tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post3907088436637642730..comments2024-03-25T21:14:49.666-04:00Comments on Joel Swagman (Reviews / TESOL): I have not enoughJoel Swagmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-58663779143140847082017-02-17T09:21:44.681-05:002017-02-17T09:21:44.681-05:00Glad to hear that. I've really been appreciat...Glad to hear that. I've really been appreciating your help on these as well. It's maddening how complicated all of this can get, but it's also fascinating as well.Joel Swagmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-72342343491446191182017-02-16T22:36:17.750-05:002017-02-16T22:36:17.750-05:00That's one way to put it, yeah! So, "no&q...That's one way to put it, yeah! So, "no" is a determiner, whereas "not" as kind of like an adverb. You're looking at two different structures, despite their surface similarity.<br /><br />Of course, it's always more complicated. :-P Since "no" is a determiner, we should be able to find it at the beginnings of sentences as well; sure enough, we can say something like "No money is in my possession" to mean the same thing. As an adverb with a fairly fixed position within the clause, "not" isn't quite as free to find its way to the front; we can't easily say something like "Not money is in my possession." That being said, you <i>could</i> say "Not enough money is in my possession." In this case, "enough" is arguably modifying the subject "money," while "not" is apparently modifying "enough." If we're able to construe "not" as associating itself with "enough," why can't we straightforwardly do the same in "I have not enough"? I might speculate that it simply has to do with what we're used to, but I don't actually know for sure.<br /><br />I must say, I enjoy your grammar questions quite a bit; I find myself exploring corners of English I never knew existed! :-DStephan Hurtubisehttp://www.thelingspace.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-90778191460287016662017-02-16T11:02:33.281-05:002017-02-16T11:02:33.281-05:00Stephan, thank you as always.
Okay, I think I got...Stephan, thank you as always.<br /><br />Okay, I think I got this, but let me just clarify:<br /><br />So the reason we can say "I have no money" and can't say "I have not enough" is because money is a noun, and enough is an adjective. Is that right?<br />Joel Swagmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-1938020591048002932017-02-16T07:20:13.413-05:002017-02-16T07:20:13.413-05:00This should be easier to answer than that tag ques...This should be easier to answer than that tag question . . . question! ;-D<br /><br />Basically, in modern English, modals (e.g., "must," "could") and auxiliary verbs ("have" and "be") occupy a position in the sentence that's above (i.e., to the left of negation), whereas main verbs are 'below' negation. In the first example you cite, you've actually got a main verb that just happens to look like an auxiliary verb, which might account for the confusion. The "have" in your first example is the possessive "have," and denotes ownership; so, it should really follow "not." But often we see "have" before negation, as in "I have not eaten in a while." This version of have is, of course, an auxiliary verb; the sentence can't really be said to express ownership of not eating, but instead expresses that, in the recent past, in a way that's relevant to the present, no eating took place.<br /><br />Not all languages are like this; the French equivalent of your first example would be "Je n'ai pas assez" -- literally, "I (ne) have not enough." All French verbs are 'above' negation, auxiliaries and main ones alike. English used to be like this, too.<br /><br />As for that last sentence: it works simply because that "no" isn't an instance of sentential negation, but rather a negative determiner associated with the object noun "money." So here, "no money" is syntactically analogous to "some money," "most money," and even "the money." If you negated the entire sentence, it would still have to come before "have" -- so, "I don't have no money" (which is grammatical, if a bit silly sounding) and not "I have not no money" (which is just bad).Stephan Hurtubisehttp://www.thelingspace.comnoreply@blogger.com