Ali did [not] get into the ring [and] dance

Question

Billed as the "rumble in the jungle," this was a fight nobody except Ali thought he could win. What most people didn't realize is that Ali had a secret strategy. Although he told reporters he would "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee," Ali did not get into the ring and dance.
[Source: Reading for Results Ninth Edition by Laraine Flemming]
I know when we want to make "not" in a main clause influence a coordinate clause, we use the conjunction not "and," but "or."
And I think in the underlined sentence, two clauses express two sequential actions, and that "not" modifies the whole sentence, not only the former clause, or the main clause.
If so, I'd like to know how this is possible.

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

The 'not' does not negate both verbs - Ali did get into the ring, but he did not dance.  So, Ali did not [get into the ring and dance]; he [got into the ring and did something else].

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonI'd like to know how this is possible.

"get into the ring and dance" is viewed as a unit of action, not as two separate actions. There is absolutely no intention to say that Ali did not get into the ring. The intention is to say that Ali did not dance when he got into the ring.

CJ

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, fivejedjon and Mr.Jim, for your very helpful answer.

Then, I'd like to know if I can rephrase it as "Ali did not get into the ring dancing."

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonif I can rephrase it as "Ali did not get into the ring dancing."

No! That implies the dancing was not going on at the very same time he got into the ring. The original implies that he didn't dance at a time when he had already got into the ring.

CJ

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, Mr. Jim, for your continuing support.
I'm afraid that I'm badgering you.

No! That implies the dancing was not going on at the very same time he got into the ring. The original implies that he didn't dance at a time when he had already got into the ring.

"get into the ring and dance" is viewed as a unit of action, not as two separate actions.

Then I can't figure out why you did say the above account; I'm such a fool.

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joon"get into the ring and dance" is viewed as a unit of action, not as two separate actions.

Maybe this was not the best way for me to express it, so I can see why you may be a little confused.

"get into the ring and dance" is not viewed as the opposite of "not get into the ring and not dance". In other words, the negation does not apply separately to both actions.

Instead, "get into the ring and dance" is viewed as the opposite of "get into the ring and not dance". The negation only applies to the dancing part. We assume that if Ali was going to box, he would have to get into the ring.
_____________________

It's a matter of world knowledge rather than a knowledge of grammar that determines what the negation applies to in this kind of case. But even so, "and" may be used instead of "or" when the actions are logically connected in the mind of the speaker

When the opposing team scored a point, we did not stand up and cheer. Here we did not stand up and we did not cheer, but we don't have to say "we did not stand up or cheer" because we don't think of the cheering part independently of the standing up part. Standing up without cheering isn't the usual combination of events. The two are normally connected. That's the sort of thing I meant when I said "viewed as a unit of action".

Louise was so upset that she could not eat or drink. Here we use "or" because we think of eating and drinking as separate things. A person might be so upset that they cannot eat, but maybe they can drink. Eating and drinking are more or less independent possibilities. They are not necessarily connected events.

CJ

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you very much, Mr. Jim, for your very detailed and easy to understand answer. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/21.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/21.gif' alt='Emotion: yes'/>

Park sang joon · Answer

I'm so sorry for my very belated question.

I have arranged my assumptions about the structure "not~and~."
So I'd like to check with you whether my assumptions are reasonable.

Here are my note.
Premise: Such cases "not" affect the following "and" clause only is only when the verb of "and" clause is distinct from main clause's.
• I have classified the structure into three categories
1. simultaneous actions
2. consecutive actions with the unnecessary former action
3. consecutive actions with the necessary former action

Here goes examples.
1. He doesn't drink and drive.
1-1. He doesn't (drink and drive).?, or "He doesn't drink as driking."?simultaneous actions
1-2. He drink and doesn't drive.?(for drink-driving) consecutive actions with the necessary former action

2. We did not stand and cheer.
2-1. We didn't stand and didn't cheer.?consecutive actions with the unnecessary former action

3. I can't talk and eat.
3-1. I can't (talk and eat).?, or "I can't talk as eating."?simultaneous actions

4. Ali did not get into the ring and dance.
4-1. Ali got into the ring and didn't dance. - consecutive actions with the necessary former action

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonI'd like to check with you whether my assumptions are reasonable.

Yes. They seem reasonable to me.

CJ

Ali did [not] get into the ring [and] dance

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions