"To be, or not to be: that is the question."

[undrentide]

Well, it is not exactly my question.

The reason I quoted Shakespeare is, at school I was taught that the negative form of "to (verb)" is "not to (verb)". But recently I realised that many people are using "to not (verb)" instead of "not to (verb)" in many places, including JREF.
At first I thought it's one of the simple mistakes that even natives sometimes make - like spelling "comming" instead of "coming". But there are so many who use this form (= to not), I'm beginning to lose confidence - perhaps I remember what I was taught incorrectly and the correct form is "to not"?!

I looked it up on the net and found an article about this (in Japanese).
It explained that although the word order is different from what one learns at school, there are many native speakers of English who uses it since olden days. "Not to (verb)" and "to not (verb)" are basically the same in meaning. One should avoid "to + adverb + verb", however, when one wants to emphasise the adverb, to make the meaning clearer, to make it "strong" in rhythm, this form is often used.
(The wordings of the above explanation may not accurate/correct, it's just a quick translation from Japanese.)

Now my questions are:

- Is it grammatically correct to say "to not"?

- If so, does it make any difference in meaning from "not to"?
Although the article says there's basically no difference, I'm sceptical.

e.g.
a. I always avoid this topic not to get involved in argument.
b. I always avoid this topic to not get involved in argument.
(Hmmm, maybe these are not very good examples, sorry I cannot think of any better ones.)

- Do you use "to not"? If yes, when do you use "not to" and when "to not"?

 

[Buntaro]

Undrentide,

"The whole idea here is not to get hurt."

--> This form is commonly used in conversation, yet would be considered bad written form. This is a good example where written English and spoken English are different. (I consider both forms to be correct, as long as they are not switched between spoken and written useages.)

Some people say spoken and written English are the same. I disagree.

 

[Haruspex]

Well since you speak with a native speakers fluency you should probably rely on your ears, when it sounds right its right, when not, well thats obvious although im not a native speaker, to me this looks like a matter of dialect. If you like how it sounds just use it, if not, don't use it. So many weird word structures are used in english (in every other language as well), if you use this one surely no one will mention it to you, well if they do just ask them kindly to buy a few meters of rope and build a gallows pole for themselves.

 

[made of stone]

A fascinating thread!

If I'm not mistaken, and things aren't a little deeper here than a few quick thoughts have led me to believe, this is part of a wider and highly contentious aspect of English, which has had repercussions for both written and spoken English across the world for more than a hundred years. The debate is, though, most probably, and thankfully, past its point of greatest intensity...

It's not always the case, but on this particular aspect of English Wikipedia appears to have a very interesting entry, full of new insight for me. For example, whilst Undrentide san has quite rightly used one of Shakey's most famous quotes, it was very interesting to learn that not once in any of his surviving works is the alternative 'to not be' used!

That Wikipedia page has so many interesting points to make, that i could spend an evening selecting bits to discuss with all the good folks here. Time is limited, and it's impossible to choose which angle of this vast topic to tackle first!

With that in mind, and because I'm feeling a little cryptic, I hope no-one minds if I offer a little hint at how to find one's way to that very Wikipedia page...

(cue trumpety music)

English: The final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship Jref Learning English forum
Its ? year mission
To explore strange new grammar
To seek out new expressions and new ways of understanding language
To boldly go where no man has gone before



PS A joke, I can't resist, answer to be given later:

How many ears does Mr Spock have?

 

[Geostigma]

e.g.
a. I always avoid this topic not to get involved in argument.
b. I always avoid this topic to not get involved in argument.

Both of these sound right, and I'm pretty sure they're both grammatically correct also. My guess is, in the time since Shakespeare people began to say "to not" instead of "not to" and it has since become a normality in everyday English. Or maybe it could be a British/American thing, I'm not sure. There will always be a few exceptions, but I'd venture to say you could use them interchangably.


@ mos - Star Trek is one of my favorite shows, but I never thought of comparing discovering new worlds to learning English.

 

[Sarapva]

"I will take the shorter route, not to get there faster, but to avoid the construction on the longer route."

"I always avoid this topic so as not to get involved in an argument."

I've never really thought about using "not to" versus "to not" - I'll have to think about it more to come up with more examples.

"Not to sound picky, but shouldn't you be wearing shoes?"


made of stone - I'll make the obvious guess - two ears?

 

[made of stone]

Your examples are exemplary Sarapva san in illustrating one aspect of the tricky question at hand (I would expect nothing less from you, and should like to use them in class if I may?!!)

On the bad joke front - no, I'm afraid Mr Spock has three ears - the left ear, the right ear, and the final frontier

Groan groan, yes I know, lol - if you kids know what's good for you, you won't ask me for my Star Wars joke (the second of the three in my magnificent repertoire!!)

Back on topic - does nobody know what I'm driving at? I assure you all will become (made) clear!!

made of silly jokes

 

[Mars Man]

First of all, I do wish to mention the quality of the information in the OP--it was full and nice, and intention was clear. Next, I yet have to open the Wiki site up to that location--but will. (a very playful, happy, and 'mystic teacher'-like post. . . I too think it good to lead students towards a direction of thinking by asking questions to the questions they have asked--the purpose being to get them involved in critical thinking; especially where it appears to be lacking.)

I agree, Buntaro san, that the written word (where colloquial language is not being quoted directly or indirectly) and the spoken word are different--of course to degrees and in varying areas.

I would tend to go along the basic thinking lines of Derfel too--I have a heavy lean in pragmatics; and that field basically says, 'what works to get the concept from one brain into the other, in as tact a state as possible, is what goes.'

It was such a complex decision that had befallen them, and to put off making it--in other words, not make it--would likely cause more harm than not. When later asked why they had chosen not to go, they responded with the following, saying, "Hey man, you know what it's like--I mean, choosing to not stay would have been like choosing to die there...and who would make a choice like that? That's crazy dude !!"

This person had had a two point choice. The members of that set were, A-go, and B-do not go; a positive and a negative. The action of chosing can well and correctly enough be stated as being the act of choosing A-to go, or B-to not go.

The reason for this format (over B-not to go) is, in a pragmatical way (AFAIK) to maintain the infinitive feel. The bracketing is thus: A-to (go); B-to (not go). Rather than a grammatical element (ungrammatical), it itself is rather a communicative element (perhaps)--a thing of a nature which keeps languages somewhat liquid and changeable.

'Rather than go to the party, yet not enjoy themselves, they decided not to go at all.' would be an easily heard sentence. 'We just knew we wouldn't have been able to let our hair down, so we purposely chose to simply not go!' could also quiet easily be imagined.

While the above is nothing more than my personal take--with some degree of research behind it, of course--I would still say that while 'not to verb,' in the patterns in which such would or could be used, is yet more common (or far more common, even) than 'to not verb,' concerns about grammatical correctness or standard should not be allowed to interfere with communication--when lack of a grammatical standard would not destroy an intended communication. (such as, for example, He took him for five hours. when one had wanted to say It took him five hours. {the dictionary may give only the entry, 'take ones time'})

edit ps--Yes, the examples given by Sarapva are much better.

 

[EvilCowSlayer]

I think in those kinds of word structures (one could call them idiomatic) that Sarapva mentioned, "not to" is grammatically correct. However, I think that normally, the negative of "to be" is "to not be". Unless within one of the aforementioned sentence structures, "I always avoid this topic not to get involved in an argument" sounds weird to me. Although I can't make too much of a definite opinion here because I've never really thought about it this deeply before, other than Shakespeare, I can't say I've heard usage of "not to be" in a normal sentence (one that doesn't fall into those specific structures).

The same holds true for normal verbs. Notice how when we talk about verbs, we always use "to [verb]". As far as I know, English is the only language that does this; other languages have their own infinitives. Anyway, when we think about a verb, although we add that "to" in order to be grammatically correct, that's really an insignificant part. When I say, "to swim" and "swim", the same image forms in your mind. When you negate the verb with "to not be", it retains its status of just an extra word to be correct. However, when you make it "not to be", "to" all of a sudden becomes a big part of the verb, and that's why I think it's grammatically incorrect in that sense.

 

[JimmySeal]

This phrasing also helps it fit nicely into iambic pentameter:

to BE or NOT to BE; that IS the QUEStion

The other way, with emphasis on the TO, would be unnatural in its own way

to BE or TO not BE; that IS the QUEStion


edit: Actually, wikipedia's page on iambic pentameter stresses THAT and not IS, but my original point still stands.

 

[Sarapva]

Thank you all for affirming my examples (they were really just off the top of my head)! Yes, made of stone - I'm flattered you'd want to use my examples in class! And thanks for causing a good chuckle with your joke - I never would have thought of the "front ear"! (Let's hear the Star Wars joke too! - sorry, off topic)

I can't think of many examples with "to not" - I think Mars Man is right that "not to" is more commonly used. Here's one that I think could be used: "Let's take our shoes off to not get them wet."

Not to appear dense (hopefully), but I'm at a loss as to what the hidden meaning or question is here. The analytical aspect of grammar causes such chaos of brain cells that I usually avoid it to not do any damage!

 

[EvilCowSlayer]

What a wavering opinion I have here. I think instead of taking a firm stand on which is correct here, I'll rather supply as much information and observations as I can, and we'll go from there.

There are times we use "not to" and others we use "to not". However, if I ask myself the negative of a verb, I spit out "not to [verb]" without thinking about it.

I mentioned in my last post that "not to" is only used in certain sentence structures. Well, take the OP's and Sarapva's sentences. The "to not [verb]" used in these sentences is a shortened form of "in order to not [verb]". That's a sentence structure as well, making this whole mess even more complicated. Yay.

I was talking this over with my mother at dinner. She believes that "not to" is the correct negative verb form. She mentioned that, if all else fails, there's a columnist in the New York Times who is an expert on English, and could answer this question (in the form of a really long explanation).

 

[bakaKanadajin]

a. I always avoid this topic not to get involved in argument.
b. I always avoid this topic to not get involved in argument.

Neither of these is very natural by modern standards in my humble opinion. As Sarpva pointed out, 'so as not to get..' is the best alternative. You could also say 'in order to not get involved (in AN argument').

Usually there's a subject involved and its more natural and direct to use that instead.

'I would take route 99 instead so you don't get caught in traffic.'
'If I were you I'd go now so we aren't late.'

Using a subject is much cleaner and more natural sounding than trying to discuss the situation abstractly.

'I would take route 99 instead so as not to get caught in traffic.'
(This is grammatically ok but a little too formal for casual speech.)

 

[Buntaro]

Hi everybody!

I agree that "so as not to" is best:

"I always avoid this topic so as not to get involved in an argument."

Here is another "not to" example.

"Didn't I tell you not to go there?"

Mars Man,

P-K4!

 

[undrentide]

This is just a thank you message to everyone who posted here - so many comments before half a day passed since my original post!

I need to read them again and again, it does take a long time before I can take in everything - after I read all the posts thoroughly and undrestand a little more, I'll come back.

@mos : I managed to get to the wiki page you've mentioned, though not with the quotation from Dr. Spok (as I searched it before I read that part.)
I like your quiz, which reminds me of "what is the biggest ant in the world?" and "what is the longest word in English?"

 

[jmwintenn]

in all honesty,either of these can be used,it just depends on the sentence.

"To not get dirty, stay out of the mud."

"Not to upset you, but you're wrong"

now I'll exchange them

"Not to get dirty, stay out of the mud."

"To not upset you, but you're wrong."

see my point?This is one reason why english blows, tons of our rules depend on how the sentence is set up.There aren't really any preset structures, just requirements to meet.

 

[nekocat]

I think we are talking about "split infinitive".
Come to think of it, making infinitive by [preposition + infinitive form of a verb] construction is unique in European languages. Most of them use just [infinitive (bare) form]. That's why it's peculiar to English.

a. I always avoid this topic not to get involved in argument.
b. I always avoid this topic to not get involved in argument.
Neither of these is very natural by modern standards in my humble opinion. As Sarpva pointed out, 'so as not to get..' is the best alternative. You could also say 'in order to not get involved (in AN argument').
Usually there's a subject involved and its more natural and direct to use that instead.
'I would take route 99 instead so you don't get caught in traffic.'
'If I were you I'd go now so we aren't late.'
Using a subject is much cleaner and more natural sounding than trying to discuss the situation abstractly.
'I would take route 99 instead so as not to get caught in traffic.'
(This is grammatically ok but a little too formal for casual speech.)

Is the reason why the sentence looks non-native because "to" allows for multiple interpretation, thus making it ambiguous, thus it's the one you avoid?

For example, just to see "To live" allows for the interpretation of "that one live" and "in order to live".

Is that the reason?☝

 

[EvilCowSlayer]

Not quite sure about that, nekocat.

Actually, whether it's "in order to" or simply "to" in there, it still strikes me as odd for some reason. It could be because when native speakers say it, they don't use a negative form with "in order to".

For example, while "I always avoid this topic so as not to get involved in an argument" sounds fine to me, so does "I always avoid this topic in order to stay out of arguments." This sentence also used "in order to", but with the affirmative form of a verb, rather than the negative.

I think "in order to" in natural speech is not used with the negative form of a verb. If I wanted to show purpose with a negative, I would normally use a structure with "so", such as "so I don't go to jail".

I'll look in this book I found around the house on English grammar and see what I can find.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

It's not that its non-native, it just sounds a little less natural.
There's probably a rule somewhere that says its correct, but I just wouldn't say it myself. In fact if a student said that in class I'd write it down and correct it later. It just sounds incomplete. Then again I taught conversation classes and spoken vs. written is often different. Natural doesn't always = grammatically correct.

 

[jmwintenn]

Natural doesn't always = grammatically correct.

2nd biggest problem in english,1st being that there are too many loopholes and exceptions to the rules.

 

[nekocat]

(1) I always avoid this topic not to get involved in argument.
(2) I always avoid this topic in order not to get involved in argument.

Great, you gave us another corner of English usage question that's not covered in grammar books!

I googled "in order not to" and it produced about 1,780,000 hits. The top site was that authoritative BBC's Learning English website.

In order to is normal before a negative infinitive. We do not usually use to by itself here:

* In order not to oversleep, I set the alarm for seven o'clock.
* I walked very slowly across the room with the drinks in order not to spill them.

There's no cautious remark about the use of "in order not to" in this website.

There's even a movie entitled "In Order Not to Be Here."

I'd really like to know the reason for conditions on which "in order no to" doesn't sound unnatural.

 

[nekocat]

Tumbled in that context appears to be a combination of confused, a little upset and exhausted. It's not a common phrase you'd hear today. Sometimes a finished state is used not to communicate what actually happened but to communicate how one feels if one had actually done that thing.

Bakakanadajin used "not to" in his post. Is it OK because the sentence structure is a passive voice? What about the following sentence, is it natural?

We use a finished state not to communicate what actually happened but to comunicate how one feels if one had actually done that thing.

 

[Mars Man]

Bakakanadajin used "not to" in his post. Is it OK because the sentence structure is a passive voice? What about the following sentence, is it natural?

For the second time, nekocat san, can you please tell us what you mean when you say, "natural?" The way in which you seem to fling it around, reminds me of some who use the word 'normal' to reinforce certain inhibitations that they most obviously have--where again, we can often enough ask, 'just what is normal?'

I can say that of course, his sentence which you have quoted is natural--for him, and for others because it carries emotional weight. The grammatics are not important, the pragmatics are. (and it could be, to whatever degree linked with a cultural phenomenon) I think you understand this, basically, so why do you ask?

We use a finished state not to communicate what actually happened but to comunicate how one feels if one had actually done that thing.

Emotionaly it's fine, pragmatically it's fine, and even grammatically it will pass. There is no real need in most cases to worry about such detail...not to deny that some detail is, in fact, needed from time to time, but simply that in most cases, it will not affect the intended communication.

 

[made of stone]

Thank you, dear Jreffers, for those who have made nice comments about my (slightly) cryptic post!!

(And, most especially I'd like to thank everyone for failing to criticise my poor repertoire of 'jokes' haha )

Yes, indeed, I was referencing split infinitives! Aren't they fascinating?! As is usual with Wikipedia, one cannot assume that what lies on a page is particularly true or unreservedly useful, but I found this one most stimulating And for clarity, the one I hoped folk would find is:

Split infinitive - Wikipedia

rather than:

Where no man has gone before - Wikipedia

Some of my favourite parts were: reading a little more about the history of the split infinitive; the story of why we don't actually need it even though it's extremely useful at times; the links to other European languages in that sense; and that any idea in English can be expressed without it (of course!)

I also enjoyed reading that Shakespeare only ever used one (in the texts that still survive), and that that one exception to the rule was for (demonstrably) poetic reasons.

Last, but not least, I was delighted to come across a quote from one of my favourite satirical/nonsense novelists, Douglas Adams, who penned that incomparable tome, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (quote from Wikipedia follows):

'The split infinitive, specifically its famous use in the Star Trek opening sequence, is the basis of a joke from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before - and thus was the Empire forged."'

made of space (between the ears)

 

[Mars Man]

Thank you for that, made of stone san. And I like that book too !!