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

Re: Devastation 1

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:32:18 GMT

New2grammar
why woudl you prefer not to have nearly?

Tough question. I was afraid you'd ask it!

I think it has to do with the complications of multiple negations.

New2grammar
Without it, it sounds like the assignment was really impossible.

No. The negation turns it around. "That the assignment was really impossible" is what you never thought. That's a big difference.

I think you want to say: There was no time at which I had the opinion that it was (really) not possible.

I don't think you want to say: There was no time at which I had the opinion that it was almost not possible. That leaves open the possibility that there was a time at which you had the opinion that it was really not possible.

Qualifying an absolute negative (impossible) with 'almost' or 'nearly' creates all kinds of interference with the previous negation (never).

This is difficult, and I wouldn't blame you if you needed further explanation. First think about this for a while, and then let me know if I, or others, can still help.

Don't think he would or think he wouldn't

Taka — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:03:41 GMT

OK. Thanks, GG.

Oh, by the way, I've found something interesting in your sentence. I said 'I think a native English speaker would not say...', not ' I don't think a native English speaker would say...' Is that negation possible? When you'd like to emphasize the negative content of your idea, is it OK to say 'I think S' is not.../S' does not...'?

Re: questions about logical sequence of the meanings of verb tenses

eagleflych — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:44:39 GMT

Hi,
I am afraid I didn't understand exactly what you wanted. Hopefully someone else will be able to understand and help you a little more. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a few opinions:

I have bought a book for a year. <-- No, this is not good, as you said.
You could say:
I have lived here for a couple of years.
I have bought five books in the past few months.

I have not bought any books for a year. <-- I think this is acceptable, but I suspect "for" is less common in negative sentences like that, and native speakers tend to use "in" instead:
I have not bought any books in a year.

That's my opinion.

Hi, Kooyeen:

Thank your for your reply.

My meaning is:

In the sentence of "I have not bought any books for a year" , the meaning of the Present Perfect tense is "to continue".

And there are two possible logic sequences relating to the arrangement of the meanings of all parts of the sentence.

1.the first logic sequence:

"the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to continue not buying any books for a year."

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "buying any books".

And "buying any book " is "buy any books". This is the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

2. the second logic sequence:

"not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to negate the continuing of buying any books for a year"

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "the continuing of buying any book ".

And "the continuing of buying any book " is "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books". This is not the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

Well then, which logic sequence is right?

Is the logic sequence ("the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".) right?

Or is the logic sequence("not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year". ) right?

I think the first logic sequence is right, but I am not sure.

Through study of the Present Perfect Tense, I guess in all negative forms of all verb tenses, the objects modified by negations are always the original meanings of main verbs, not---"the meanings of verb tenses" + "the original meanings of main verbs"

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: 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.

Re: can't;can

Carson21 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:39 GMT

Listen for a glottal stop at the end of "can't". It'll basically sound like the <n> got cut off, rather than completed as a sound.

In most American dialects, "can't" is pronounced with the stop when in it's followed by more information: "You can't do that."

It's pronounced with an enunciated /t/ at the end of a sentence: "You can't."

Both of these are assuming normal-speed speech. Faster speech tends to lose the /t/ and you get the glottal stop again, while slower speech tends to emphasize the /t/ .

As for negation: We often use double-negatives to emphasize something. You can say: "You have to go" and be implying an obligation, or you could say "You can't NOT go" (yes, emphasis on "not") and be implying that there is no "not going", no getting out of going. You literally have to, where the first one is just saying that you're expected to.

Double negation is very handy for speeches and essays. And a great way to mess with people who don't expect grammatical twists. An (slightly inappropriate) example: "Aren't you not a virgin?" A trap! Think about how you were asked before you answer that, lest you tell an untruth.

Re: Either, neither, too, so do I, neither do I etc.

Kooyeen — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:28:54 GMT

Einmalige Narizsse wrote:
Hi! Hi there...
I've got question... --> I've got a question...

I've heard (in the USA):
A: I'm hungry
B: I'm either <-- No. You really heard this? Hmm...
Is it correct? No. Or I have to say "So am I". <-- This is ok. Also: "Me too" or "I'm angry too".

What about sentence below:
A: I don't know why he did it.
B: I don't know either/ Neither do I <-- Both are ok.

Or, hmm,
A:I hate chemistry
B: Neither do I / I hate either/ Me too <-- Only "me too" is ok.

And the last one:
Jews have their own New Year. And I wanna ask Jew: --> ...ask a Jew
Do you celebrate "our" New Year too/either? You need "Too". Or you could use "also": "Do you also celebrate..."

maybe in this case I shouldn't use "too" or "either", either (?) (can I say, maybe in this case neither should I use "too" nor "either"). ---> Maybe is this case I shouldn't use either (of them). Maybe I should use neither "too" nor "either". Etc.

When should I use "too", "either/neither", "so/neither do I" ??? I'm gonna tell you that in a few seconds...

I know, it's pretty easy, but I got lost.
Please help.
Regards,
EN

Too is used in affirmative sentences (=non negative), and either in negative sentences. Neither is basically not + either put together, so it already "contains" a negation. Examples:

I hate Mary. I hate her too. Me too. So do I. <-- "I hate" is affirmative.
I don't like Mary. I don't like her either. Me neither. Neither do I. <--- "I don't like" is negative
I hope she won't complain. I hope so too. Me too. So do I. <--- "I hope" is affirmative. You are referring to "I hope".
I hope she won't complain. I hope her father won't complain either. <---- This is the same as the one just above, but here you are referring to "won't complain", which is negative.
I don't think she will complain. I don't think so either. Me neither. Neither do I. <--- "don't think" is negative.

Ah, I was forgetting: did you know that there's a search function here in this forum that lets you search for old threads? There's a search box in the right top corner. Try that, you will find a lot of threads about basically anything.

And remember that I'm not a native speaker, so I'm always afraid to talk bulls... hmm, nonsense, LOL. A native speaker might tell you more later.

Re: Assumptions: must, can and should ?

Loojka — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:30:36 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
Loojka,

The original poster was asking about the modals as used in logical deduction, not the modals as used in social interactions such as obligation and freedom from obligation. For this reason, I didn't want to confuse the issue by bringing in information about the second group.

I understand what you meant, just wanted to add another meaning. It was not my intention to confuse the issue either, that's exactly why I provided the example. You were talking about the negation of the modals, pointing out the possible misunderstanding that might occur when they are being used in negative form (that's where my students make mistakes very often), so I just thought that an additional example can be useful. No hard feelings

Re: Tips on listening to complex sentences with double negatives, etc.

Ant_222 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:37:49 GMT

GG: «Ant, seriously - you'd be able to follow that in your native language?»

Yes. As well as in written (not sure about spoken) English. These negations are "nested", but there are worse situations like:

I don't know that he doesn't know that I don't know that he doesn't know...

Those are really terrible recursive structures that I am not able to unravel...

CJ's last example is also difficult.

Re: Tips on listening to complex sentences with double negatives, etc.

Ant_222 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:36:42 GMT

Well, would you have trouble perceiving this sentence in your native language? I suppose, no. That's the solution: learn English until you develop "a hardware support" for it, i.e until language processing is shifted beneath the conscious.

BTW, double negation, while working in Boolean logic, doesn't always apply to predicates! So:

«I don't know why he shouldn't have left her alone» is not equal to
«I know why he should have left her alone»

HTH