|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Ask for help > Help with a sentence
Help with a sentence
|
aliciapc
|
Help with a sentence
|
|
Could anyone please tell me if there is sth wrong here ?
"Not only aren �t they thought to be honest, but also liars."
Wouldn �t it be better to say : "Not only are they thought to be dishonest but also liars" ? Is it correct to use a negative form after "not only ..." ??
Thanks for your help!
Happy Easter to all ! |
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
|
Fabiola R
|
I think the second sentence is ok..
See you! 
|
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
kodora
|
You can �t use a negative form of a verb if there is a word with negative meaning such as never, hardly, scarcely, barely, not only, not till, on no account etc
Happy Easter to you too!
|
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
The second sentence is definitely correct. The first is incorrect, but not because of a double negative. It is because the verb is negated for "honest", but not for "liars". That just doesn �t work. You need a separate verb for the last part of the sentence, if you want it to work. That �s just way too complicated, so stick with the second sentence.
Bruce |
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
PaulG
|
|
Hi. That sentence doesn �t make sense. It does not abide by the parallel structure rule. You could say, not only are they not..., but the problem is with the second part. What this sentence means is: They are not honest, and they are not liars, which is a contradiction. But anyways, the whole sentence is a little redundant. If someone is a liar, s/he is definitely not honest, so the sentence is just wordy. I hope this helps. |
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
aliciapc
|
|
Thanks a lot Kodora, Fabiola and Paul. I definitely thought there was sth wrong when I read it - FCE student - but couldn �t really say why, I just wrote down the second one as a correction but had to know what to explain to him later !!
And Bruce, thank you for your explanation, I had the idea it was wrong because of the double negative, not because of the reason you explained, now I get it.
|
3 Apr 2010
|
|
|
