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

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: 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: may, might and could - what's the difference

CalifJim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:41:45 GMT

I am trying to formulate guidelines for learners of English as a foreign language with regards the use of may/might/could to express possibility. It seems to me that you can use these three modals (almost) interchangeably when expressing possibility.

For example, 'Where's Mary?' 'I'm not sure. She may/might/could be in her room.' or 'It may/might/could rain later on.'.

Are there any differences in use between these three modals? If so, what are they?

I assume your question is restricted to the "unconstrained modals of logic", and that you are not asking about the use of may for permission or could for ability, for example. There are a few differences, particularly with respect to could, which is, in my opinion, only an "honorary" member of the group.

1. could does not operate under negation in the same way as may and might. Whereas may not and might not express the possibility of the negated proposition, could not expresses impossibility unless some unusual stress pattern is provided by the speaker, maybe even with a slight pause after could.

She may be there. She might be there. She could be there.
She may not be there. She might not be there. *She could not be there. (in the intended reading) (Actually, even may not is a little suspect, as the 'permission' meaning of may might come through in that example.)

2. could almost requires a following be (in the intended reading).

The puppy is thin; he [might / may / could] be [hungry / lost / a stray].
That music sounds like a symphony; it [might / may / could] be by Mozart.
Susan says that the answer is 67, and she [might / may / could] be right.

Otherwise the unintended 'ability' reading or some other anomalous interpretation is too likely:

The drain is blocked; we [might / may / ?could] have to call a plumber.
Liz looks tired; she [might / may / ?could] want to take a nap.
The current rules are too confusing, so the committee [might / may / ?could] develop new rules.

There seems to be no problem if the verb is meteorological, however, because the 'ability' reading is blocked. The weather is not physically able to do things as an agent:

It [might / may / could] rain this afternoon.

The same reasoning applies with other non-agentive situations:

The cake is too big, but the cookies [might / may / could] fit in this box.

3. Unlike might and may, could does not occur with as well. This was mentioned in another post above. (It's debatable whether this is even a case of the "unconstrained modals of logic", but I'll mention it here anyway.)

This party is really dull; we [might / may / *could] as well leave.

4. In American English, the difference between may and might is one of register. may occurs in official announcements and scientific papers, for example, and might occurs more often in ordinary conversation. (Percentages of probability have nothing to do with it!)

Employees may find this information helpful in choosing a health care plan.
For hydrocarbon molecules of this type, electrophoresis may give better results.
We might take a trip to Disneyland this summer.

could would probably not be used in any of the three examples immediately above (in the intended reading).

5. may is not often used in backshifts, but both might and could are.

I [might / may / could] be ready by 10.
I thought (that) I [might / *may / could] be ready by 10.

Re: Usually - Position

CalifJim — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:48:22 GMT

I think you all are missing one thing; it's the very basic question. The definition of operator. Up till now no one has defined what operators actually are.

Operators are verbs with special properties as explained in the article I cited for you above.

Some authors just call them auxiliary verbs, but that leaves out the cases where be or have is the main verb and still "operates" the same as an auxiliary with respect to negation, inversion, etc. So other authors prefer to use both terms in order to focus on the slight differences.
_________

With regard to adverb placement (word order) and the terms marked and unmarked, see this site:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:aYNuGzv8DNAJ:www.anglistik.uni-bonn.de/staff/ofiles/
GLC2-Sum01-Gram.pdf+grammar+operator+inversion+negation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

CJ

Re: verbal

Inchoateknowledge — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:23:12 GMT

I will take you up on your words.
"I've never seen things like 'must not have contained' in any grammar book." Buy a decent book then.
'Must have been' exists so its negation: must not have been exists too. Replace the word "been" for "contained".
Before you give up English revise conditionals.
As regards verbals (not verbs):
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_verbals.html

There was/were no + noun(s)

souroin — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:40:23 GMT

Hello everybody,

Yes, the issue is singular or plural as many questions have been posted in the past and so will be. I searched this sort of any previous question but whether or not I am a bad internet surfer I coudn't find what I am going to mention. Elemental but very ambiguous.

- Question
There was no significant change in laboratory parameters after...
There were no significant changes in laboratory parameters after...

It seems like both [only the focus of my question - there was/were no noun(s)] be ok, but I still don't understand any differences in nuance or grammatical rule.
Is it dependent on a noun that allows in singular or plural form or the case where the writer intends to deny all inclusive elements by choosing plural form, or what else? This is about the complete negation.

- Background
For the job reasons, I often review somebody else's translation (including sl-called professional ones). I often see this apparent 'shared notion' in our society that when negation is used the noun should be in singular. Meanwhile I see so many of native people's writings of negative sentences in plural. I probably know when people say 'there wasn't a (single) thing that I liked about him (grammatically incorrect probably here but the hang on the issue)' can produce very strong or probably the ultimate negation as equal to 'Nothing I liked about him at all'. Wow, the examples I used here just now are so 'negative'. Anyway, until now I haven't come across with a book that explains the difference between 'there was/were no noun(s)' and emerged on my top list for questions.

Well, I than you very much for those stopped by and read all through this and will thank you more for your option/advice on this question.

Best regards,
Souroin

Re: Not...until

CalifJim — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:20:15 GMT

Future Tense + UNTIL + Point in Time

The structure shown above works differently, depending whether the verb is interpreted as a continuing situation or as an event. Some verbs can only be interpreted one way; some can be interpreted both ways.

Situations: waiting, being away

1) I'll wait here until 8 o'clock.
2) Fred will be away until next Thursday.

Comments: The waiting continues until 8. The being away continues until next Thursday.

Events: dying, winning a race

3) Our sick hamster will die until 8 o'clock.
4) George will win the race until 5 o'clock.

Comments: Dying happens at a point in time, so continuing to die doesn't make sense. Winning also happens at a point in time, illustrating the same problem.

The negative form of the structure also works differently, depending on the type of verb.

Situations: waiting, being away

5) I won't wait here until 8 o'clock.
6) Fred won't be away until next Thursday.

Comments: These can be interpreted as a negation of the "until" clause: The waiting continues, but the period of waiting will not extend to 8 o'clock. The being away continues, but not until next Thursday.

They can also be interpreted as a negation of the continuing action: The waiting won't even start until 8. The being away won't even start until next Thursday. But under this interpretation, we no longer have a "situation"; we have an "event", namely, the starting of the waiting and the starting of the being away. A verb which is normally thought of as situation-like can be thought of as event-like in the context of this "until" structure if we focus on the start of the situation. In other words, the starting of a situation is an event.

A combination of common sense and context usually resolves the ambiguity, but rephrasing is better:

Making the first of the pair -5- more clearly a situation:

7) I'm not going to wait here that long. I'm going to leave before 8 o'clock.

Making the second of the pair -6- more clearly an event:

8) Fred won't be leaving until next Thursday, when he travels to Santa Fe.

Events: arriving, beginning work.

9) Bernie won't arrive until 8 o'clock.
10) Ellen won't begin work until 5 o'clock.

There's more to be said on this topic, particularly with regard to different types of verbs and how they behave within the "until" structure, but I'll leave that for another time. In the meantime, try creating the negative forms of (3) and (4) and see if you like the results you get!

As much as

PASTEL — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:39:52 GMT

I don't like him as much as you.

Dear Mirium, here is my analysis.

1-a. She doesn't sing as well as me.
1-b. She doesn't sing as well as I do.

In 1-a, an object pronoun is used after 'as', according to Michael Swan, this is an informal style, whereas in 1-b, subject+verb is used after 'as', it is more formal.

As you can see, in your example #2
#2. I don't like him as much as you.
2-a. I don't like him as much as you do. ( 'you' is a subject)
2-b. I don't like him as much as you. ('you' is an object pronoun)

2-a and 2-b are possible variants of #2. Have you noticed that we have a subject 'you' and an object 'you'?

In 2-a, both of us like him, but I like him less and you like him more. Ambuguity is cleared out in 2-a because 'you' is a subject.
What are the two equal things you compare now?
1. I don't like him. (subject)
2. You don't like him. (subject)
You are comparing who likes him more, You or I ?

In 2-b, I don't think it's usual to regard 'you' as a subject. For example, He doesn't like her as much as we. (Sounds weird to my ears). You either say 'He doesn't like her as much as we do or he doesn't like her as much us. So I don't think 2-b is that ambiguous. (It could be.) So 2-b means I don't like him as much as I don't like you.
What are the two equal things you compare now?
1. I don't like him. (object)
2. I don't like you, either. (object)
It's the object of the main verb that is compared. In other words, I dislike him more, and I dislike you less.

Transformation
Step 1
I don't like him as much as you don't like him.
==> I think this sentence is gramatically strange. 'As + Adj/Adv + as' is used to compare two equal things. Here in the sentence, you compare the feeling of 'dislike him'.

Step 2
I don't [like him as much as you like him.]
==>'don't' negates the idea in my brackets. Is the negation scope here?

Step 3
Then, I'd apply 'pro-verb' substitution to the latter 'like him', and then it generates a new variants,
I don't [like him as much as you do.]

So the latter 'like him' is within negation scope.

What do you think, Mirium?

Re: Don't

rommie — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:55:36 GMT

It's "...do you not like".

I suppose the answer is that the negation of "to like" is "not to like". So, in the present tense, the negation of "like" is "not like". The correct word order is therefore "...do you not like".

However, as you quite rightly point out, it *IS* abbreviated to "don't you like". That does make sense if you regard "don't" as a separate word. (There's no such word as "doyoun't"). You can't put one word inside another word (except in very unusual circumstances), so if you're going to use "don't" it will have to go either one side or the other of "you". It definitely can't go after the "you" because that would completely change the meaning, so the only option left is before.

Curiously, "...do not you like" is probably not actually formally incorrect, just very, very unusual.

Rommie