I had not to/to not tell her about what happened.

[Marika33]

Is "not to do" the only way of using the negative infinitive? Can we use "to not do" instead?

• I promised not to be late.
• Joe said the switch was dangerous and warned me not to touch it.
• I wondered how not to offend him.
• I had not to tell her about what happened.
• I've learned not to trust them.
• I can show you how not to do it.

 

[emsr2d2]

You've only given us the version of each sentence with the "not to do" construction. You need to give us the alternative version, using the other word order, for each sentence.

 

[Marika33]

You've only given us the version of each sentence with the "not to do" construction. You need to give us the alternative version, using the other word order, for each sentence.

I am so terribly sorry.
Here they are:

• I promised to not be late.
• Joe said the switch was dangerous and warned me to not touch it.
• I wondered how to not offend him.
• I had to not tell her about what happened.
• I've learned to not trust them.
• I can show you how to not do it.

 

[Tarheel]

I promised to not be late. - I promised to be on time.

 

[Tarheel]

Joe said the switch was dangerous and warned me not to touch it.

 

[Tarheel]

I wondered how to not offend him - I wondered how to avoid offending him.

 

[Piscean]

@ Tarheel: Your versions are fine, but they are not what Marika asked us about.

 

[Piscean]

• I had to not tell her about what happened.

With the exception of that one, the sentences with not to are more natural.

 

[tedmc]

I think the order of "not to", which is used in most cases, is reversed to shift the emphasis from the promise (promise not) to the action (not do something).

 

[Tarheel]

A brief dialogue. (See below.)

Fred: I can show you how to not do it.
Ed: Thank you, but I think I can figure that out for myself.
Fred: Are you sure?
Ed: Yes, I'm sure.

 

[Marika33]

With the exception of that one

Thank you!

Quite interesting! Could you please tell me, why is that? Why is, for example, "I promised not to be late" fine, but "I had not to tell her about what happened" is more natural with the reverse infinitive construction (to not do)?

 

[Tarheel]

@Marika33 Do you understand the point of my dialogue in post #10?

 

[Piscean]

Why is, for example, "I promised not to be late" fine, but "I had not to tell her about what happened" is more natural with the reverse infinitive construction (to not do)?

For most native speakers, the negative of I had to is I didn't have to, not I had not to.

 

[Marika33]

For most native speakers, the negative of I had to is I didn't have to, not I had not to.

Yeah, but the meaning of the two is completely different.

I didn't have to do it. - It wasn't necessary for me.

I had not to do it. - It was necessary for me not to do it.
or I had to not do it. - It was necessary for me to not do it.

 

[Piscean]

I had not to do it. - It was necessary for me not to do it.
I had to not do it. - It was necessary for me to not do it.

The first could be interpreted as 'I didn't have to do it'. it is not natural with the meaning you want to give it.

 

[Tarheel]

I had not to do it. - It was necessary for me not to do it.
or I had to not do it. - It was necessary for me to not do it.

It's very unlikely that I would use either one. It would be highly unnatural for me to do so.

 

[Marika33]

It's very unlikely that I would use either one. It would be highly unnatural for me to do so.

Doesn't English have a way of saying that?

The first could be interpreted as 'I didn't have to do it'. it is not natural with the meaning you want to give it.

Thanks! I got it now.

One question, if "I had not to do it" could be interpreted as "It wasn't necessary for me to do it" instead of "It was necessary for me to not do it", therefore that should've been "I had to not do it" instead, shouldn't I say, for example, "I promised to not be late" instead of "I promised not to be late"?
I think it's a really good question.

In other words, if
1. "I had not to do it" - could be interpreted as "It wasn't necessary for me to do it = I didn't have to do it", but
2. "I had to not do it" - is interpreted as "It was necessary for me to not(not to?) do it"
then could
3. "I promised not to be late" - be interpreted as "I didn't promise to be late" and, therefore, should be,
4. "I promised to not be late" in order to mean, "I promised that I wouldn't be late"?

 

[Piscean]

1. "I had not to do it" - could be interpreted as "It wasn't necessary for me to do it = I didn't have to do it", but
2. "I had to not do it" - is interpreted as "It was necessary for me to not(not to?) do it"

Yes.

then could
3. "I promised not to be late" - be interpreted as "I didn't promise to be late"

No.
'Have to' and 'promise' are different verbs, and behave in different ways.

 

[Marika33]

'Have to' and 'promise' are different verbs, and behave in different ways.

- Why?
- Just because.

English being English.