(Added July 1, 2025)
Just realized that in the last part of the below I had my thinking stuck at situations where the subject follows the verb and the "not" (as in Go not you to the park?) and based on that mistakenly thought that the verb degree of applicability issue is no longer there.
On second thought (anyone surprised?), what prevents preceding the subject wherever it is with "not" to negate the result of the verb, as in, for example, substituting I don't go to the park with Not I go to the park to convey the same effect? Google's AI refused the latter sentence even though it accepts the sentence Not waisting time is a good habit. What is the difference grammatically?
(Added June 29, 2025)
They like not going to the park would have been much better example for the verb "like" than that horrible choice involving ordering not to like something.
Here is a little more elaboration on why the position change in the last paragraph below. "not you" refers directly to my absence not to other people. Also, doesn't the space after the verb indicates end of the verb and therefore "not" must be part of what follows the verb? If so, then we can say that Did not you go to the park? and Didn't you go to the park? both ask about the same end result but through different means. The first asks if my absence went to the park while the second asks if I did no going to the park. What also follows from this is that following any verb with "not" can have the same effect as that of negating that verb with the help of the to-do verbs, and that would be without the lack I talked about in the second paragraph below.
(Added June 28, 2025)
I was wrong. Negating a verb according to formula like the one I questioned below would not leave the sentence verbless if the "not" is applied to the helping verb. Instead that combination would be expressing doing/having/being the absence of the negated target. The first two would qualify as verbs based on the association with the absence of the negated target like any stative verbs, while the third would qualify based on being that absence.
Following any verb with "not" would not leave the sentence verbless. However, with verbs lacking being always applicable, that verb taken in combination with the negation word would require doing extra actions. For example, because one is always doing something, complying with Don't go to the park would be done without any consideration worthy effort except not going to the park. But Go not to the park even with "not" applied to the verb would still require going somewhere else. On the other hand, because there is always something to like, Like not going to the park with "not" applied to the verb is as good as Don't like going to the park.
Also, contrary to what I said below, even with applying "not" to "you" in Did not you go to the park? it would be correct for me to answer that question affirmatively only if I did not go to the park. It would have been that other way had the question been Did other than you go to the park?.
(Added June 26, 2025)
This needs more careful thinking.
(Added June 21, 2025)
I am replacing here the version suggested below with Did you do no going to the park? (Or Have you done no going to the park? had the example been a "have" example).
(First Posting)
The grammar of the question I have made in the post below brings me again to this issue. To ask in the negative if I went to the park, saying : Did you not go to the park? seems acceptable. But asking: Did not you go to the park? can be answered Yes, other people went to the park whether I went to the park or not. The issue with the second example also applies to "didn't" if it is just an abbreviation for "did not". That is because the negation cannot be understood as being done to the helping verb and let the sentence be verbless.
No comments:
Post a Comment