"will/would have not", "shall/should have not", and "can/could have not"?

[dihen]

Will native speakers say these?
`
[subject] would have not
[subject] could have not
[subject] should have not
`
[subject] will have not
[subject] can have not (unlikely?)
[subject] shall have not (unlikely?)

[Philly]

Hi dihen

I'd say they're possible, but rare/unlikely.

The only thing that comes to mind at the moment would be a situation such as this:

"I did it. I guess I could have not done it, but that didn't seem like an option at the time. I thought I had to do it."
.
Nothing at all came to mind for the last 3.
.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by dihen

Will native speakers say these?
`
I would have not
I could have not
I should have not
`
I will have not
I can have not (unlikely?)
I shall have not (unlikely?)

I agree with Philly that these are fairly rare because the position of 'not' is not the normal positioning.

Dihen, why do you think that the last two are any more unlikely than the others?

[dihen]

Originally Posted by riverkid

Dihen, why do you think that the last two are any more unlikely than the others?

Because I accept something like "Tomorrow, I will have not met them for three years.", (Do you?), and because "shall" is less often used in informal speech.

[Tdol]

'Shall' would be less common than 'will'. The 'can have not' woulkd be very unlikely IMO unless the person wanted to force some sort of special stress into the utterance.

[dihen]

Do you consider "Tomorrow, I will have not met them for three years." grammatical?

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by dihen

Do you consider "Tomorrow, I will have not met them for three years." grammatical?

Grammatical yes, natural, not so much, Dihen. Two things; one, I suspect that 'met' is the wrong choice of verb for this situation. Two, the placement of 'not' is certainly not the norm.

" Come tomorrow, I will not have seen them for three years."

[dihen]

Originally Posted by riverkid

Grammatical yes, natural, not so much, Dihen. Two things; one, I suspect that 'met' is the wrong choice of verb for this situation. Two, the placement of 'not' is certainly not the norm.
"Come tomorrow, I will not have seen them for three years."

To me, the "will not" part sounds ambiguous because the "not" could be modifying either "will" or "have". And I might make it even worse like this:
"...will for three years not have seen them." or "...will have for three years not seen them.", to prevent "not" from negating the phrase "for three years". Do you still consider them grammatical?

[Philly]

And I might make it even worse like this:
"...will for three years not have seen them." or "...will have for three years not seen them.", to prevent "not" from negating the phrase "for three years".

So, is your question now whether or not you can insert "for three years" willy-nilly in a sentence? If you know you're making a sentence worse by doing something, then don't do it. It's that simple.
.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by dihen

To me, the "will not" part sounds ambiguous because the "not" could be modifying either "will" or "have".

No, the 'not' is negating the entire verb phrase, "will have seen" to make it a negative, "will not have seen". I'm not sure why you have a problem with this, Dihen, as the positioning of 'not' is the normal position for English.

And I might make it even worse like this:
"...will for three years not have seen them." or "...will have for three years not seen them.", to prevent "not" from negating the phrase "for three years". Do you still consider them grammatical?

Dihen's new example: "Come tomorrow, I will, for three years, not have seen them."

I expect that the sentence above is what you meant. In that case, of course it's still grammatical, Dihen. Again, as has been pointed out, it's simply not the norm.