You don't sometimes hate them

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rachel Adams

Key Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Georgia
Current Location
Georgia
This screenshot is from "English File" by
Clive Oxenden, and Christina Latham-Koenig. I am confused by their use of "sometimes". I remember being told by a native speaker that it's not used between verbs after "not" or "doesn't" The sentence says "you don't sometimes hate them". Should I really avoid this use?IMG_20211227_155600.jpg
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I am confused by their use of "sometimes". I remember being told by a native speaker that it's not used between verbs after "not" or "doesn't"

I imagine that once again you've overapplied a rule that someone who was simply trying to guide you gave you. Either that, or the native speaker in question misled you into believing that this is an absolute rule, which I find unlikely.

The sentence says "you don't sometimes hate them". Should I really avoid this use?

I think you probably should, yes.
 

Rachel Adams

Key Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Georgia
Current Location
Georgia
I imagine that once again you've overapplied a rule that someone who was simply trying to guide you gave you. Either that, or the native speaker in question misled you into believing that this is an absolute rule, which I find unlikely.



I think you probably should, yes.
Do you mean it isn't wrong to use "sometimes" in a negative sentence between verbs? The native speaker who advised against using it isn't a teacher. That's why I decided to ask my question on UE to receive an answer from an actual teacher. I might have misunderstood their explanation. This is what they wrote: "I don't sometimes drink tea." Sometimes" obviously means some times, so it wouldn't make sense to use that negatively the way your example suggests. When used this way as an adverb of frequency, 'sometimes' sits in the middle between never and always, so you wouldn't just negate it - you'd use a better adverb.

"Some" can by default mean 'not all'. For example, "I go to the gym on some days" would mean you do not go every day. Likewise, we use 'sometimes' in connection with things that do occur, but not very often, so there is also no need to use it negatively to refer to the occasions when something doesn't occur.

Saying "I sometimes drink tea" means you do drink it, but not all the time. If you wanted to use a negative to mean the same thing, you could also say "I don't often drink tea". Of course, if you don't drink it at all you would simply say "I don't drink tea" or "I never drink tea" - there is no need to use an adverb of frequency with something that never happens.

However, you could use 'sometimes' in a negative sense if the thing you were proposing was an alternative to the norm. For example, if you mostly drank tea, but occasionally drank coffee instead, you might say "sometimes I don't drink tea".

Forget the "between verbs" rule, that doesn't exist. As I explained, you could say "I don't often drink tea" and that is just another adverb of frequency. The meaning of 'sometimes' as an adverb of frequency specifically means 'some, but not all', and that is just something which cannot be negated. If something isn't occasional, then it is either more, or less frequent. You would just use a different adverb. –
I have been updating my answer to accommodate the suggestion from anotherdave and also in response to your questions, I hope its clear now. "Sometimes I don't drink tea" would be a useless statement on its own unless you added what you DO on the occasions when you don't drink tea (ie you drink coffee instead). Placing 'sometimes' where you did in your example is what is problematic because you're negating the action, not the drink.

Sorry for the long post.
 
Last edited:

Glizdka

Key Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
This is a great example of why we normally don't use adverbs of frequency after don't. It changes the meaning, completely.

"You sometimes don't hate them" means you hate them 90% of the time. Sometimes, you don't hate them.

"You don't sometimes hate them" means you hate them 0% of the time, not even sometimes.
 

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I suggest that you avoid using a negative with sometimes. Instead, say:

I usually drink coffee, but sometimes I drink tea.

Or something like that.
 

Rachel Adams

Key Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Georgia
Current Location
Georgia
I think it's meant to be read with the meaning "If you don't (at least sometimes) hate them".
So it's true that it's not used between verbs, but why does the book give that example?
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It's normal to be angry with your parents from time to time. Focus on the meaning because grammar serves meaning, rather than the other way round. You are trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole. The book's example is simply if you don't (sometimes) hate them or don't (sometimes hate them), both of which are fine. We can get angry when living with our parents. I love my Mother, but rarely stay more than one night.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Do you mean it isn't wrong to use "sometimes" in a negative sentence between verbs

Are you looking for a rule that will cover every single negative sentence without exception? I think it may not be wrong to use sometimes sometimes in a negative sentence between verbs. Context and meaning drive such issues.
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
The conditional "If you don't sometimes hate them, you haven't been paying attention" implies "If you had been paying attention, you would sometimes hate them" and by extension "If you pay attention, you will sometimes hate them."
 

Glizdka

Key Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
The conditional "If you don't sometimes hate them, you haven't been paying attention" implies "If you had been paying attention, you would sometimes hate them" and by extension "If you pay attention, you will sometimes hate them."
Not always. The condition might be necessary but not sufficient. Not hating your parents is a symptom of not paying attention, but it doesn't mean paying attention results in hating them.

"If it doesn't have four legs, it isn't a dog." → "If it has four legs, it is a dog." FALSE
 
Last edited:

Rachel Adams

Key Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Georgia
Current Location
Georgia
Are you looking for a rule that will cover every single negative sentence without exception? I think it may not be wrong to use sometimes sometimes in a negative sentence between verbs. Context and meaning drive such issues.
No, I am talking about only "sometimes" in negative sentences between verbs. I am trying to figure out if it's true that it's wrong to use it in negative sentences between the verbs. If learners shouldn't use it between verbs in a negative sentence.
 

Glizdka

Key Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
No, I am talking about only "sometimes" in negative sentences between verbs. I am trying to figure out if it's true that it's wrong to use it in negative sentences between the verbs. If learners shouldn't use it between verbs in a negative sentence.
No, it isn't wrong; it just makes the sentence mean something completely different.
Yes, learners should generally avoid it unless they know what they're doing.
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Not always. The condition might be necessary but not sufficient. Not hating your parents is a symptom of not paying attention, but it doesn't mean paying attention results in hating them.

But, borrowing your language of "symptoms," the claim is NOT that not hating your parents is a symptom of not paying attention.

The claim is that not sometimes hating your parents is a symptom of not paying attention; that is, paying attention will result in sometimes hating them.

"If it doesn't have four legs, it isn't a dog." → "If it has four legs, it is a dog." FALSE

Your example exhibits the logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.

The implication I have drawn does not involve denying the antecedent. It involves denying the consequent, and that is not a logical fallacy.

Denying the consequent of a conditional involves the argument structure known as Modus Tollens, by which one may infer the negation of the antecedent.

There is actually an equivalence rule in logic, known as Contraposition, by which one may infer "If not Q then not P" from the conditional "If P then Q."

To use your example, denying the consequent actually does yield a valid inference:

"If it doesn't have four legs, it isn't a dog." --> "If it is a dog, then it does have four legs."

Similarly:

"If you don't sometimes hate your parents, then you haven't been paying attention"
--> "If you have been paying attention, then you do sometimes hate your parents."

Above, I have eliminated the awkward step of simplifying for Double Negation; however, for thoroughness, "not not having four legs" means "having four legs"; "not not being a dog" means "being a dog"; "not not sometimes hating one's parents" means "sometimes hating ones parents"; "not not paying attention" means "paying attention."
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Yes, I believe Phaedrus has the logic right. (This thread has just gotten interesting!)

I'd point out that the consequent you do sometimes hate your parents is also conditional upon you don't go out. That's the most important point here as I understand it: going out is a way to avoid hating your parents.
 

Glizdka

Key Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
You're right. Retraction.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Off topic.

This speaker of BrE would use got, not gotten there.

Yes, I realise I'm in a minority here, but it really is a natural form of expression for me. Since we discussed this last (I think it was about a year ago), I've been trying to observe similar usage among my BE-speaking peers.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I've never used "gotten" in BrE, and I don't recall any of my friends or family using it.
 

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Likewise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top