This question arose due to a translation from Spanish:

Susana esta aqui pero no nos ve.

Here are two possible translations:

  1. Susana is here, but, does not see us.
  2. Susana is here but, sees us not.

An answer might be:

  1. One worry not.

Here is another example of negation at the end of a sentence:

  1. She loves me, she loves me not.

Here is another related set:

  1. We are here but she does not feed us.
  2. We are here but she feeds us not.
  3. One could say, she feeds us not but a loaf of bread!

How is that then defined? Is that colloquial? I think not. So where do you feel that this type of sentence originated from?

closed as off-topic by Hot Licks, David, Davo, Edwin Ashworth, Mitch Sep 7 '17 at 17:39

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • What is your question? As it is written, your question is hard to decipher. – AmE speaker Sep 6 '17 at 23:59
  • Is it in a context, then, that English follows a rule that allows for end of sentence negation? Haha..or does that mean there that it is infinitive, yet if context is imp lied..good thing it was demonstrative. What then I mean is that I question as to the validity of the English grammatical lexicon when among st. 1 feel that be. Can I say, a kin to the old game of petals, "She loves me, she loves me not"? Is it then false present to say She does not love me. Well, of course! Thus the context is derived! – Abe Shudug Sep 7 '17 at 0:07
  • What will you say when I give you these two sentences: "We are here but she does not feed us." "We are here but she feeds us not" Is the not missing a subject, or is that which follows not a one thing? One could say, she feeds us not but a loaf of bread! The direction is all ready there when one presents word fair. – Abe Shudug Sep 7 '17 at 0:09
  • Susana is here but sees us not is okay but not the ordinary way to put it. Does this answer your question? – AmE speaker Sep 7 '17 at 0:10
  • How is that then defined? Is that colloquial? I think not. – Abe Shudug Sep 7 '17 at 0:12

If I understand your question correctly, you want to know if a sentence with no auxiliary verb may be negated by placing not after the lexical verb, so that not falls at the end of the sentence, thus:

STATEMENT She loves me.
DIRECT NEGATION She loves me not.

This negative construction—I call it 'direct' negation because not directly negates the lexical verb—was common from the time that not arose in Middle English as a supplement (and then a replacement) for the older ne. Direct negation remained common and standard through Early Modern English (down to about 1660); but in the 15th century it began to be supplemented (and then replaced) by 'indirect' negation with do support, in which only auxiliary verbs may be directly negated, so negating a bare lexical verb requires that it be be recast as the infinitive complement of the 'dummy' auxiliary DO :

INDIRECT NEGATION She does not love me.

By the middle of the 18th century the indirect construction with do support had largely supplanted the direct construction, except in literary or very formal discourse. Direct negation lingered here and there (primarily in poetry) until the 20th century, but it is no longer employed even in the most formal registers except for occasional rhetorical or archaicizing effect.

  • Put more simply, the version with 'not' at the end of the sentence is very old-fashioned and only survives today in a few traditional expressions. "She loves me, she loves me not" is an old fortune-telling game where you pick petals off a flower to see which phrase you are saying as you pick the last one. – Kate Bunting Sep 7 '17 at 7:15
  • Do you call ;do a dummy auxiliary because there are words that better supplement? I do go to the store. I do the dishes. Could the first sentence imply that you do the clause 'go to the store'? Is it telling of the trueth? – Abe Shudug Sep 8 '17 at 0:43
  • @AbeShudug No; it's called a 'dummy auxiliary' because it has no semantic content, it's employed as an auxiliary purely for syntactic reasons. In emphatic contexts (I do want to go) it's a real auxiliary, and in other contexts, like your sentences, it's a lexical verb. – StoneyB Sep 8 '17 at 3:13

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