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

Re: "about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Thomas Tompion — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:30:47 GMT

A few points might be worth considering:

1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time.
2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there would be no language. And no point in this forum.
3. Most native English speakers distinguish between plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms. Common errors of uneducated speech in certain parts of the country, like double-negatives (I didn't see nobody for I didn't see anybody), or of regular verb forms (He has went for he has gone) are an irritation to many.

I think you need to decide how best you learn a language: some learn best from talking, others from books. As a learner you need to find out if you learn best from the ear or the eye, but never think that the conventions (rules) can go out of the window, because they are essential to the accurate communication of ideas, which is what we are concerned with here.

I think the question raised in this thread is about distinguishing between plural and singular; that's a pretty basic distinction.

Re: not instead of don't?

Cool Breeze — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:59:58 GMT

Clive

I recommend that you not cook dinner tomorrow.

Think of it as a shortened form of '. . . do not cook / should not cook . . . '.

Other verbs with which you can do this include, for example. I ask that . . . and I request that . . ..

If you want to think of not cook in grammatical terms, bear in mind that cook isn't an indicative form but a subjunctive enabled by recommend. Subjunctives are made negative in the same way as infinitives, by placing not before them; the auxiliary do cannot be used.

Re: subjunctive mood

Huevos — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:24:19 GMT

This is just a negative of a standard type 2 conditional. I would sell it to you if it shot straight. This construct is used where fulfilment of the if clause is improbable or impossible, but still current. By the way it is not past tense, its imperfect subjunctive, although the two are identical in form.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:34:30 GMT

For suggest as give advice:

I [suggest / advise] (that) he do something. (affirmative pattern)

I [suggest / advise] (that) he not do something. (negative pattern)

But suggest also means bring to mind, and this is the meaning in your example sentences, so the grammatical structures for 'advisory' suggest don't apply. Issues of availability cannot give advice! So all you need is a that clause or a noun -- without any of those subjunctives!

Issues of availability ... suggested that members of the scientific committee might not need to be interviewed.

Issues of availability ... suggested a course of action in which members of the scientific community would not need to be interviewed.

Issues of availability ... suggested a research methodology by which interviews with members of the scientific community could be avoided.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: would prefer

CalifJim — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:21:55 GMT

Subjunctive.

to be:

Present affirmative:

I be / you be / he, she, it be / we be / you be / they be

Present negative:

I not be / you not be / he, she, it not be / we not be / you not be / they not be

Past affirmative (negative):

I were (not) / you were (not) / he, she, it were (not) / we were (not) / you were (not) / they were (not)

to come:

Present affirmative:

I come / you come / he, she, it come / we come / you come / they come

Present negative:

I not come / you not come / he, she, it not come / we not come / you not come / they not come

Past affirmative:

I came / you came / he, she, it came / we came / you came / they came

Past negative:

I didn't come / you didn't come / he, she, it didn't come / we didn't come / you didn't come / they didn't come

_______

You can use any subjunctive after would rather or would prefer.

I would [rather / prefer] (that) he [go / not go / went / didn't go] to meet Mr. Brown.

I would [rather / prefer] (that) my husband [come / not come / came / did not come] with me for a holiday.

The Pentagon would [rather / prefer] (that) the plan [be / not be / were / were not] considered together with war funding.

He would [rather / prefer] (that) she [stop / stopped] calling him "Pacman".

___

I have no scientific evidence for it, but I believe the present subjunctive tenses occur more often with prefer, and the past subjunctive tenses occur more often with rather. Nevertheless, you will hear these in various combinations almost indiscriminately.

Use of the subjunctive after "would rather"

MarvinTheMartian — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:49:51 GMT

I seem to have noticed that, when the object is not a person, "would rather" is often followed by the subjunctive mood instead of the simple past or the pluperfect. For instance, we say "I'd rather you joined me", but I rarely see: "I'd rather the meeting was canceled". Am I right in thinking that it would be better in this case to say: "I'd rather the meeting be canceled". How about the following sentences?

- "I'd rather the appointment be rescheduled."

- "I'd rather the meeting take place (or would take place) tomorrow"

- "If there's going to be a crisis, I'd rather it happen now than later."

Supposing that I'm right, what happens in the negative form? Should one say: "I'd rather the meeting didn't take place" or "I'd rather the meeting not take place (or wouldn't take place)"?

Re: What's the meaning of this sentence?

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:09:04 GMT

I think NO. It is a subjunctive tense form--which simply means hypothetical. For example: If it rains tomorrow, I should wear a hat, does not mean it will or won't rain. While your senence has the feel of the negative, it does not state it.

mr steve

Re: She likes to act as if she were the boss.

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:30:12 GMT

Hello Agnliholic. The use of the subjunctive ("as if she were") adds emphasis to one of the meanings of "act" (theater, stage = pretend). So yes, it could be pretend in the sentence with the following consequences: the reader could easily imagine "pretend compliance" with the commands of our pretending manager. In other words the sentence would be viewed as a negative evaluation of the worker's effectiveness. Other results: In some work cultures bosses get to raise their voices at and sometimes discipline their workers. Are these the devices (raised voice and meting out of discipline) which our "actor" is employing to "pretend"? Does the worker delegate the work efficiently? Efficient delegation is an "act" that a successful manager would employ. We could go on all day with possible "acts." Hope this helped.

Re: imperative vs. subjunctive

Yankee — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:41:53 GMT

Hi Anon

Your negative subjunctive looks good to me.