0

I hear that:

  1. That must not be Toby! - correct

  2. That must be not Toby! - doesn't make sense

Do you agree?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    The first could be a colloquial and jokey way to say "I hope that isn't Toby". The second doesn't make sense.
    – Old Brixtonian
    Oct 16, 2020 at 23:53
  • Any explanation why it's wrong?
    – user1425
    Oct 17, 2020 at 5:02
  • See my answer below.
    – Old Brixtonian
    Oct 17, 2020 at 10:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

As FumbleFingers said, "negation is complex". It is especially so when tied up with the evolution of English and with gerunds.

At the time of the King James Bible "Be not" was colloquial: "Be not afraid", for example, where today we'd say "Don't be afraid"; or "If it be not Toby", where today we'd say "If it isn't Toby." Googling "Be not" returns mostly examples of its usage dating from the 16th to the 18th century, together with discussions about English grammar, many of them here on StackExchange!

If, today, it was idiomatic to say "That must be not Toby" then it would also be idiomatic to say "That be not Toby" and "That be Toby". We don't. We say "That is Toby", "That is not Toby" and "That must not be Toby!"

This - on the use of the present subjunctive- might be helpful.

Improve this answer
2
  • Would you approve of this: That must be not Toby but Bob!
    – user1425
    Oct 17, 2020 at 10:26
  • In conversation you can say what you like! It isn't a grammatically-correct sentence though, because it's broken in the middle. We don't say "That must be not". We might say, "That must be - not Toby, but Bob" , with a break in the middle to show we know the sentence is broken. We'd usually say "That can't be Toby: it must be Bob. or "That must be Bob, not Toby."
    – Old Brixtonian
    Oct 17, 2020 at 13:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .