes into its own opposite and thereby becomes negated. The final result of this process is called the negation of the negation, a synthetic unity which has discarded the transitional forms but preserved within itself the essential content of both sides of the contradictory whole.

All the transformations of material motion studied by natural science exemplify the working of this law of the negation of the negation in physical reality. Engels employs the law to clarify the interconnections between mechanical and molecular motion, or heat.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: I used not to play football.

CalifJim — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:27:35 GMT

Grammatical justification? What is it?
What form would a grammatical justification take?
The presence of thousands of instances of it, as on Google? No, I don't think that's what you mean.
An analysis of what part of speech each of the words is? No, I don't think that's what you mean.
Maybe you mean something closer to

I - subject
used - verb
not - negation of the following infinitive construction
to play - infinitive object of 'used'
football - object of 'play'

???

CJ

Re: Need help to distinguish between auxiliary dare and main verb dare

CalifJim — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:26:00 GMT

American Heritage Book of English forbades the use of an infinitive in
[If you dare breathe a word about it, Iâll never speak to you again.]

"forbids", not "forbades"!

I think you misread that article.

Watch out for what "it" means when reading that article. Also, be aware that the sentences given are examples of a particular usage. Nothing in the article says that the examples are correct only in the given form.

Here is part of the article below:

Depending on its sense, the verb dare sometimes behaves like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try).

When used as an auxiliary verb,
dare does not change to agree with its subject: He dare not do that again.
It also does not combine with do in questions, negations, or certain other constructions: Dare we tell her the truth? I dare not mention their names.
Finally, it does not take to before the verb that follows it: If you dare breathe a word about it, Iâll never speak to you again.

When used as a main verb,
dare does agree with its subject (If he dares to show up at her house Iâll be surprised), and
it does combine with to (Did anyone dare to admit it?).
It may optionally take to before the verb following it: No one dares (or dares to) speak freely about the political situation.
_______________

The article could have been written like this, with examples modified and switched:

...
Finally, it does not take to before the verb that follows it: If you dare show up at her house, I'll be surprised.

When used as a main verb,
dare does agree with its subject (If he dares to breathe a word about it, I'll never speak to him again),
...

In the first part of the article, the author simply has to invent sentences that illustrate each feature of auxiliary dare which he has explained.
In the second part of the article, the author simply has to invent sentences that illustrate each feature of full verb dare which he has explained.

CJ

Re: Much too much much

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:57:27 GMT

ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹
{quote=MrPedantic}
[1'] She isn't greatly to be admired.
[2'] She isn't greatly missed.
[4'] She isn't greatly missing her family.

Yes, those are all fine. But a strange thing: without context, the positive versions of these sentences sound 'straightforward'. They mean what they say. But the negative versions have an air of irony â in other words, they aren't simple 180 degree negations of the positives.

'She is greatly missing her family' â she feels a little tearful when she thinks of them.

'She isn't greatly missing her family' â she spends every night clubbing and doesn't give her family a second thought. (Perhaps not even a first thought.)
ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹ï¹

Hello MrPedantic, Thank you for your reply, it's viognier, ... it's 'alter ego' of Roro, kind of. Sorry, but let me make a comment.

For me it seems interesting that we cannot quantify some 'negative' state, in a usual combination of 'not' + 'intensifier.'

(# ?She is missed at all.)
# She is much/greatly missed.
# She is not much/greatly missed.

# She is not missed.
# She is not missed at all.

There's one more thing which seems interesting for me; we discussed over 'verbal character of pres./past participles,' somewhere long-long before. It appears that I didn't realise the issue then. I mean: if participles work as a part of progressive/passive constructions, then they are not adjectives, so we cannot modify it by much, .... no?

Seems sentences should be 'stative' in order to be modified by some intencifier.

(I don't know, maybe I'm wrong or talking a matter of course for you all. I'm afraid I made your discussion disordered. I'll agree with any proposal. We'd better take a rest?)

Roro / viognier

Re: As much as

miriam — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:31:06 GMT

Pastel, I have a headache already! ~L~
Let's go step by step

I agree with what you said about the first pair of sentences (me/I do).

Your other example, "I don't like him as much as you" can certainly be ambiguous; the two interpretations you posted are possible.

I agree with your analysis of 2-a.
I'd say, however, that the two sentences would be affirmative rather than negative:
"I like him."
"You like him."

Now, 2-b is the sentence that may be ambiguous, as I've just said.
The personal pronoun "you" has that same form as subject and object. 'You' and 'it' and the only two personal pronouns that have the same form as subject and object; the other pronouns change. Anyway, since you don't have an auxiliary very accompanying "you", you are right to say that the objective form is used. But, be careful; the fact that an objective form is used in this type of sentence depends only on the fact that "as" is a preposition, so when it is followed by a pronoun, it will be an objective pronoun. You can choose between that and a finite clause such as "You do". This example will probably be more clear with other pronouns (those who have different subject and object forms).
"I don't like him as much as you" can mean either that you like him more than I do or that I like you more than I like him.

"He doesn't like her as much as we" sounds weird to you because it is not grammatically correct.
"He doesn't like her as much as us" and "He doesn't like her as much as we do", on the other hand, are correct.
The meaning of "He doesn't like her as much as we do" is clear: we like her more than he does.
The meaning of "He doesn't like her as much as us" is, again, ambiguous. The two possible interpretations are "we like her more than he does", as in the previous example, or "he likes us more than he likes her".

I'm not sure what you mean by the "transformation" part of your post. but let's give that a try as well.

Step 1- "I don't like him as much as you don't like him."
I would avoid that construction if I were you! It isn't correct.

Step 2- "I don't like him as much as you like him."
This sentence is correct, but it can be improved to avoid redundancy.

Step 3- "I don't like him as much as you do."
This is perfect, but it does not mean what you think. The mening of this sentence is the sentence in step #2.
- We both like him, but you like him more than I do.
- We both like him, but I like him less than you do.
- We both like him, but I don't like him so/as much as you do.

The three sentences have the same meaning. In your example, the negation applies only to the first main verb, the verb whose subject is "I".

One more thing:
"I don't like him as much as you do" and "I dislike him as much as you do" have different meanings.

I'm not sure this is what you were looking for. If I misunderstod your question, let me know?

Miriam