Search results for 'tag:Negatives tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Negatives' and 'Clauses'

Re: don't I receive

Avangi — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:44:24 GMT

I think Optilang's point is valid, and his sentences are correct.

I also think New2's sentence works in its barest iteration, because the first clause is a negative. Within the time frame of the sentence, the lack of compliments is as continuous as the criticism. You might even say Optilang's versions tend toward redundancy, but they're not unnatural, and certainly not incorrect.

- A.

It would not be natural to say, "Every day, I don't receive a compliment!"

Re: no longer

Marius Hancu — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:44:53 GMT

I've got this commentary in another forum:

This is confusing, therefore bad style. The problem lies in the
three repeated negative words (despite, nothing, no longer) which
together hint the sentence is likely to be pessimistic. But it in fact
attempts to be optimistic. It says that although the Bush administration
(and others) was seriously corrupt, corruption during the Nixon
administration
was even worse: (i.e. the Bush administration cannot be the worst in US
history.)

"Despite" is a misleading word for this context. The writer is
saying Bush administration corruption is not so bad as Nixon-era
corruption. He uses a negative word in order to contradict the
(current and he says erroneous) opinion that Bush-era corruption
is the worst in American history. But "despite" also suggests
some sort of link between the Nixon and Bush administrations,
which is obviously not the case: so that "despite" is misused here.

The question about "no longer" is almost a red herring. Its
clause is ambiguous because it could mean either that people
have forgotten the right use of the word Watergate or that
the crimes of the Watergate era have been exceeded by
those of the Guantanamo era. But the former is extraneous
to the main point and the latter contradicts the writer's main
point, that Nixon-era crimes are worse than Bush-era crimes.

Still, we cannot expect weekly journalism to provide the last
word on such sensitive points, let alone the right word.
--
Don Phillipson

------

Re: Tense in conditional sentence

Tanit — Sun, 04 May 2008 10:56:28 GMT

Hi, N2G,

Besides in indirect questions (the examples previously given), if + will works also to indicate volition (or refusal in its negative form, "if + won't" ) or insistence, and, yes, it can be used at the beginning of a sentence. Here are the links to some other threads where these kinds of if + will were discussed. Hope you'll find them useful.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfAdjectiveClauses/zjqbg/post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/NoCondition/vrcvh/post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/IfClauseFuture/2/cwgxp/Post.htm

Re: May and Might

CalifJim — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:12:52 GMT

may is ambiguous with can in the sense of be allowed only in contexts where permission might be implied.

I may go now. I have permission to go now vs. It's possible that I'll go now.

---

may not is even more likely to be ambiguous in the same situations. (This one is so ambiguous to my ear that I never use it.)

I may not go now. I don't have permission to go now. vs. It's possible that I won't go now.

---

may have and may not have are not ambiguous in this way, as permission isn't given for past actions.

He may have left. It's possible that he left. [No alternative involving permission.]

I may not have understood. It's possible that I did not understand. [No alternative involving permission.]

____________

might, might not, might have, and might not have are ambiguous only in subordinate clauses, as in reports.

I might go; I might not go; I might have gone; I might not have gone. [All involve possibility, not permission.]

---

All of the permission uses of might shown below are less used in modern English, especially the negatives, but you may encounter them on occasion.

He said I might go. He said that I had his permission to go. vs. He reported the possibility that I would go.

He said I might not go. He said that I did not have his permission to go. (not as likely in modern English) vs. He reported the possibility that I would not go.

He said I might have gone. He said that I would have had his permission to go. vs. He reported the possibility that I had gone. (most likely interpretation) vs. He gave his opinion that I should have gone (as a mild reprimand), although I didn't. This last is nearly equivalent to He said it wouldn't have hurt me to go. (more used than its negative companion below)

He said I might not have gone. He said that I would not have had his permission to go. (not as likely in modern English) vs. He reported the possibility that I had not gone. (most likely interpretation) vs. He gave his opinion I should not have gone (as a mild reprimand), although I did. This last is nearly equivalent to He said it wouldn't have hurt me to stay away.

Re: as/so as

Teo — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:14:59 GMT

Usage Note: A traditional usage rule draws a distinction between comparisons using as . . . as and comparisons using so . . . as. The rule states the so . . . as construction is required in negative sentences (as in Shakespeare's "'tis not so deep as a well"), in questions (as in Is it so bad as she says?), and in certain if- clauses (as in If it is so bad as you say, you ought to leave). But this so . . . as construction is becoming increasingly rare in American English, and the use of as . . . as is now entirely acceptable in all contexts. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as

Re: mustn't / must not

Avangi — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:02:51 GMT

Hi Viceidol,

Going strictly by ear, "must not" works fine in your example, but we seem to use the contraction only in cases where we're warning someone not to do something. I have no idea why.

You mustn't be at home when they come. They're planning to kill you.

I have the sense that in your example, the "not" goes with the "be at home," and the contraction somehow gets in the way of that. The "must" is the logical result of the first clause. That result is simply negative.

he must (not be at home)

Best wishes, - A.

Re: A short writing about art. Please read and help?

Lawrence H. Song — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:44:56 GMT

Â Oh, thank you very much.

could make not only active movements of figures but also balance and rhythm between the black shapes and the white negative space; triangle composition repeats right side up and upside down.Â This is a clause that does not modify any word in the sentence.

You mean that the sentence does not make sense at all?

Â Â

Re: A short writing about art. Please read and help?

Susankay — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:17:41 GMT

A Means to an End: A Shadow Drama in Five Acts (1995)

Despite the limitation of colorâblack and whiteâand the large negative space, A Means to an End: A Shadow Drama in Five Acts, looks active. By creating diagonal lines between figures, Kara Walker, âa contemporary American artist who explores race, gender, sexuality, violence and identity in her work," __??? where is the rest of the sentence??. She is best known for her room-size tableaux of black cut-paper silhouettes,â[1] could make not only active movements of figures but also balance and rhythm between the black shapes and the white negative space; triangle composition repeats right side up and upside down. This is a clause that does not modify any word in the sentence. The pieces are currently on display at the Parsons Gallery.

The artistâs color scheme itself has a strong voice in âa shadow drama.â Walkerâs message for African-Americans severely treated merely because of their skin color gives contrasts to the black and white even more distinctly.[2]

A Means to an End: A Shadow Drama in Five Acts reveals unfair treatments African-American people received in such a direct way that the audience might feel uncomfortable. Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw notes in his book, Seeing the Unspeakable:

The print A Means to an End: A Shadow Drama in Five Acts was deemed too controversial by the administration of the museum and its advisory group, the Friends of African and African American Art. The work consists of five connecting scenes set in a linear, rectangular format. In the first section is a half-clothed woman with a naked boy hanging from her breast, followed by the small figure of a young girl riding a fox backwards, then a woman leaping across what has been described as a river using partially submerged heads for stepping stones; next, a head and hand rise from the water, and last, a corpulent man strangles an emaciated young girl.[3]

In conclusion, not only does this set of pieces create dynamic feeling with diagonal and triangle composition, but it also succeeds in presenting political issues by means of the contrast of black and white.

Re: Tag Questions

Grammar Geek — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:38:25 GMT

Yen, you're colleague should take longer lunch breaks.

First, don't remove the comma. It does affectn't the tag aspect at all, but it's generally accepted to put a comma before the conjunction when you have two independent clauses. Even if you omit it, there's no resulting change to the tag.

The tag works with the final part of the sentence: THEY hadn't found it. As explained in the very solid post above, if you have a negative, you keep the same subject, and switch to postive. They hadn't, had they?

The subject is THEY, not IT, so the tag requires THEY. Your colleague's answer would work only with "but IT had never been found, had it?"

Just point out the logic of this - the tag must agree with the subject. "It" is not the subject.

Re: until

CalifJim — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:22:59 GMT

Newguest
Can't I just write it: Until you don't activate your account.

No. Negation in the until clause is somewhat confusing, so it's relatively rare.

The pattern you show here is quite common. It's similar to the same clause with unless instead of until. The unless clauses are like if ... not clauses. But the until clauses have a temporal component (not present in the unless clauses) which conveys the idea that the negative consequence lasts only as long as the positive condition lasts. That is, when the condition reverses, as it is expected to do in the course of time, the consequence does as well.

Thus,

Unless you ask, you won't know the answer.

says If you don't ask, you won't know the answer. The passage of time is not involved.

But

Until you ask, you won't know the answer.

says that as long as you continue not to ask, you will not know the answer, and implies that the asking must be done before knowing the answer can occur. A possible paraphrase is You have to ask before you can know the answer.

Here are a few examples. They are modified versions of sentences I found on the Web.

Unless you take the medicine, you will not feel better. [If you don't take the medicine, you will not feel better.]

Until you take the medicine, you will not feel better. [You have to take the medicine before you can feel better.]

Unless you try, you won't know whether you can do it. [If you don't try, you won't know whether you can do it.]

Until you try, you won't know whether you can do it. [You have to try before you know whether you can do it.]

I'll leave the rest for you to think about.

[Unless / Until] you retire, you will not be eligible for membership.

[Unless / Until] you provide evidence, you will not be taken seriously.

[Unless / Until] you are registered, you will not be able to access the site.

[Unless / Until] you master the language, you will not have much academic success.

[Unless / Until] you delegate responsibilities, you won't enjoy the freedom of being a business owner.