0
Abigailmb Posted 6 years ago
Grammar

"Not" after a to-be verb

Does the word "not" after a to-be verb have to necessarily modify the to-be verb, or can it modify the descriptor that comes after the word "not"?

For example, "If jays are not in the forest, then shrikes are."

Is it grammatically necessary for “not” to modify “are” in the sentence, or could “not” instead modify “in the forest.” If the latter were possible, and “not in the forest” were the descriptor, then saying the shrikes “are” would mean they are “not in the forest”.

  

Top answer

abigailmb Does the word "not" after a to-be verb have to necessarily modify the to-be verb, or can it modify the descriptor that comes after the word "not"? There is more than one answer to this, depending on which system of analysis you're using. Although the following example doesn't have the verb to be , it shows diagrams which differ in the interpretation of 'not' in the same way as you might find for to be .

— CalifJim

  • abigailmb Does the word "not" after a to-be verb have to necessarily modify the to-be verb, or can it modify the descriptor that comes after the word "not"?
  • There is more than one answer to this, depending on which system of analysis you're using.
  • Although the following example doesn't have the verb to be , it shows diagrams which differ in the interpretation of 'not' in the same way as you might find for to be .
  • com/questions/19006/analyzing-negation-with-a-syntactic-tree CJ
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0
abigailmbDoes the word "not" after a to-be verb have to necessarily modify the to-be verb, or can it modify the descriptor that comes after the word "not"?

There is more than one answer to this, depending on which system of analysis you're using.

Although the following example doesn't have the verb to be, it shows diagrams which differ in the i

0
0
abigailmbDoes the word "not" after a to-be verb have to necessarily modify the to-be verb, or can it modify the descriptor that comes after the word "not"?

If jays are not in the forest, then shrikes are.

Syntactically, there is verbal negation here marked by modification of the auxiliary verb "be" (i.e. "are") by the adverb

0

Related Questions