“He just borrows them, not steal(s)” — Coordination of a negated verb in ellipsis
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Little John keeps borrowing Bob's colored pencils but he's too playful to remember to give them back. Bob's mom is upset and talks to John's about it. John's mom would say something along the lines of either
He just borrows them, not steal.
or
He just borrows them, not steals.
Which one is grammatically correct? Why?
I know it's feasible (and probably safer) not to omit anything and go with two full sentences. On the other hand, sometimes we need to emphasize the contrast between the two verbs, or need to be simply more concise. Consider another example, in the legal sense of the verbs, without omission of the second object:
Your argument excuses his actions, not justify / justifies them.
If I'm honest, the latter option seems clunky, but then how would we denote subject-verb agreement, and why wouldn't a simple omission of subject (without affecting the grammar of the rest) work?
verbs subject-verb-agreement ellipsis
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
add a comment |
Little John keeps borrowing Bob's colored pencils but he's too playful to remember to give them back. Bob's mom is upset and talks to John's about it. John's mom would say something along the lines of either
He just borrows them, not steal.
or
He just borrows them, not steals.
Which one is grammatically correct? Why?
I know it's feasible (and probably safer) not to omit anything and go with two full sentences. On the other hand, sometimes we need to emphasize the contrast between the two verbs, or need to be simply more concise. Consider another example, in the legal sense of the verbs, without omission of the second object:
Your argument excuses his actions, not justify / justifies them.
If I'm honest, the latter option seems clunky, but then how would we denote subject-verb agreement, and why wouldn't a simple omission of subject (without affecting the grammar of the rest) work?
verbs subject-verb-agreement ellipsis
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
add a comment |
Little John keeps borrowing Bob's colored pencils but he's too playful to remember to give them back. Bob's mom is upset and talks to John's about it. John's mom would say something along the lines of either
He just borrows them, not steal.
or
He just borrows them, not steals.
Which one is grammatically correct? Why?
I know it's feasible (and probably safer) not to omit anything and go with two full sentences. On the other hand, sometimes we need to emphasize the contrast between the two verbs, or need to be simply more concise. Consider another example, in the legal sense of the verbs, without omission of the second object:
Your argument excuses his actions, not justify / justifies them.
If I'm honest, the latter option seems clunky, but then how would we denote subject-verb agreement, and why wouldn't a simple omission of subject (without affecting the grammar of the rest) work?
verbs subject-verb-agreement ellipsis
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
Little John keeps borrowing Bob's colored pencils but he's too playful to remember to give them back. Bob's mom is upset and talks to John's about it. John's mom would say something along the lines of either
He just borrows them, not steal.
or
He just borrows them, not steals.
Which one is grammatically correct? Why?
I know it's feasible (and probably safer) not to omit anything and go with two full sentences. On the other hand, sometimes we need to emphasize the contrast between the two verbs, or need to be simply more concise. Consider another example, in the legal sense of the verbs, without omission of the second object:
Your argument excuses his actions, not justify / justifies them.
If I'm honest, the latter option seems clunky, but then how would we denote subject-verb agreement, and why wouldn't a simple omission of subject (without affecting the grammar of the rest) work?
verbs subject-verb-agreement ellipsis
verbs subject-verb-agreement ellipsis
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
asked May 18 at 13:14
M.A.R. ಠ_ಠM.A.R. ಠ_ಠ
6,47953060
6,47953060
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It would be much more idiomatic to use do to construct these contradictory clauses:
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them.
In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English.
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
add a comment |
I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English.
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
add a comment |
If you aree going to muse this form, you should say:
He just borrows them, not steals.
The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted.
I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. I agree with Robusto that
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211221%2fhe-just-borrows-them-not-steals-coordination-of-a-negated-verb-in-ellips%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It would be much more idiomatic to use do to construct these contradictory clauses:
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them.
In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English.
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
add a comment |
It would be much more idiomatic to use do to construct these contradictory clauses:
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them.
In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English.
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
add a comment |
It would be much more idiomatic to use do to construct these contradictory clauses:
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them.
In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English.
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
It would be much more idiomatic to use do to construct these contradictory clauses:
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them.
In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English.
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
answered May 18 at 13:33
RobustoRobusto
13.4k23345
13.4k23345
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
add a comment |
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
What about changing the part after comma to a progressive aspect?" ...excuses his action, not justifying them"? Is it the same? I mean should it be "it's not justifying them"?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 15:34
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
That wouldn't mean the same thing.
– Robusto
May 18 at 17:04
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
Thanks, but would you explain a little bit?
– Cardinal
May 18 at 20:06
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
It would be an awkward construction, which in the best case would be construed as omitting a word: "Your argument excuses his actions while not justifying them."
– Robusto
May 18 at 20:22
add a comment |
I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English.
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
add a comment |
I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English.
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
add a comment |
I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English.
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English.
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
answered May 18 at 13:29
Colin FineColin Fine
35k25267
35k25267
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
add a comment |
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
That would be "elided". I don't think that "ellipsised" is a word.
– David Siegel
May 18 at 19:53
add a comment |
If you aree going to muse this form, you should say:
He just borrows them, not steals.
The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted.
I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. I agree with Robusto that
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
add a comment |
If you aree going to muse this form, you should say:
He just borrows them, not steals.
The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted.
I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. I agree with Robusto that
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
add a comment |
If you aree going to muse this form, you should say:
He just borrows them, not steals.
The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted.
I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. I agree with Robusto that
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
If you aree going to muse this form, you should say:
He just borrows them, not steals.
The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted.
I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. I agree with Robusto that
He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
answered May 18 at 13:48
David SiegelDavid Siegel
10.5k1431
10.5k1431
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
add a comment |
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
You may hear this spoken, but I have never seen it written before. I'm not entirely sure it's one sentence, either.
– Kevin
May 18 at 18:33
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f211221%2fhe-just-borrows-them-not-steals-coordination-of-a-negated-verb-in-ellips%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
