I have long been puzzled by the usage of 'verb + not'. For example, Kennedy said, "... my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." The Bible states, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matthew 7:6 KJV).

I think 'verb + not' equals 'do not verb'. Is that so? Can anyone tell me grammatically? Is 'verb + not' only used orally? Is it a formal expression or not?

  • possible duplicate of Why use "need not" instead of "do not need to"?
    – MetaEd
    Commented Feb 6, 2013 at 7:42
  • 5
    I don't think it's a duplicate; "You needn't shout" is perfectly ordinary usage; "Shout not" would be unusual.
    – verbose
    Commented Feb 6, 2013 at 8:31
  • ... Yes, 'need' is a special case, a 'semi-modal', not virtually demanding do-support for negation (you mustn't go; you needn't go or you don't need to go; ?! you know not your times tables). Commented May 23 at 10:37
  • You note it in the King James translation. Also, you will see it everywhere in Shakespeare. Most Indo-European languages still do negation that way. Only we degenerate modern English speakers put "do" everywhere instead. Maybe ask in linguistics.stackexchange.com
    – GEdgar
    Commented May 23 at 14:49

3 Answers 3


Yes, "verb + not" means the same as "do not + verb." But it is used only in highly formal diction, such as in poetry or oratory. The construction would be very out of place in everyday usage.

  • It was more common in EME. Commented May 23 at 10:39

It is a stylistic device that puts emphasis on the verb and makes the reader/listener focus in on the statement. It is used in both spoken and written English, but that construction is mainly a rhetorical device for formal speeches and academic/analytical writing.


In earlier times the negation of verbs was simply verb + not. The use of do/does/did + not/n't is a relatively late development.

The question why to do for negation is justified. Though I can't proof it I think the reason is the following: in spoken Englisch verb forms + not are contracted. English would get a lot of irregular forms if it would not use to do. What would be the result of come+n't or came+n't? /kount?/ or /keint?/.

So I think it is a genial invention to use to do and to have only a handful of very frequent contractions. "isn't it" simply is shorter than "does it not be/doesn't it be".

When Kennedy used "ask not... ask" then he used the older system of negation which in rhetoric style can be used in such sentences with antithesis.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.