Is it normal/possible to say something like this in English:
(1) She wants me not to be late.
Although I know (probably that) she doesn't want me to be late would sound more common, do you ever use (1) or something like this?
Thanks
José
She wants me not to/she doesn't want to
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Yes, there would be times, though much rarer, that we might use the first. It depends on what you want to emphasise in the message.
I'm sure I've used each of the following at one time or another:
I'm sure I've used each of the following at one time or another:
- * I don't not want to go. = I'm not particularly eager to go, but aren't particularly against it either.
* I want to not go. = Someone else said "I want to go" and as a bit of a joke I just chose to mimic the pattern he used to emphasise that what I want is in direct contrast to what he wants.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
An old thread about negation of "verbs of belief":
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 1608#11608
Note that the example sentences in that old thread contain subordinate (unmarked ~ ) clauses i.e. two finite verbs in a row.
I’m theorizing that the non-finite to be late/to go doesn't take the negative even as (in)frequently as a subordinate finite clause's verb does(n't) – that is, I rather suspect that "first available finite-verb" negation is the across-the-board default (I mean, why delay it [it=the negation] any longer than is necessary, than is perfectly grammatical!).
There are however plenty of instances where any negation has to "go where it's needed": how else could one phrase I know many people don't much care for/aren't really that interested in grammar though!. So we aren't talking stupid mindless mechanical rule-mongering in the paragraphs above, but rather merely (and only) about the sort of examples on offer there. (Doubtless there is some sort of term to cover these apparent semantic differences, but I'm not sure what it is and can't be bothered to go looking stuff up!).
Silly inessential bonus: 'She loves me, she loves me not'. (Attributed to A.Yokel, who liked to compose rhymes of a sort whilst plucking petals off of daisies).
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 1608#11608
Note that the example sentences in that old thread contain subordinate (unmarked ~ ) clauses i.e. two finite verbs in a row.
I’m theorizing that the non-finite to be late/to go doesn't take the negative even as (in)frequently as a subordinate finite clause's verb does(n't) – that is, I rather suspect that "first available finite-verb" negation is the across-the-board default (I mean, why delay it [it=the negation] any longer than is necessary, than is perfectly grammatical!).
There are however plenty of instances where any negation has to "go where it's needed": how else could one phrase I know many people don't much care for/aren't really that interested in grammar though!. So we aren't talking stupid mindless mechanical rule-mongering in the paragraphs above, but rather merely (and only) about the sort of examples on offer there. (Doubtless there is some sort of term to cover these apparent semantic differences, but I'm not sure what it is and can't be bothered to go looking stuff up!).
Silly inessential bonus: 'She loves me, she loves me not'. (Attributed to A.Yokel, who liked to compose rhymes of a sort whilst plucking petals off of daisies).