[Grammar] She doesn't have to be babysitting.

One of my colleagues is telling me that the negative form of this statement, 'she has to be babysitting.' could be 'she has to not be babysitting.'

I say: the correct way is 'She doesn't have to be babysitting.'

Am I right or it might be possible to think of my colleague's way too?

Re: negative statememnt

I think it is grammatical to say 'She doesn't need to be babysat'.

Re: negative statememnt

"She doesn't have to be babysitting" (grammatical but not at all natural) doesn't mean the same as "She doesn't have to be babysat". In the first, she is not required to look after a younger child. In the second, she doesn't need to be looked after by someone older.

Re: negative statememnt

Well actually the question was about the grammatical correctness of 'She has to not be babysitting.'

I does not seem at all nature to me neither. However because of my colleague's question I wanted to make sure if it could be grammatically correct or not.

Thank you.

Re: negative statememnt

Piscean said:

The negative form of the not very natural 'She [STRIKE]doesn't have[/STRIKE] has to be babysitting' is 'She doesn't have to be babysitting'.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that's what Piscean meant to write.

Re: negative statememnt

atabitaraf said:

Well actually the question was about the grammatical correctness of 'She has to not be babysitting.'

I does not seem at all nature to me neither. However because of my colleague's question I wanted to make sure if it could be grammatically correct or not.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

It's a very unnatural sentence. However, people do use the to not be construction to emphasize a negative. I wouldn't recommend it for learners.

Re: negative statememnt

atabitaraf said:

'She has to not be babysitting.'

Click to expand...

Could it suggest that she must not be babysitting, as 'She has to not be lazy' suggests 'She must not be lazy'?

Re: negative statememnt

In that case, I'd say "She has to be not babysitting" if I couldn't make my meaning known otherwise - rather than 'She has to not be babysitting.' (It's still not common, and I wouldn't recommend it either.
You also need to make sure you are negating the right thing. Grammatically, Piscean is right. The negative of "She has to be babysitting" is "She doesn't have to be babysitting" ("It's not true that she has to be babysitting".)
But this is not the meaning of the other negation:"She has to be [not babysitting]" ("It has to be such that she is not babysitting".) It would be more natural to say, "She can't be babysitting". "It's impossible that she is babysitting."

You need to be careful with modal verbs when you negate them. Often just putting 'not' somewhere will give a grammatical negation, but it might not be what you mean.

Re: negative statememnt

Matthew Wai said:

Could it suggest that she must not be babysitting, as 'She has to not be lazy' suggests 'She must not be lazy'?

Click to expand...

I would say yes (to your first clause). I believe that is what the intention of "She has not to be babysitting" is in the original post. But since it's not natural, It probably won't always be read that way.
I also agree with your second clause. To me, it suggests "She is not allowed to be lazy." That is how I'd correct "She has to not be lazy" or "She has to be not lazy."