|
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 >
Grammar and Linguistics > a question
a question
|
Apryll12
|
a question
|
Dear all,
Can anyone help me with a question that may seem silly but it made wonder.
You say: I think you should be friendlier.
When you want the negative of this sentence, you say:
I don�t think you should be friendlier.
And *I think you shouldn�t be friendlier. is not correct. (or is it?)
Can we do the same with other verbs, like �know� for example?
It�s OK to say: I know you are very clever. But it sounds odd to say: I don�t know you are very clever. and I know you are not very clever. seems to be correct.
So my question is: why is that so? Is there any rule for that?
Sorry if I�m complicated but it came into my mind the other day and I�m interested in your opinions.
Krisztina
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
|
Tere-arg
|
It is not correct to make think/know negative.
You think (=have an opinion) or know (=have the knowledge).
Making them negative would imply you don�t...
What is make negative is the verb in the main idea:
I think you should/shouldn, t....
I know this is/isn�t.... (correct)
hope it helps
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
Zora
|
Okay both forms of the negative are correct and as a native I am going to say: that "I don�t think you should be friendlier" doesn�t sound as good as to me as "I think you shouldn�t be friendlier."
Same with know, here the only thing that happens is the meaning changes (and it should probably be the past form here - can�t say why though - just got up so I am a bit fuzzy  ... )
I didn�t know you were clever... - means that you are surprised he/she is smart.
and
I know you aren�t clever - means you already know this person isn�t smart.
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
arwenn
|
|
Hello!
If you want to put a modal verb into negative form you do that with putting the verb into it. So it�s should and then shouldn�t. So the second one is right.
But with the second example you are saying two different things.
I don�t know you are very clever.- you are saying that you are unaware of the fact that the person is clever. You don�t know the person. So he/she is clever and you don�t know that.
the sentence:" I know you are not very clever."- the person is "stupid" and you know that.
See?
Bye! |
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
xiles31
|
|
Hi! my opinion here is that English is not a mathematical language, unlike others. I tell my students you follow the rules up to 70%, and use your feelings for the rest 30%. That means "freedom"! I would say there is a tiny difference between "I don�t think you should" and "I think you shouldn�t"; the second sounds more assertive, doesn�t it? I don�t know you are... is grammatically incorrect; it should then be: I dont know whether you are clever (or not).
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
|
|
marciadnr
|
|
It has nothing to do with using language as you feel like: it rather has to do with sensibility. If you know the rules of the language, then they become part of you, you interiorise them and posess them. Then, you can use language in a more natural way; rather than in a mechanical/grammatical way, which actually sounds artificial to any language speaker. In your own language you�ll notice when sb is a foreigner by the way they use your lg.
So, the difference between the sets of sentences have to do with pragmatics (and not only with sticking or not to the grammar rules).
"I don�t think you should" is more hesitant, as if giving an advice - as if you felt (sixth sense) that the person at stake didn�t deserve this other person being friendly towards them.
"I think you shouldn�t" is more assertive; you�re sure that this person doesn�t deserve the others� sympathy.
I agree with xiles31 that "I don�t know you are very clever." is grammatically incorrect. But you can express ypurself in different ways dependent on what you mean: "I din�t know you were very clever." (You were unaware of the fact that the person was clever, but you know now. After some activity or situation when this person revealed herself.); "I know you are not very clever." (It does mean that you are certain that this person is silly. You have proof from other different situations.); "I don�t know whether you are very clever or not." (you don�t want to take sides and give an opinion; you want to be diplomatic and remain neutral about that.)
What really helps in this situation with students is to create a situation - kind of roleplay - and ask students to find which would be the most appropriate sentences and tone of voice to use to utter it. Then ask them to translate the sentences to their own language and find out the difference in terms of usage.
Hope I could be of help.
the sentence:" I know you are not very clever."- the person is "stupid" and you know that. |
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
alien boy
|
Usually I would use "I think you should be less friendly" or "I don�t think you should be so friendly" rather than the negatives provided. Part of this is because it is far easier to say - there are less �stops� in the middle of words. That�s a phonologic consideration rather than grammatic and would account for some of the language differences between native speakers & English speakers who learn the language being consciously guided by strict grammatical construction. You�ll find the language used by native speakers is best understood not by concentrating on prescriptive methodolgies but by using descriptive analysis in conjunction with prescriptive knowledge (an idea more suited to linguists than teachers). Enough of that mumbo jumbo...
I would say that "I don�t think you should be friendlier" & "I think you shouldn�t be friendlier" are both grammatically plausible but... certainly in my form of native English you would be very unlikely to hear either phrase in those forms because they don�t sound right. I�d expect to hear "I don�t think you should be so friendly" or "I think you should be less friendly."
If I can find some concrete grammatical reasoning for it I�ll certainly let people know (when I�m awake & well & not taking medication)
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
Apryll12
|
Thank you all for your replies, and most of the cases I have the same ideas.
Just a second thought: when you interiorise the language and sth that may not be written or discussed in grammar books seem to be perfecrly all right and you simply �feel� that it is ok is very good, but students� minds work differently. You try to teach them a grammatical rule and the next lesson they surely come up with examples that are either exceptions or they heard sth from a native speaker who obviously used the language correctly but - like you said before - as he/she liked.
Let me give you a concrete example. I spend a lot of time and energy on teaching the correct word order of questions, as it is very different in my language. I focus on auxilliaries, like DO/DOES, etc. And then a student comes up to me and says: �I�ve heard it on TV in a film that they asked: You like it?� And they think if it is correct in everyday spoken English, why bother to learn all those �stupid� rules.
Nowadays I find that there are a lot of differences between what we are supposed to teach to our students and what language is used in real situations by native speakers.
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
alien boy
|
English has always been that way! The grammars that have been produced are an attempt at standardising the language, mainly based upon the idea that certain dialects (those the grammars have been based upon) carry far more social weight/value than others!
If English was a static language we would never have had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Rock & Roll, or many others/other things. It�d be like Latin - a dead language... Prescriptive English will never actually be 100% accurate when compared to actual English usage.
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
|
Zora
|
Actually, if your students are able to point out those subtle differences, then I applaud you. A lot students don�t really pay all that much attention to what is and what isn�t and if they have "interiorised" that basic concept and can ask why it is so, then that is actually a good thing believe it or not.
I would just explain that they need proper English because TV is not always "real life" and what you see and hear is not always what is out there. Also, they wouldn�t want to come off as uncultured or "stupid"... I always find that that idea or argument works quite well... 
|
22 Jan 2009
|
|
1
2
Next >
|
