ought(n't) to

[beachboy]

Should we leave now?
Shouldn't he be here earlier?
How common is it to use ought to and oughtn't to in questions in everyday English? When can I drop the "to"?

 

[birdeen's call]

"Oughtn't to" is rare, "oughtn't", without "to", even rarer. At least, I've always believed so. But now, I read that "oughtn't to" doesn't exist. I have never heard "ought" without "to" in an indicative sentence.

PS: I mean this sentence,
Remember that "ought to" loses the "to" in the negative. Instead of "ought not to," we say "ought not." "Ought not" is more commonly used in British English. Americans prefer "should not.

 

[5jj]

Should we leave now?
Shouldn't he be here earlier?
How common is it to use ought to and oughtn't to in questions in everyday English? When can I drop the "to"?

Should, with about 1000 occurrences per million words of conversation is much more common than ought to with under 200 occurrences. (Biber et al, 1999)

Older educated people tend to use modal inversion: ought we to go?, sometimes with omission of to; most people use DO, always with to: did we ought to go?

The use of a negative question with ought is rare. Some people avoid it with a construction such as: Don't you think we ought to...?

To avoid unnatural-sounding utterances, always use should.

ref: Biber, Douglas et al (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Longman.

 

[ostap77]

Should, with about 1000 occurrences per million words of conversation is much more common than ought to with under 200 occurrences. (Biber et al, 1999)

Older educated people tend to use modal inversion: ought we to go?, sometimes with omission of to; most people use DO, always with to: did we ought to go?

The use of a negative question with ought is rare. Some people avoid it with a construction such as: Don't you think we ought to...?

To avoid unnatural-sounding utterances, always use should.

ref: Biber, Douglas et al (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Longman.

1)"Did I ought to come to a party?"

OR

2)"Should I have come to a party?"

Guess the first sentence would be shorter and easier to say? Would they have the same meaning?

 

[5jj]

1)"Did I ought to come to a party?"

OR

2)"Should I have come to a party?"

Guess the first sentence would be shorter and easier to say? Would they have the same meaning? NO. The first is asking about future time, the second about past hypothetical time.

1= ought I (to) come?, should I come?.
2= ought I to have come?, did I ought to have come?

The one I have underlined is horrible. I don't think anybody would ever say that, though it is theoretically possible.

 

[Barb_D]

I'm sure I've heard -- and maybe even said -- things like "Oughtn't we be going now?"

How would that fly in the UK?

 

[ostap77]

1= ought I (to) come?, should I come?.
2= ought I to have come?, did I ought to have come?

The one I have underlined is horrible. I don't think anybody would ever say that, though it is theoretically possible.

What would be the difference between 1)"Do I ought to come to a party?" or 2)"Did I ought to come to a party?"?

 

[5jj]

What would be the difference between 1)"Do I ought to come to a party?" Unacceptable
or 2)"Did I ought to come to a party?" = ought I? = should I?

Your difficulty here is caused by the illogicality of did I ought? It is past form tense in appearance, but present/future in reference, There is no do I ought? form.

Historically, ought is a past-tense form which, over the years, has lost its past-time meanings. The same is true of could, would, should and might in some of thir uses. However, as we do not use the auxiliary DO with these core modals, the problem is less apparent.

 

[ostap77]

Your difficulty here is caused by the illogicality of did I ought? It is past form tense in appearance, but present/future in reference, There is no do I ought? form.

Historically, ought is a past-tense form which, over the years, has lost its past-time meanings. The same is true of could, would, should and might in some of thir uses. However, as we do not use the auxiliary DO with these core modals, the problem is less apparent.

Would anyone say somethimg like "Did I ought to go ther?" in the US? Is it mainly British? The negation sentence would be "I oughtn't go there." not "I didn't ought to go there."?

 

[5jj]

I'm sure I've heard -- and maybe even said -- things like "Oughtn't we be going now?"

How would that fly in the UK?

Fine, though it would sound a little stilted to most younger people - if they noticed it.

 

[Barb_D]

No, you will never hear "Did I ought" in the US unless the person was using a very strange form of English or changed their mind about what they were going to say.

Did I... ought I to call her? -- And it's not very common to say "Ought I..." anything.

 

[Abstract Idea]

Historically, ought is a past-tense form which, over the years, has lost its past-time meanings. The same is true of could, would, should and might in some of their uses. However, as we do not use the auxiliary DO with these core modals, the problem is less apparent.

That is very interesting fivejedjon. Would there be a companion pair to ought ? I mean, its present form, like in the list below:
could - can
would - will
should - shall
might - may
must - mote
ought - ???

Thanks to all posters for this interesting 'ought' thread!

 

[birdeen's call]

It's akin to "owe". I've always thought that, as fivejedjon said, it's historically the past tense of it. But from what I'm reading in dictionaries now, I understand it's a bit of a stretch. They say it comes from Old English ahte, which is the past form of agan, which indeed meant to owe and from which owe is derived. I wouldn't say it means that ought is the historical past form of owe, since it never was so in Modern or even Middle English. But there's still some truth in the statement.

I know nothing about it though. Just some bits I remember from earlier readings and etymological notes from dictionaries I've just read.

 

[philo2009]

Should we leave now?
Shouldn't he be here earlier?
How common is it to use ought to and oughtn't to in questions in everyday English? When can I drop the "to"?

Both may be heard in the speech of older BrE users but are relatively uncommon elsewhere. Should/shouldn't will tend to sound more natural in almost all cases.

Note, however, that the expressions are not entirely interchangeable, since 'should' can occur in hypothetical conditionals, e.g.

What would happen if he should be elected?

, an impossible sentence-position for 'ought to'.

 

[philo2009]

"Oughtn't to" is rare, "oughtn't", without "to", even rarer. At least, I've always believed so. But now, I read that "oughtn't to" doesn't exist.

Incorrect. While not especially common, it certainly exists!

 

[philo2009]

1)"Did I ought to come to a party?"

OR

2)"Should I have come to a party?"

Guess the first sentence would be shorter and easier to say? Would they have the same meaning?

The first might well be easier to say, but it would be entirely ungrammatical!
The perfective form of [ought to V] is [ought to have Ved].

 

[philo2009]

PS: I mean this sentence,
Remember that "ought to" loses the "to" in the negative. Instead of "ought not to," we say "ought not." "Ought not" is more commonly used in British English. Americans prefer "should not.

I suspect that you have misunderstood the context here. The writer is almost certainly referring to the (optional) ellipsis of 'to' when oughtn't occurs at the end of a clause - i.e. with ellipsis also of its dependent verb - as in

A: Do you think we ought to wake him?
B: No, we oughtn't (to). He might get angry.

Omission of final 'to' is also possible with the positive form, but considerably rarer.

 

[philo2009]

1= ought I (to) come?, should I come?.
2= ought I to have come?, did I ought to have come?

The one I have underlined is horrible. I don't think anybody would ever say that, though it is theoretically possible.

Sorry, but 'ought' is a finite verb-form. As such, a construction such as *did I ought? is not even theoretically possible.

 

[philo2009]

That is very interesting fivejedjon. Would there be a companion pair to ought ? I mean, its present form, like in the list below:
could - can
would - will
should - shall
might - may
must - mote
ought - ???

Thanks to all posters for this interesting 'ought' thread!

Etymologically, its closest relation in contemporary English is 'owe', although the latter of course lacks any modal/quasi-modal uses in the modern language.

 

[philo2009]

I'm sure I've heard -- and maybe even said -- things like "Oughtn't we be going now?"

How would that fly in the UK?

Like a plane with no engine!

Unacceptable.