1

There are two sources, which contradict each other.

The first one:

Notice "Ought not" Remember that "ought to" loses the "to" in the negative. Instead of "ought not to," we say "ought not."

The second one:

You say that someone ought not to do something: She ought not to go.

You can also use oughtn’t: She oughtn’t to go.

So, what is correct: ought not to do or ought not do?

  • I trust the Longman source, and Cambridge – user178049 Mar 11 '17 at 11:19
  • Yes, it seems that there are a lot of sources insisting on "ought not to do" variant... – DimanNe Mar 11 '17 at 11:22
  • No no, my mistake. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style says, the to is sometimes omitted, but it's not commom in writing. So, I think it's fine :) – user178049 Mar 11 '17 at 11:31
  • So, do you mean that it is just an British vs American difference in usage of ought? – DimanNe Mar 11 '17 at 11:35
  • According to NGram, the former isn't widely used in both AmE and BrE – user178049 Mar 11 '17 at 11:42
1

The "to" in ought not to is optional in informal non-assertive context, which is particularly associated with negation.

But it's more natural to say She oughtn't to go or just use should, she shouldn't go.


New Fowlers Modern English Usage

| improve this answer | |

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.