When use "don´t" and use "not"

< Previous | Next >

innuendo

New Member
Spanish
Hi friends!

I have a serious doubt...

When i have to use "don´t" and use "not" i mixed.

Thanks a lot!
 
  • cycloneviv

    Senior Member
    English - Australia
    Hi friends!

    I have a serious doubt...

    When do I have to use "don´t" and when "not"? I mixed. (Sorry, but I don't know what "I mixed" means!)

    Thanks a lot!
    Hi innuendo, and welcome to the forums!

    Can you tell us in what context you would be using "don't" or "not"? Without that information, we can't tell you which to use. In some circumstances "don't" (= "do not") would be correct and in others "not" would be correct.
     

    innuendo

    New Member
    Spanish
    Hi innuendo, and welcome to the forums!

    Can you tell us in what context you would be using "don't" or "not"? Without that information, we can't tell you. In some circumstances "don't" (= "do not") would be correct and in others "not" would be correct.
    Thanks for teach me!

    I don´t have any sentence to show you now, i asked to know if there are some rule or something similar that say me when i have to use don´t or not...

    thanks
     
    Hi friends!

    I have a serious doubt question...

    When do I have to use "don´t" and when do I have to use "not". i mixed I am confused.



    Thanks for teach explaining it to me!

    I don´t have any sentence to show you now, I asked to know if there are is some rule or something similar that say tells me when I have to use don´t or not...
    "Don't" and "not" are not interchangeable. "Don't" is not the equivalent of "not", but is instead the equivalent of do not. If you do not have the word "do" there in the uncontracted form, you do not have anything that can be turned into "don't" when you contract it.

    If This is not my hat is correct, you cannot make it This is don't my hat.

    If I don't have a car is correct, you cannot change it to I not have a car; instead, you must say I do not have a car.

    Uncontracted forms are more formal than contracted forms. If you were -- for example -- presenting an academic paper, or were writing a law, you would say "do not" instead of "don't", "cannot" instead of "can't", "it is" instead of "it's", and so on.
     

    cajzl

    Senior Member
    Czech
    "Don't" is not the equivalent of "not", ...
    Right, but both "don't" and "not" are equivalent to the Spanish "no" (no esta, no tengo). I think Innuendo does not understand how to use this "particles" correctly.

    And one more comment:

    Don't write don´t with the accentus acutus!
     

    Grumpy Old Man

    Senior Member
    1. Don't use don't in negative clauses with forms of to be: am, are, is; was, were:

    I am walking. > I am not walking.
    He is here. > He is not here.
    They were running. > They were not running.

    2. Don't use don't with the defective/modal auxiliaries (can, could; will, would; shall, should; may, might; must; ought):

    He will come here. > He will not come here.
    It may be difficult. > It may not be difficult.
    You should write it. > You should not write it.

    3. Don't use don't with have, has and had when they are perfect or past perfect (= pluperfect) auxiliaries:

    I have seen it. > I have not seen it.
    He has written a book. > He has not written a book.
    They had gone out. > They had not gone out.

    In many cases it is also possible to do without don't when have, has or had is the only verb:

    I have a car. > I have not a car. / I don't have a car. / I haven't got a car.

    However, not using don't with have may sound unnatural to some even though it is usually grammatically correct. Native speakers have had heated discussions about this. When have doesn't mean to own, to possess, don't must be used:

    I have lunch very early. > I don't have lunch very early. (have = eat)
    You have to go there. > You don't have to go there.

    This isn't at all everything there is regarding the use of don't in negations, but I think it will get you started and you can learn more after you have mastered the basics. Like most points of grammar, the use of don't is a source of endless arguments among grammarians.
     
    In many cases it is also possible to do without don't when have, has or had is the only verb:

    I have a car. > I have not a car. / I don't have a car. / I haven't got a car.
    This is not accurate. "I have not a car" is completely unnatural, and I cannot imagine any native speaker saying anything so odd. Also note that "have got" as an equivalent for "have" is much more a British usage; it is not at all as common among other English speakers around the world.
     

    caitlin_kiss

    New Member
    English
    Hi Innuendo. I hope this helps you. Instead of thinking about using "not" or "don't", think of "do not" as a form of "not".

    For example, should not (shouldn't), will not (won't), cannot (can't) could not (couldn't), would not (wouldn't) and do not (don't) are all different ways of using the word "not".

    So when you have a sentence in which you need to use the word "not", most of the time it will have a word like "should, would, do or can" in front of it.

    Congratulations on your English so far, it is very difficult to learn!
     

    Grumpy Old Man

    Senior Member
    This is not accurate. "I have not a car" is completely unnatural, and I cannot imagine any native speaker saying anything so odd. Also note that "have got" as an equivalent for "have" is much more a British usage; it is not at all as common among other English speakers around the world.
    In my opinion it is accurate. A Google search gives 159,000 hits for "have not a car" and a great many of them seem to be by native speakers. This isn't surprising since have has been used without the auxiliary do for centuries in negative and interrogative clauses.

    I know that this usage is becoming less and less common; especially in American English it is virtually nonexistent. Since the original poster didn't know even the rudiments of English grammar, I didn't think it necessary to dwell on the differences between various varieties of English. It is highly unlikely that he will encounter only Americans and American texts during the rest of his life.
     

    Franzi

    Senior Member
    (San Francisco) English
    In my opinion it is accurate. A Google search gives 159,000 hits for "have not a car" and a great many of them seem to be by native speakers.
    I disagree. I am looking through the google results for "have not a car", and the first few pages are filled with uses by non-native speakers and results like "have not. A car...".

    "I haven't a ___" does show up in text by native speakers.
     
    In my opinion it is accurate.
    Unfortunately, your opinion is incorrect.

    A Google search gives 159,000 hits for "have not a car"
    No, it doesn't. If you continue along the pages, your hit count drops dramatically, until you come to the last page, when you find that there are only 80 real hits.

    a great many of them seem to be by native speakers.
    Actually, they do not seem to be by native speakers at all. I would certainly say that the hits that are written in Chinese characters, or in Cyrillic, do not seem to be by native speakers.

    This isn't surprising since have has been used without the auxiliary do for centuries in negative and interrogative clauses.
    I think your historical understanding is deficient here. The use of the simple past in negative and interrogative clauses is the older form, which of course would mean that it was used "for centuries", but in recent centuries this use has been replaced by the use of "do". It is now archaic to say "Know you my friend John?" instead of "Do you know my friend John?", or "Sit not on that chair" instead of "Do not sit on that chair." One exception to this is the verb have, used as a main verb in questions. This is probably because the frequent use of the auxiliary "have" in questions has kept the ears of native speakers accustomed to hearing a "have" in a question. As a result, one may still hear "Have you a stamp for this letter" instead of "Do you have a stamp?", although the latter form is probably more common. On the other hand, one simply does not ever hear native speakers using have in a negative statement: "I have not a stamp" would simply not be said by a native speaker in modern times, and would be taken as a clear indication that whoever said it did not have a full knowledge of natural English.

    I know that this usage is becoming less and less common;
    The use of "have not" that you describe in declarative sentences is non-existent in every form of natural, grammatical modern English, and not just American English.

    Since the original poster didn't know even the rudiments of English grammar, I didn't think it necessary to dwell on the differences between various varieties of English.
    Since the original poster did not know the rudiments of English grammar, he is not helped by being given wrong information. Unfortunately, the claim that "I have not a car" is acceptable, natural English is just that: wrong.
     

    Grumpy Old Man

    Senior Member
    On the other hand, one simply does not ever hear native speakers using have in a negative statement: "I have not a stamp" would simply not be said by a native speaker in modern times, and would be taken as a clear indication that whoever said it did not have a full knowledge of natural English.
    I was trying to be brief when writing my first post and therefore didn't say a word about contractions, which was a mistake. I do know that an uncontracted have not is unusual, but that doesn't make it ungrammatical.

    Some excerpts from grammar books. (Highlighting in red is mine.)

    "Have is used in several ways. It can have the forms of an auxiliary verb (questions and negatives without do).
    I have a headache. I haven't a headache. Have you a headache?

    It can also have the forms of an ordinary verb (questions and negatives with do).
    Where did you have lunch?
    I don't often have headaches."

    Michael Swan, Practical English Usage

    I and Michael Swan are in complete agreement. No serious -- or less serious -- grammarian has ever said have not must be contracted even though it admittedly usually is.

    Another extract:

    "The negative and interrogative of have can be formed in either of the two ways:
    i.e.
    Present Tense:
    Affirmative: have or have got
    Negative: haven't, haven't got or don't have
    Interrogative: have you got?, &c. or do you have?

    Have conjugated with do is much the less usual. It is employed chiefly to indicate habitual actions, very often with adverbs such as: ever, usually, and always:
    e.g. Customer to shopkeeper: Do you ever have pineapples?
    Shopkeeper: I don't have them very often."

    A.J. Thomson and A.V. Martinet, A Practical English Grammar for Foreign Students (Oxford University Press)

    I don't think I can agree with the authors' comment about the conjugation with do being "much the less usual."

    One more:

    "Do is not generally used with to have in the sense to possess: Has she blue eyes? I have not any matches."

    R.W. Zandvoort, A Handbook of English Grammar, Sixth Edition

    I admit that have not/haven't is an unusual negative present tense and most people probably even think it is awkward. However, I haven't as yet encountered a single grammarian who considers it incorrect.

    'Let's take a drive. It might do my credit good. Let's drive about a little.'
    'Fine. I'd like to see the coast. Let's drive down toward Hendaye.'
    'I haven't any credit along the coast.'

    Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
     

    cajzl

    Senior Member
    Czech
    Let's consider the following affirmative sentences:

    You have a car. -- You have got a car. You've got a car.

    Now we have at least three possibilities how to express a) negation b) question c) negative question:

    1. using the auxiliary verb "to do":

    a) You do not have a car. You don't have a car.
    b) Do you have a car?
    c) Do you not have a car? Don't you have a car?

    2. using the verb "to get", auxiliary "to have":

    a) You have not got a car. You haven't got a car.
    b) Have you got a car?
    c) Have you not got a car? Haven't you got a car?

    3. "to have" is treated the same way like "to be":

    a) You have not a car. You haven't a car. You have no car.
    b) Have you a car?
    c) Have you not a car? Haven't you a car? (Have you no car?)

    Untill now I lived in blessed ignorance. I believed that the third variant is correct as well, i.e. "to have" in the sense "to own" or "to be equipped" is treated like "to be" (isn't he a robot? - hasn't he a robot?, the house is not a swimming pool - the house has not a swimming pool, etc.).

    Now my humble presumption is:

    The 1st pattern is the commonest, both in the UK and NA.

    The 2nd pattern is common in the UK, acceptable in NA.

    The 3rd pattern is disputable: either archaic or incorrect.
    Reportedly there are some conservative English (British) dialects that are still using this variant. Interestingly this pattern is very popular in many textbooks all over the world. My guess: Lesson One usually contains only two verbs "to be" and "to have" and they are treated the same way. It is also very didactic as the students can easily extend the construction "haven't you a ...?" to "haven't you got (seen,...) a ...?" later.

    Note: Such phrase like "the USA has not a presidency, but a duumvirate" is a different story.
     
    Last edited:

    natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    This is complicated by the fact that the HAVE GOT construction is very common in the UK. These are completely acceptable.

    • I've got a car.
    • I haven't got a car.
    • Haven't you got a car?
    • Have you not got a car? (Is this more Scottish? Sounds fine to me.)

    The DON'T constructions are also fine:

    • I don't have a car.
    • Don't you have a car?
    • Do you not have a car?

    However, the straight NOT negation is less clear cut.
    • I have not a car. :(
    • I haven't a car. :rolleyes: - a bit old fashioned, but possible
    • Haven't you a car? - also old fashioned
    • Have you not a car? - not sure
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top