So the first sentence in my example sounds more natural to you, doesn't it?Without the contractions the sentences would be:
You did not need to do everything yourself.
You need not have done everything yourself.
"did not need" suggests completed actions
"need not" suggests future actions
Since the speaker is saying that they could have helped you in the past, the first sentence is more correct.
I agree fully with this analysis. My comment on the essentially identical nature of the forms was limited to the context given in the initial post.I see some difference:
I knew I had some milk at home, so I didn't need to buy any.
I bought some milk, but when I got home I found we already had some, so I needn't have bought any.
In the first case, the action didn't happen because it wasn't necessary. In the second case it happened even though it wasn't necessary.
But there's some flexibility in "didn't need to", which can also be used for an action that has happened. This is true for the example given by Garbuz.
As pointed out earlier, there are two differences between these sentences: the factual difference and the tense difference.There is a difference between:
I didn't need to buy milk.
I needn't have bought milk.
The second implies that milk was actually bought. The first does not.
Wandle, you are making two assertions here:Why do you think the implied 'but'-clause is present in 'I needn't have done everything myself' but absent in 'I had not needed to do everything myself'?
It seems to me the two formulations are fully equivalent: including the 'but'-implication.
Simplifying the subordinate clause to "sing", the rule is:I'm always confused about 'do not need' , 'need not do' and ' and 'no need to do', I'm not sure I can say 'no need to do' here, it's beyond the scope of the title, I think there is no need to start a new thread, because 'no need to do' is the same type as 'do not need' and 'need not do' also have similar meanings.
I've known (1) is equivalent to (2), these mean the same thing.
But how about (3)? (4) maybe incorrect, I'm not sure...
As regards (1)(2)(3), I'd like to know which is the best.
(1) You do not need to do everything yourself.
(2) You need not do everything yourself.
(3) There is no need to do everything yourself.
(4) You are no need to do everything yourself.
That's enough for me, I just want to know the clause('no need to do') whether can begin with personal pronouns(you, we...), or “there is no need to do...” is a idiomatic(fixed) usage.(3) also has the same meaning because we can drop "for you" in the presence of the reflexive pronoun "yourself".
(4) is ungrammatical, and would not make much sense even if "no need" was changed to "in no need".
I'm surprised you say this, Einstein. I could easily say that sentence, and, in such a case, of course, I hadn't needed to buy any does not imply that you hadn't bought any.Sorry to come back in late...
I bought some milk, but when I got home I found we already had some, so I hadn't needed to buy any.
I would NEVER say a sentence like this! I see a certain analogy between didn't need to do/needn't have done and didn't have to do/shouldn't have done. In the milk example, I hadn't needed to buy any is quite similar in meaning to I hadn't had to buy any. The implication in both cases is that I didn't buy any.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree and acknowledge that no two people speak the language in exactly the same way!I'm surprised you say this, Einstein. I could easily say that sentence, and, in such a case, of course, I hadn't needed to buy any does not imply that you hadn't bought any.
Many thanks for this, Einstein.Well, we'll have to agree to disagree and acknowledge that no two people speak the language in exactly the same way!
To tell the truth, in the simple past I can accept that I didn't need to admits the possibility that you did it notwithstanding, especially if we say I didn't really need to do it. But to me hadn't needed seems more definitive in excluding that the action took place and in any case I find it an unnatural substitute for I needn't have done it.
Hmm... Yes, it's possible, but I see this as a slightly different case and I find the use of the past perfect more logical than in your other examples. However, I'm having a general think about the use of "need" and hope to present some ideas in a few days, either here or by PM. Here, without thinking too much, I'd say it's possible that Nora had drawn her conclusions about John before seeing the child, so that if she saw him afterwards it was irrelevant to the situation. But as I say, that's without thinking too much!Many thanks for this, Einstein.
The BNC has several interesting examples of had not needed to, including this one:
Nora had not needed to see the child in order to understand what had moved John to behave as he did.
Don't you think it possible that Nora saw the child?
I think you mean a different thing here. You mean it to mean an action in the present while I implied (implicitly as it turns out) an action in the past.А. So, will you participate in our car design competition.
B. I want to, but designing a car is a massive job, so my designs are not all mine. They are all joint projects.
A. You don't need to have done everything yourself.