1

I have a smattering of exposure to several languages, and it appears to me that many languages allow a simpler* negation than we usually use in English. They allow the insertion of a word like no or not, without any additional verb.

For example in Spanish we can negate the sentence Yo como (I eat) as Yo no como (I do not eat). No Spanish word corresponds to the word do, which we add in English.

I do the dishes in the morning? Cool. I don't the dishes at night? Something's wrong.

There are a few archaic exceptions.

  • There's a sort of archaic negative imperative, as in Ask not what your country can do for you. Yoda approached it with his injunction Do or do not.
  • And in the archaic indicative, Ophelia mentioned to Laertes a certain proud and reckless libertine who recks not his own reed.

But most of us, living neither a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away nor in Elizabethan Denmark, would find other phrasings more natural. We seem to use negations pretty exclusively in multi-word verb forms. For example:

  • In infinitives: I like to not go, or I like not to go (with various degrees of clunkiness)
  • With helping verbs: I am [not] swimming.

But usually, we not just add not.

So what ever happened to English? Is there an interesting story behind our inability to negate simply?

NB: When I use the words "simple" and "simpler," I'm not thinking about whether children growing up in various places find it easy or hard to learn the local language, or about whether adult native speakers find it easy or hard to communicate, or about whether adults learning a given language as a second language find that easy or hard to do. I'm not thinking about difficulty at all. I'm just referring to the addition of a single word as "simpler" than the addition of a group of words, for reasons that seem obvious to me but which I find I cannot explain at all. The "simple negation" of my title, and the "simpler negation" of my first sentence, is simply (that is, onewordishly) a one-word negation.

  • 1
    Spanish verbs are conjugated, English verbs are not. Those all have to be learned and beware of the subjunctive and when to use it. Overall, you learn one pattern in English (do not/does not for negative). But every single verb is the same. Who says this is complicated??? I vote to close this question. – Lambie Dec 4 '19 at 22:52
  • 1
    @Chaim It is very relevant. The OP asks where is the simple negation enjoyed by the rest of the world's peoples". And the "ability to negative simply". Really?? The question is a false one. If you are comparing the differences between languages, verbs are much more complicated in Spanish than English. The conditional of the verb comer has 5 different endings in Spanish, in English one little word does the job for all persons (I, you, he/she/it, we, you, they: would. – Lambie Dec 6 '19 at 15:52
  • 1
    @Chaim There is no such thing as "negate simply" except in your misunderstanding of how language works. It assumes that the negation in English is not simple or that it is complex. The kind of question you pose is called a false question as it is based on a faulty understanding of how language(s) work. – Lambie Dec 6 '19 at 17:29
  • 1
    The problem is simple: You are making a value judgement, and even including the "rest of the world's peoples" in it (there are some 6,000 extant languages, do you know how most of them do negation??). All languages have their own logic so the statement that English has an "inability to negate simply" is misguided. Anyway, people have abilities, not languages. – Lambie Dec 6 '19 at 19:59
  • 1
    'Something's wrong.' could be seen as a form of racism in this context. 'There's something wrong with your language.' Every Anglophone knows that English is crazy in various areas. But we don't usually go around saying 'There's something wrong with your language' to people using other languages. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 11 '19 at 19:52
4

As people have said in the comments, your question is probably linked to the development of do-support in English. The topic is complicated and is still being researched. Here is an example of what people have said about its development in Middle English:

We show that the patterns in the development of do-support in imperatives as well as in questions and negative declaratives can be explained if the loss of verb movement occurs in two steps in the history of English with the loss of the higher movement preceding the loss of the lower movement. … In early Modern English (ca.1500-ca.1700), the use of do in these contexts was variable but increased over time. Ellegård provides a quantitative study of the development of do forms in various sentence types using a collection of sentences extracted from texts ranging in time from late Middle English to the 18th century. … After the middle of the 16th century, the frequency of do in (non-emphatic) affirmative declaratives declines steadily until, by 1700, the use of do in this environment is prohibited. The frequency of do in negative declaratives and in both affirmative and negative questions rises continuously until sometime after the 18th century, do becomes obligatory in these environments.

The analysis gets a bit technical. In fact, for me, it's a bit over my head, but this is the level that will be necessary to follow the discussion:

According to Roberts (1985) and Kroch (1989b), English completely lost V-I movement for lexical verbs in the middle of the 16th century. When V-I movement was lost, only be, auxiliary have and the modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.) could appear in I0. Based on the behavior of indicative sentences, Roberts argues that the rise of do forms is a reflex of the loss of V-I movement. As V-I movement was lost, INFL lowering replaced it and so the verb came to remain in situ. In questions, the requirement that a verbal material move to C0 persists; thus, auxiliary do is inserted in I0 as a last resort device and then moves to C0.

The full paper, The rise of do-support in English, is freely available here. Of course, it contains references to other work on the subject.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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