You needn't go.

Question

In the following expressions 'should' is an auxiliary, helping verb and 'go' main, primary verb.

1: You should go.
1a: You shouldn't go.

In '3' and '3a' 'need' has taken rare role of helping verb. Is it a modal verb in '2' and '2a', epressing general mood of a person, situation, etc? And would you please mind telling me if the last two sentences are idiomatic? Thank you, very much.

2: You need to go.
2a: You need not to go.
3: You need go.
3a: You needn't go.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

The only one that's not idiomatic to my ear is 2a. It sounds absolutely wrong.

3a. was common where I grew up, in New England. I suppose now it's a bit old fashioned.

3. is rare indeed, but I'd say it's possible.

Cool Breeze · Answer

Jackson66122a: You need not to go.

Avangi is of course right. 2a is wrong because you have negated need without using don't: You don't need to go. Negating need without don't is fine but you cannot have to in that case. If you use need like a defective auxiliary (can, could; will, would; may, might; shall, should; must), you must omit to:

I will not go there. (Not: I will not to go there.)
You shouldn't do it. (Not: You shouldn't to do it.)
Similarly: You need not do it.

The only defective auxiliary with which to is used is ought: You ought to go there.

Jackson66123: You need go.

This looks grammatical. After all, we can say: You can go. / You may go. / You should go.
However, need is rarely used in affirmative sentences in this way. In fact, many grammarians consider this usage incorrect for the simple reason that it isn't used even though it doesn't violate the rules that govern the usage of the defective auxiliaries - or modal auxiliaries, if you find that term more familiar.

Need is normally used in questions and negative clauses:
Need you go there? (= Do you need to go there? Do you have to go there?)

You need not go there. (= You don't need to go there.)

CB

Tanit · Answer

Cool BreezeHowever, need is rarely used in affirmative sentences in this way. In fact, many grammarians consider this usage incorrect for the simple reason that it isn't used even though it doesn't violate the rules that govern the usage of the defective auxiliaries - or modal auxiliaries, if you find that term more familiar.

I remember reading (in Swann's book, most likely) that need can be used as a modal verb in positive sentences when they contain an adverb carrying a negative meaning. The example the book gave was something like

You need only see her!

V S Rao · Answer

Hi,

Needn't is used as helping verb in the question tags.

Example: I must go, needn't I ( but not mustn't I )

Tanit · Answer

sreesriHi,
Needn't is used as helping verb in ~~the~~ question tags.

Yes, true.

Question tags constitute a type of questions, and CB has already pointed out that need is usually used as a modal verb in questions and negative sentences.

Cool BreezeNeed is normally used in questions and negative clauses:
Need you go there? (= Do you need to go there? Do you have to go there?)
You need not go there. (= You don't need to go there.)

Avangi · Answer

sreesriNeedn't is used as helping verb in the question tags.

Example: I must go, needn't I ( but not mustn't I )

I would NEVER say this. (I'd use the tag in parentheses!)

TanitYou need only see her!

This one I like!

Jackson6612 · Answer

Cool BreezeIf you use need like a defective auxiliary (can, could; will, would; may, might; shall, should; must), you must omit to:

I will not go there. (Not: I will not to go there.)
You shouldn't do it. (Not: You shouldn't to do it.)
Similarly: You need not do it.

Thank you, everyone.

2: You need to go.

2a: You don't need to go.
3: You need go.
3a: You needn't go.

Now it seems in '2' and '2a' 'need' is simply functioning as a usual, intrasitive verb as 'want', 'I want to go'. Do I have it correct?

Above, I just said 'intransitive', I think I'm little confused between 'transitive' and 'intrasitive'. Isn't 'to eat' an object of the verb 'want' in 'I want to eat'? Is it 'to', likely to be a preposition here, breaking the link of the verb with its object? If this is the case, then should I conclude that a preposition is not to come between a transitive verb and its object, otherwise it's an intrasitive? Is there something else which I need to know? Please guide me. Thanks, in anticipation.

Cool Breeze · Answer

Hi Jackson

By coincidence, I just happened to check my e-mail a few minutes after you posted your questions. I'll try and reply to them but I won't be around for a few hours should you have further questions. I'm taking a boat trip to one of the dozens of Helsinki islands as the 7 o'clock morning temperature in Helsinki was 26C and the day is going to be boiling hot.

Need is indeed used as an ordinary verb in 2 and 2a, meaning the infinitive that follows need has the to particle. To isn't a preposition before an infinitive. If to were a preposition, the gerund would have to be used, as in: I am used to taking long walks. But: I need to take a long walk now.

Jackson6612Isn't 'to eat' an object of the verb 'want' in 'I want to eat'?

Yes, at least in my grammatical thinking to eat is the object of want. To eat is an infinitive and to isn't a preposition, it's a particle - in Scandinavia, anyway. I'm not sure if it is called that in Britain and America, though.

Grammatical labels aren't important. What matters is how words and structures are used, not what they are called.

CB

Jackson6612 · Answer

Hi

I hope you have a nice, wonderful trip. You should be thankful to nature if it was 26C in the morning and probably it'd not exceed 30C around midday. You haven't experienced Indian summer yet!

Cool BreezeI'll try and reply to them

Sorry, I have a question. You will 'try' for what? To reply? If it's that, then wouldn't the use of 'I'll try to reply to them' have been more meaningful choice? Please correct me if I'm missing something here.

I understand now, 'to' is indeed a particle.

particle
4 a. An uninflected item that has grammatical function but does not clearly belong to one of the major parts of speech, such as up in He looked up the word or to in English infinitives.
[American Heritage Dictionary of English Language]

4 : a unit of speech expressing some general aspect of meaning or some connective or limiting relation and including the articles, most prepositions and conjunctions, and some interjections and adverbs <the particle up has a perfective meaning in phrases such as beat up and cut up>
[M-W's Col. Dic.]

M-W suggests that a particle could sometimes be a meaningful entity, not just a functional.

perfective
2 : expressing action as complete or as implying the notion of completion, conclusion, or result <perfective verb>
[M-W's Col. Dic.]

I think you missed my point. Actually I was trying to suggest that if 'to eat' was the object, then 'want' had to be a transitive verb. Now it strikes that while discussing transitive verbs infinitive verbals are excluded from the list of direct objects, as in 'I want to eat', 'want' is an intransitive verb. Would you please care to elaborate on the proper definition of transitive and intrasitive?

Cool BreezeGrammatical labels aren't important. What matters is how words and structures are used, not what they are called.

We all learn in different ways. One size doesn't fit all yet the paths cross at different points. As a learner of English I've observed as you become more acquainted, experienced with English you gradually stop focussing on the grammar too much because things start making sense to you. I would still say labels are important, not just in English grammar. We have labels and descriptive terms in every subject to make the study, learning, exchange of ideas, information, etc, more easy and smooth. Suppose when someone doesn't know what to call a verb which doesn't require an object, or no label has been provided for such a verb, then the difficulties arise. There would be more words required everytime someone discusses it, some would give their descriptions in mystic words, perhaps everyone would invent a new label for himself. If no such label as 'Newton's First Law of Motion' had been created, then it wouldn't have hurt Physics in anyway, it clearly would have given rise to babel, confusion of tongues. Labels are importsnt, that's my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Best wishes
Jack

Cool Breeze · Answer

Jackson6612You should be thankful to nature if it was 26C in the morning and probably it'd not exceed 30C around midday.

The meteorologists just said on the radio that the highest temperature recorded today was 34.2C - fortunately that wasn't in Helsinki, though. Of course we cannot have an Indian summer at this time of the year. The term "Indian summer" denotes an exceptionally warm period late in autumn. It isn't autumn yet!

Jackson6612? If it's that, then wouldn't the use of 'I'll try to reply to them' have been more meaningful choice?

Both are used. Some people say: I'll try to do it, some say: I'll try and do it. Some people don't like this try andcombination, which may be the reason I like it!

Jackson6612in 'I want to eat', 'want' is an intransitive verb.

If you want to consider want intransitive, that is of course fine with me. To me no verb that takes an object is intransitive.

We have wandered quite far from the point by now, I think. The inclusion or omission of to after some verbs in some structures has nothing to do with transitivity or intransitivity. It's just that need and dare can sometimes be construed in two grammatically different ways.

CB

You needn't go.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions