In He is not right, it is usually said that not negates the auxiliary is. But why not think of not as negating right instead?
-
How would you parse "He isn't right"? "He is clever but not right"?– HenryCommented Mar 12, 2014 at 7:38
-
In this case, and I think in most cases of similar form, 'not-right' is a much more nebulous abstract concept than 'is-not', semantically, and so would not be the first candidate for a good interpretation by the listener. Also, is-not is the common lex for that concept, where not-right has a more common competitor (wrong)– colinroCommented Mar 12, 2014 at 8:27
-
@colinro Thanks. Could you say the same thing about how the listener would interpret this question? "Is he not right?"– JK2Commented Mar 12, 2014 at 8:45
1 Answer
In He is not right, it is usually said that not negates the auxiliary is.
But why not think of not as negating right instead?
Congratulations. You have figured out that what "is usually said" about grammar in too many grammar books and too many English classes is not correct. Nor useful.
The answer to your question is:
This is indeed the way grammarians and logicians do in fact think of negation.
You should distrust any textbook or teacher who tells you that be is the main verb here.
Basically, negation is a monadic functor (that's a good phrase to use at a cocktail party, btw) which changes the truth value of a predicate from True
to False
or from False
to True
, depending on what it was originally.
The predicates are the meaningful part of the verb chain, so they are what gets negated. Furthermore, predicates are not always verbs. There are predicates that are adjective phrases (like right, tall, or very intelligent; these are sensibly called "predicate adjectives"), and also predicates that are nouns (like rice, beans, or a very good doctor; these are sensibly called "predicate nouns").
Predicate nouns that are singular and count require an indefinite article,
as in She's a good doctor.
Predicate nouns and predicate adjectives carry the meaning, but they can't be inflected for tense, so they need an auxiliary be verb to carry the tense, and for use with other rules, like Negative Placement, which requires an auxiliary verb to precede not.
This turns out to be a good site for Contraction, too, so isn't, aren't, wasn't, weren't -- and he's not, they're not, I'm not, and you're not -- are pretty common with predicate adjectives and nouns.
Details on predicates, negation, and monadic functors in the Logic Study Guide.
-
Thanks for the explanation and the link, John. So I gather you agree that "not" in "He is not right" negates "right", not "is". How about other auxiliaries then? In the following examples, do you think that "not" negates the first auxiliaries or what follows them? (1) He can't be right. (2) He didn't do the right thing. (3) He hasn't done the right thing. (4) He hasn't been right. (5) He may not have been right.– JK2Commented Mar 13, 2014 at 2:12
-
By "negate" I mean "semantically negate". I don't mean "contract". Not can get contracted to an auxiliary verb, and normally is; or the auxiliary verb can get contracted to the subject, and frequently is with pronoun subjects. Contraction is a phonological process and doesn't have anything to do with meaning. Negation, on the other hand, is a very complex phenomenon. To answer your question another way, only meaningful items can get negated; auxiliary verbs have no meaning, so they can't. Commented Mar 13, 2014 at 3:35
-
I agree with your proposition that only meaningful items can get negated. But I don't know if your syllogism is entirely valid. I mean, auxiliaries such as "be", "do" and "have" may have little meaning, but modal auxiliaries such as "can" and "may" do have some meaning, don't they?– JK2Commented Mar 13, 2014 at 3:59
-
They have idiomatic meaning, but it's always centered around modal categories:
Possible/Necessary
for epistemic modals (This may/must be the place andPermitted/Required
for deontic modals (You may/must attend Commencement). They're out there at the leading edge of the verb chain because they're defective verbs (missing prinicipal parts) and don't take any inflections. So their meaning is irrelevant to inflections; and their negation is not so simple; the negation of You must go can be either You must not go or You don't have to go. Commented Mar 13, 2014 at 15:14 -
So are you saying that we should treat modal and non-modal auxiliaries differently when it comes to negation?– JK2Commented Mar 14, 2014 at 1:09