Using 'just' (referring to time) in negative sentences

Question

Hello Everyone!Thinking of 'just' as an adverb of indefinite time/frequency*, I've just realized I'm not sure whether it retains this meaning in *negative clauses*, especially in the *present progressive tense.For instance, while the meaning seems relatively unambiguous (well, only relatively, because even here one might understand 'just' as 'only', right?) in the following sentences...*a. I'm just reading a book.**b. He's just arrived.*...it seems far more ambiguous (at least to me) in the following sentences...*c. I'm not just reading a book.**d. He hasn't just arrived.*...to the extent that 'just' appears to only mean *'only'* here.Am I right, or is this just my personal impression?Do I have to replace 'just' with another adverb(ial) to convey the temporal meaning* in *negative clauses?Many thanks for any help!P.

GPY · Accepted Answer

I'm just reading a book.
Could mean I'm doing nothing more than reading a book, or I'm reading a book at this moment.

He's just arrived.
Means that he arrived a short time ago.

I'm not just reading a book.
Means I'm doing something else in addition to reading a book.

He hasn't just arrived.
Means that he arrived a while ago; would mostly be used to counter a claim that he has just arrived, rather than to broach the topic.

Petusek · Answer

Thanks a lot! That's exactly what I suspected. I knew it sounded odd but wasn't sure. :-) Thanks again!

Petusek · Answer

Giving it some more thought, I wonder what would the equivalent of 'just' (temporal meaning) be in present/past progressive negative sentences. Is the following really impossible? How could one "negate" 'just' then?

Tom was just finishing his homework when his phone rang.
Tom wasn't just finishing his homework when his phone rang. He was actually playing video games.

Again, many thanks. Perhaps, this is a silly question, but, somehow, my mind is obsessed with the idea and can't get rid of it. :-)

P.

GPY · Answer

petusekTom was just finishing his homework when his phone rang. Tom wasn't just finishing his homework when his phone rang. He was actually playing video games.

This is feasible when the negation has something to work against in the context. In your example the contrast is provided by the second sentence, so it just about works, albeit you have to read the second sentence before you really get the point. Another case would be when someone had previously said that Tom was just finishing his homework. You would not say out of the blue "Tom wasn't just finishing his homework when his phone rang".

The "just" in "I'm just reading a book" (in the "at this moment" sense) is slightly different. It is harder to see an example of a negation of this.

CalifJim · Answer

petusekI'm just reading a book.

~ I am reading a book just now.

petusekI'm not just reading a book.

No. You want this:

I am not reading (anything) just now.

"a book" is vacuous information. If you're not reading, you're not reading a book; not reading a newspaper; not reading a magazine; etc.

CJ

Petusek · Answer

Thanks a lot for your interesting comment, CalifJim.

I'm confused though. I'm not saying anywhere it is reading alone I'd like to negate, am I? I mean, one might simply want to say that what they're just reading isn't a book, right?

I'm not just reading a book. [What] I'm reading [is] an information brochure.

Let's not nitpick over the fact the latter might as well be a hyponym of the former now. The actual reason why I'm asking this kind of question is the syntax:

Is it possible to place just in negative sentences like that, i.e. before the full verb, without necessarily changing its meaning to the unambiguous "only" at the same time, that is, while preserving its temporal meaning of "at the moment"? Perhaps, I should reword my question accordingly.

While I agree "just now" would be far less ambiguous, it follows different syntactic rules and isn't as universal, being applicable to the present progressive tense only, not the past progressive. What would its past equivalent be anyway?

Once again, thank you for your thoughts.

P.

CalifJim · Answer

petusekone might simply want to say that what they're just reading isn't a book, right?

It seems less usual to me, but I suppose it is possible.

petusekI'm not just reading a book. [What] I'm reading [is] an information brochure.

Not possible if you want "not just" to mean "not at this moment".

I'm not reading a book just now. What I'm reading just now is ....

Also impossible if you want "not just" to mean "not only".

I'm not just reading a book. I'm also reading a ....

petusekIs it possible to place just in negative sentences like that, i.e. before the full verb, without necessarily changing its meaning to the unambiguous "only" at the same time, that is, while preserving its temporal meaning of "at the moment"? Perhaps, I should reword my question accordingly.

This sounds like a research project for a masters degree in linguistics. I suspect, however, that it is sometimes possible and sometimes not possible to place "not just" as you describe while preserving the meaning "not at the moment", and that the times it is impossible outnumber the times it is possible.

petusekWhat would its past equivalent be anyway?

"just then", "not ... just then", at the end.

I was not reading a book just then. What I was reading just then was ....

CJ

Using 'just' (referring to time) in negative sentences

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions