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

Re: "have + object + to + verb"

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:12:15 GMT

Folks, how would you read "Those are the letters I had to write", as modal or non-modal?

Also, it seems the sense of necessity is obvious here, right?

We only have ourselves to thank for not listening to her.

How about this? Any obligation/necessity/duty reading possible there?

She hasn't got anything to do today.

Does this simply mean "I own a pair of slippers"?

I've my slippers to put on.

Comments on this? Negation of necessity. Modal?

Many natives think they've nothing to learn fron non-natives.

Re: Verb + negative

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:15:00 GMT

When the negation applies to what follows, "can not" is appropriate:

You can not show up if you really don't want to go. [You may choose not to show up ...]

____

Sometimes people use "can not" when they want to emphasize the negation:

You can NOT put the cat in the microwave!!

____

You will find "can not" in older writing as well. But the historical tendency seems to have been toward "cannot", so that now "cannot" is used almost all the time.

Re: the difference between the main and auxiliary forms of have (negative) ?

Grammar Geek — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:48:21 GMT

parkerdrums
Student has used have as a main and auxiliary verb, instead of have for the main and do (negative) for the auxiliary.

In the original, the student used "have" as the main verb - there is no aux. verb.

parkerdrums
Subject + do (neg) + frequency adverb + verb (aux)

Why do you have "(aux)" after "verb"?

Subject + correct form of "do" + negation + adverb + main verb, not "verb (aux)"

(But still: I haven't any idea is correct grammar. It doesn't require the "I don't have" form.)

Re: Need we say more?

Jackson6612 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:44 GMT

Hi CB,

Cool Breeze
To my home has nothing to do with verbs. To is a preposition here.

Did I say it had anything to do with verbs? Yes, to is a preposition but to my home functions an infinitive object. Am I wrong?

Cool Breeze
The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses.

Why conditional clauses, why not simply conditional sentence(s)?

Cool Breeze
In other words, auxiliary need is normally not used in affirmative clauses and therefore to is used before the infinitive (to say).

Is auxiliary need and modal need the same thing? should, may, will, etc. are auxiliaries verbs and at the same time modal verbs.

Is affirmative clause and assertive clause the same thing?

I believe infinitive has different definitions. Can both say and to say be called infinitives? In the below given quoted text you have used two different definitions of infinitive, say is an infinitive and to say is also an infinitive.

Cool Breeze
To is normally used before an infinitive after a verb: I want to say it. As need is not an auxiliary in an affirmative clause, to is neededbefore a verb after it: I need to say it.

Cool Breeze
To is normally not used before an infinitive after a defective/modal auxiliary verb: I will/may/could/should say it.

What is defective/modal auxiliary verb?

Sorry for asking you too many questions. I hope you will give a touch to all the above questions.

Thanks,
Jackson

Re: Need we say more?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:03:23 GMT

Jackson6612
Do we need to say more?

Let me ask you few more questions. In Will you come to my home today:
to my home is infinitive object

But when Do we need to say more is changed into affirmative statement Do just disappears, We need to say more. What is your explanation for this?

To my home has nothing to do with verbs. To is a preposition here. An answer to your last question is given in a previous post: "The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses." In other words, auxiliary need is normally not used in affirmative clauses and therefore to is used before the infinitive (to say).

To is normally used before an infinitive after a verb: I want to say it. As need is not an auxiliary in an affirmative clause, to is neededbefore a verb after it: I need to say it.

To is normally not used before an infinitive after a defective/modal auxiliary verb: I will/may/could/should say it.

Re: Need we say more?

AlpheccaStars — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:25:48 GMT

Jackson:

#1 "do" is a verb. (auxiliary) not an adverb. "need" is the main verb; the object is the infinitive phrase..("need to" is synonymous with "have to")

#2 say is the main verb, Need is an auxiliary verb. Like the auxiliaries can or may, it does not necessarily agree with the subject - Need he say more? (not needs)

The 2 sentences mean the same.

This is from the dictionary

Usage Note: Depending on the sense, the verb need behaves sometimes like an auxiliary verb (such as can or may) and sometimes like a main verb (such as want or try). When used as a main verb, need agrees with its subject, takes to before the verb following it, and combines with do in questions, negations, and certain other constructions: He needs to go. Does he need to go so soon? He doesn't need to go. When used as an auxiliary verb, need does not agree with its subject, does not take to before the verb following it, and does not combine with do: He needn't go. Need he go so soon?The auxiliary forms of need are used primarily in present-tense questions, negations, and conditional clauses. Unlike can andmay, auxiliary need has no form for the past tense like couldand might.

Re: Double negation?

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:21:02 GMT

Anonymous
Some people are telling me that this upcoming sentence is bad grammar because it's using the word "not" twice. But is it really an example of double negation, or is it all about the syntax of the sentence?
The sentence is:
"Did I not just tell you to not say that?"

Post what you think. Thanks!

This is not a double negation. A double negation is two negatives in the same clause!!!

Did I not just tell you is one clause. The not applies to the verb tell.

to not say that is another clause. The not applies to the verb say.

(By the way, I would have rephrased it as Didn't I just tell you not to say that?)

Likewise, none of the following are double negatives.

I didn't say that John wasn't at home.

Nobody understood that we were not supposed to stand there.

They never tell us when they're not going to be on time.

Helen did not object to their not starting before 3 o'clock.

Not having an umbrella, Ken did not go out into the rain.

Bill wouldn't promise us not to do it again.

We're uncertain. We didn't decide to go, and we didn't decide not to go.

The authorities are not asking people not to use that road; they're just asking people to be careful.

Re: Meg forced June not to swim.

CalifJim — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:22:55 GMT

Avangi
Is there a "not to" solution for these?

Hi, Avangi! I'm not sure what you mean by "solution".

You mean a paraphrase of the originals that uses "not to", I suppose.

I find both examples to be "borderline grammatical" as is. They seem syntactically sound, but semantically anomalous.

To my ear, the verb "force" suggests a positive impulse toward the accomplishment of some goal. The negative goal implied by "not to" seems to contradict this basic meaning of "force". Maybe a little research in a thesaurus would turn up a verb that is more appropriate semantically and yet accepts the negative infinitive syntactically, but off-hand, I don't know of one. Most verbs of "forceful blocking" or "forceful barring" of actions take the "from + gerund" construction.

As for wanting the non-completion of actions, English almost always "raises the negation" into the main clause -- hence, the scarcity of constructions like "want (someone) not to ...", and the great frequency of "not want (someone) to ...", which are sematically equivalent. (Incidentally, think operates the same way, as you probably already know.) Semantically, prefer is not exactly the same as want, but it will take a negative infinitive: Meg preferred June not to swim. (Nevertheless, ... preferred that she not swim is also a frequent choice -- though not the construction you're looking for.)

Re: to not or not to

CalifJim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:51:05 GMT

Davidrock65
I want him not to come anywhere closer near my daughter = I don't want him to come anywhere closer near my daughter? Which is more often used?

In English the negation is raised to the main clause in almost all cases where the main verb is think or want.

I don't think he is ready, usually not I think he is not ready.

I didn't want him to come closer, usually not I wanted him not to come closer.

Re: tense

Newguest — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:01:50 GMT

CalifJim
Newguest

So is it a good example to say: I'm looking in the sky and say "Oh I think it will rain" (but I may be wrong)

OR "I think he won't come" but he may come.

The negation is raised into the main clause for the verbs think and believe, so your possibilities are as follows:

It [will / won't] rain. (I'm sure of it.)

CJ

Can you be sure of it if you use "will"?

how about the second part of my question:

Which is better:

We are sending emails to each other from time to time

We send emails to each other from time to time

thank you CJ