tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post7640910630578176780..comments2024-02-28T05:25:12.859-05:00Comments on English, Jack: Negating should in questionsBretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-63959301925929284792009-11-08T14:48:09.760-05:002009-11-08T14:48:09.760-05:00Hi Brett:
I'm saying that a word's being ...Hi Brett:<br /><br />I'm saying that a word's being contracted alters the word order of the sentence. Sometimes, when an auxiliar is contracted with not, it's position changes. For example, "still" follows a simple auxiliar but precedes a contracted one:<br /><br />1) I have still not received your letter.<br />subj aux adv not verb<br />2) I still haven't received your letter.<br />subj adv aux verb<br /><br />Cheers,<br />LouLou Hevlyhttp://visca.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-70992493059814728332009-11-08T06:46:37.447-05:002009-11-08T06:46:37.447-05:00Huh. "Should not they have permission?"...Huh. "Should not they have permission?" sounds perfectly grammatical to me. "Can not one go to church and still be a good Christian?" is also grammatical. In fact, there's a difference of meaning between:<br />* Can not one go to church and still be a good Christian?<br />and<br />* Can one not go to church and still be a good Christian?<br /><br />In the former, "can not" could be replaced by "can't" without altering the meaning; in the latter, it could not. However, the choice not to use the contraction puts more emphasis on the idea that this is really a rhetorical question: of course they should have permission; of course one can be a good Christian and still go to church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-21514223876933743082009-11-07T08:55:39.973-05:002009-11-07T08:55:39.973-05:00Lou, A contraction is simply the word in its norma...Lou, A contraction is simply the word in its normal position, but phonologically reduced and linked to the previous word. That's not what you're describing.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-40398524965425706572009-11-07T07:12:11.256-05:002009-11-07T07:12:11.256-05:00I would say that "shouldn't" is inde...I would say that "shouldn't" is indeed a contraction of "should not", but that the reason "Should not they have permission" sounds ungrammatical is that it doesn't follow the normal word order for a question, which is "auxiliar + subject [+ adverb] + verb".<br />"Shouldn't they have permission" sounds fine (auxiliars contracted with "not" still count as auxiliars).<br />"Should they not have permission" is a bit formal, but still sounds acceptable, at least in my English (born Seattle, 1949).<br />"Should not they have" sounds wrong because we don't construct negative questions in the order "auxiliar + adverb + subject + verb".<br /><br />In fact, English has such a strong preference for beginning negative questions with auxiliars contracted with "not" that for "am", the only auxiliar that can't be so contracted, we use "aren't"!<br />"Am I not your friend?" = "Aren't I your friend?"<br />But not "Are I not your friend" and of course not "Are not I your friend".Lou Hevlyhttp://visca.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-12742211214322286722009-11-07T02:47:20.789-05:002009-11-07T02:47:20.789-05:00Hi. Nice blog. Another case where contractions are...Hi. Nice blog. Another case where contractions are not equivalent to their expansions is question tags, e.g.:<br /><br />Bob's your uncle, is not he?<br />You ate the whole cake, did not you?<br />You would have liked it, would not have you?<br />I spelled it wrong, did not I?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-22836911963286825932009-11-06T19:11:47.737-05:002009-11-06T19:11:47.737-05:00There are certain constructions where 'is'...There are certain constructions where 'is' can't be contracted:<br /><br />Tell me where the money is!<br /><br />can't be contracted to<br /><br />*Tell me where the money's!<br /><br />But of course your point here is still true: contraction of 'is' isn't just limited to certain nouns.<br /><br />(Just found this blog through Language Log--I like it!)Craig Russellnoreply@blogger.com