I like to use not to have but it sounds strange here:

Comming from Brazil, a country lucky enough not to have hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis, perhaps necessity for such a center was not clear.

Is it correct?

  • 2
    No, it isn't. The part after the comma is wrong. Also, try need rather than necessity. Comming takes one m only. – Lambie Mar 29 '18 at 13:24
  • 2
    You use 'not to have' correctly. As Lambie points out, however, the end of your sentence is not constructed correctly. – EllieK Mar 29 '18 at 15:02

The Cambridge Dictionary website says it's fine.

Non-finite clauses are clauses without a subject, where the main verb is in the to-infinitive form, the -ing form or the -ed form. To make the negative of a non-finite clause, we can use not.

Not to have invited James to our little party would have been impolite.

However, to me personally, to not have sounds better.

| improve this answer | |

I would rewrite not to have in the sentence as to have not experienced, meaning it would read like so:

Comming from Brazil, a country lucky enough to have not experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis, perhaps the necessity for such a center was not clear.

| 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.