I need not go home--need is a semiauxiliary, instead of a lexical/ordinary verb.
It is clear 'need' is an auxiliary, because it is followed by a bare infinitive, not a full infinitive.
Below, however, are not examples of verbs that can function as both auxiliaries and ordinary verbs, but of verbs that leave out the modal 'do' and sound slightly non-standard and contrived.
What is it about these verbs that allow them to exhibit these unique structures without the auxiliary 'do'?
I wish not to renew my subscription-instead of-I do not wish to renew my subscription.
I want not to go home-instead of-I do not want to go home.
Where is the 'do'?
Where is the 'do'?
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
Certain verbs that are not true modals can serve the same purpose. Need is one. Dare is another.What is it about these verbs that allow them to exhibit these unique structures without the auxiliary 'do'?
I wish not to renew my subscription-instead of-I do not wish to renew my subscription.
I want not to go home-instead of-I do not want to go home.
The true modals (and those that serve as modals) all use modal + not + bare infinitive. (I could not go, I dare not do, I need not go, etc).
Wish is not one of these verbs and uses the more standard syntax: modal + not + full infinitive (I wish not to go, I tried not to go, etc.).
When the syntax changes to do + not + modal + infinitive, the full infinitive is used with wish, want, and need--but not with dare. Strange.
Ars longa, vita brevis
Right, good to know, thanks.Wish is not one of these verbs and uses the more standard syntax: modal + not + full infinitive (I wish not to go, I tried not to go, etc.).
So 'wish' is a modal that uses the to-infinitive basically.
What is the reason for some modal verbs taking the to-infinitive?
And why did you say 'standard syntax' when modals always use the bare infinitive?
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
Wish can "serve" as a modal, but it maintains some of the syntactical characteristics of true verbs.So 'wish' is a modal that uses the to-infinitive basically.
What is the reason for some modal verbs taking the to-infinitive?
And why did you say 'standard syntax' when modals always use the bare infinitive?
And when I said "standard syntax," I was referring to true verbs. as in "I tried not to eat," "She claimed not to know," and so on.
Ars longa, vita brevis
Righteo.
The structures (is there a name for them??) without 'do,' are more common in BrE than AmE, correct?
Ah, thought that may be what you were saying.And when I said "standard syntax," I was referring to true verbs
The structures (is there a name for them??) without 'do,' are more common in BrE than AmE, correct?
Last edited by Enigma on Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
I just picked up on something. Are you saying that 'tried' in your example quoted above is a full verb, because in your first post of this thread you gave it as an example of a modal alongside 'wish'? (Or were you using it to show the likeness in syntax between a full verb, such as tried, and a modal, such as wish?)Wish can "serve" as a modal, but it maintains some of the syntactical characteristics of true verbs.So 'wish' is a modal that uses the to-infinitive basically.
What is the reason for some modal verbs taking the to-infinitive?
And why did you say 'standard syntax' when modals always use the bare infinitive?
And when I said "standard syntax," I was referring to true verbs. as in "I tried not to eat," "She claimed not to know," and so on.
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
- Slava
- Great Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 8097
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am
- Location: Finger Lakes, NY
Re: Where is the 'do'?
Perhaps you will find of additional interest the idea that if we do use the full infinitive, we have a completely different meaning.I need not go home--need is a semiauxiliary, instead of a lexical/ordinary verb.
It is clear 'need' is an auxiliary, because it is followed by a bare infinitive, not a full infinitive.
"I need to not go home" means there is a very specific reason to stay away. Our example sentence above simply states there is no particular reason to go home, it's indifferent.
To all who would criticize splitting the infinitive, don't bother. It's not a valid discussion anymore. Long dead and buried, except in pedantic schools that haven't caught up to 19th century usage.
Re: Where is the 'do'?
Ah yes, of course. And splitting the infinitive is fine to me too. If it can be avoided without changing the meaning, I won't split it, though.Perhaps you will find of additional interest the idea that if we do use the full infinitive, we have a completely different meaning.I need not go home--need is a semiauxiliary, instead of a lexical/ordinary verb.
It is clear 'need' is an auxiliary, because it is followed by a bare infinitive, not a full infinitive.
"I need to not go home" means there is a very specific reason to stay away. Our example sentence above simply states there is no particular reason to go home, it's indifferent.
To all who would criticize splitting the infinitive, don't bother. It's not a valid discussion anymore. Long dead and buried, except in pedantic schools that haven't caught up to 19th century usage.
It's also interesting how the verb forms with 'do' are also different in meaning to the forms without do.
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
Clarification: There is some disagreement on whether wish can be a semi-modal. The example above (I wish not to go) could easily be considered S + V + not + infinitive, with wish being the inflected verb.Wish is not one of these verbs and uses the more standard syntax: modal + not + full infinitive (I wish not to go, I tried not to go, etc.).
I cannot find an example of a sentence using wish as a semi-modal, although there are numerous references to the use thereof on the internet.
If someone can find one, I would be less frustrated than I am right now.
Ars longa, vita brevis
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests