1.He didn't run because he was afraid.

2.He did run not because he was afraid.

I want to know they are the same.

  • 3
    The second sentence is not grammatical in everyday speech. "did not run" and "didn't run" are equivalent; "did run not" is not idiomatic English, so it's hard to say what it means. – verbose Feb 5 '17 at 22:46
  • @SIS, does this sentence have any context or more punctuation? Could it possibly be, "He did run, not because he was afraid, but because of something else." – Teacher KSHuang Feb 6 '17 at 7:11
  • @Teacher KSHuang yes, punctuation is omitted to make ambitious sentence. – SinK Feb 6 '17 at 9:23
  • @SIS, I understand. So you want students to be able to identify the incorrect sentence. – Teacher KSHuang Feb 6 '17 at 9:31
  • @Teacher KSHuang yes, To get rid of ambiguous sentence I put it off here. – SinK Feb 6 '17 at 10:00

The seconds sentence is ungrammatical if the meaning is intended to be the same as the first sentence. However, there is a different meaning it could have.

The first sentence says he did not run. The second sentence says that he did run.

The alternate meaning of the second sentence has a an implied "but", and could use a comma after "run":

He did run, [but] not because he was afraid.

It would be a response to the statement, "He ran only because he was afraid not to run."

The "not" would negate being afraid rather than running.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.