It appears not to have Do Support

[JuanTwoThree]

I'm intrigued by these:

I suppose not.

I think not. (archaic)

It seems not to be moving.

It appears not to matter.

He looks not to be worried (?)

The more conventional negatives of these ( I don't suppose so etc) mean exactly the same thing , which cannot be said of, say, "I drink not to be sad". Do Support is so pervasive in English that its absence is interesting. These verbs have in common that they are very much opinions, which gives off a slight aroma of, yes, semi-modality.

There is also "Ask not what you can do for your country....." and other non do-support imperatives but these are, I think, genuine archaisms.

[Andrew Patterson]

I'm intrigued by these:
I suppose not.
I think not. (archaic)
It seems not to be moving.
It appears not to matter.
He looks not to be worried (?)

The more conventional negatives of these ( I don't suppose so etc) mean exactly the same thing , which cannot be said of, say, "I drink not to be sad". Do Support is so pervasive in English that its absence is interesting. These verbs have in common that they are very much opinions, which gives off a slight aroma of, yes, semi-modality.

There is also "Ask not what you can do for your country....." and other non do-support imperatives but these are, I think, genuine archaisms.

Interesting. If there's modality here, it appears to be epistemic modality. I wouldn't say "look not" and agree that "ask not" is an archaism.

I noticed that all the other examples can be used with "so" although not all word that can be used with so can take not in this way.

Then I noticed that the other examples are also to do with mental processes, which would be expected of epistemic modality.

Then I noticed that "think" is not a catenative ("be thought" is, though) the others are (specifically they can be followed by to+the infinitive), which again ties up with modality.

Then I thought of "guess" which also works with so and not but isn't followed by to+the infinitive. It can be followed by "that". Ah, maybe that's it. Reporting mental processes that can be used with so.

Anyone got any counter-examples?

[JuanTwoThree]

More examples:

I hope not/so

I believe not/so

I expect not/so

I suggest not.

I didn't care for "I suggest so" at first but examples like "Old records suggest so" abound.

[Lorikeet]

Hmm, I didn't think "I think not" is archaic. I still use it sometimes. Then again, maybe I'm archaic. .

[revel]

Good morning all.

I'm with Lorikeet, I think not sounds like normal modern speech to me too, though maybe both of us are showing our ages....ask not might seem archaic because of when it was used in the quoted fragment, but who said that, Kennedy? Roosevelt? That was not so long ago. And it was used in a speech meant to excite the masses, and language used in speeches is different from language used on Thursday morning over coffee:

"Ask not what I am doing later on today, but rather what I am doing tomorrow...."

peace,
revel.

[Andrew Patterson]

I'm going to go plumb down the middle with "think not". Don't think that it is archaic but I don't think it's bang up to date, either. In my books, that makes it old-fashioned.

Most or all of the other expressions eg "expect not" carry clear epistemic modality, "think" doesn't except in the passive ("is thought"="is believed".)

That is to say that we think something when we say "think not", but it is not as clear that the thought carries with it any idea of the truth of the proposition. This may be the reason why it may be becoming old-fashioned.

[Andrew Patterson]

Some more: See also my post in "Generic "will"":
fear not
guess not
gather not

Then I realised that putting "should" in front of the verb may make it more likely that the verb will not need do-support:
"I should think not," seems more likely than, "I think not."
"I should say not," is quite common, but we can't say, "say not."

These last two seem to share the same idea of being glad that something didn't happen while being indignant that it was even suggested.

Can anyone think of any more?

[JuanTwoThree]

imagine

Not all can be followed by "to" and not all can have an object:

Will I see you at the party. I ------- not.

I ------- not to see you at the party.

I ------- you not to go to the party.

I-------- you not to be going to the party (?)

Not every verb works everywhere.

I'm getting myself lost!

[Andrew Patterson]

Most seem to be used in replies.

[JuanTwoThree]

Yup, the "I.........so/not" seems to be ok for all (?) of the full verb.

Is it standard to say "I will so!" or "I can so!" ?

[Andrew Patterson]

Juan wrote:

Is it standard to say "I will so!" or "I can so!" ?

No, it isn't. There are definitely different groups of verbs that fdon't require do-support, which we can look into. I don't think modals are usually followed by so.

To change the subject, I got Roget's thesaurus out and looked at mental processes which seem to be very productive. I came up with a few more:
assume not
?maintain not
presume not
?surmise not
suspect not
(should) trust not

Please look at the ones with question marks cos I'm not sure about them

[JuanTwoThree]

It may be nothing after all.

I think that in cases where there is no "to+verb" all this is no more than some kind of elision:

Will we meet tomorrow? I suppose (that) (we will) not.

or ellipsis:

I suppose so.


Whereas "I expect not to see you again" and others are more interesting in that it's a genuine verb+verb. Nevertheless I'm not sure that we've got some kind of semi-auxiliarity or particularly defective complimentation where one of the criteria for a full verb complimenting another (that the first be negated with a form of "do" or other auxiliary) is lacking. It may be just a "not" before a " to" and not after. It's not so far removed from "I expect to not see you again". Importantly it's:

I expect / not to see you again

rather than

I expect not/ to see you again

Is that true of all of them? Are there any that really sound like an otherwise normal full verb but without do-support?

Though shifting the negative to the main verb (ie before the "to" ) and that it is subtly different from "I don't plan to see you again" does intrigue.

Despite being a long way from "Worry not!" and "I know not what to do" and other genuine, archaic do-less examples it remains true that the verbs all (?) have mental process in common.

Thumbs down to maintain and surmise.

[Andrew Patterson]

OK, Juan, this is what I've got so far:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/DoUnSup.html
Anything to add?

[JuanTwoThree]

That looks about it. But I would still think that it's probably more a case of a misplaced "not" than what is strictly called lack of do-support in earlier forms of English. Except that these seem to be the very verbs that used not to* have do-support.

I still think my comment about the little pause is important.

Where's the break in

"I ask you not to smoke in this room." ?

I say that it's between "you" and "not" putting the "not" firmly in the "to" structure.

* Is that another one?

And what about imperatives with "let" and "make" "Let it not be my husband!" "Mum, make Fred not say things like that!" Or are these just a by-product of the lack of "to-support" .

"Don't let it be my husband!" ok, but "Don't make Fred say things like that!" is very different.

[Andrew Patterson]

Juan, you write, "that's about it," then promptly come up with three more, which I will now add. Clearly, that's not about it. I like your ideas about elision and lack of to-support and imperatives. The to-support idea doesn't always work though. Modals and perhaps a few special cases notwithstanding, there has to be some sort of reporting of thoughts or speach.

All in all, there seems to be a lot of complication underlying the use of not after a verb.

If you can bring your ideas together, could you maybe write a paragraph to fit in with what I've done? Thanks.