I have a friend who considers herself to be quite the grammar expert. She insists that “I’ve not” is more correct than “I haven’t”. Seems to me that they are both contractions of “I have not”, and they are equally correct, although “I haven’t” is probably more frequently used.
Who's right?Horsefeathers. “I’ve not” is more likely to be found in British period novels and other romantic trash; outside of that, there is no recommendation for it at all. In daily American speech, it’s “precious.”
That’s not to say that I don’t use it myself, but only sparingly, and for effect.
(I’m only a little precious…")
Or in modern British speech. I seem to use the two more or less interchangeably. I’d be surprised if we didn’t hear from somewhere in North America where it’s common, too.
Both are correct. Other than that, there really aren’t degrees of correctness. One usage may be more common (in this case, probably “I haven’t,” in the US, at least), but no grammarian would presume to consider one usage more correct than another.
I do tend to use “I’ve not” in casual speech, even though I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone else say it in my life. I’ve not noticed anyone looking at me funny though. Of course, I say things like “You ought’nt to do that”, so those who know me are used to my somewhat archaic speech mannerisms.
I use 'em both, depending on what I want to emphasize.
“I haven’t been to London before.” Casual enough.
“I’ve not been to London before, officer, so I can’t be the killer.” I little more emphatic, in my mind, at least.
Hmm…“ought” is not supposed to take an infinitve after it, is it? It should be “You oughtn’t do that.” Right? Or is this infinitive part of the archaic structure?
Since you would say “You ought to do that”, then (I believe) the correct negative is “You ought not to do that”. Modern usage renders the “to” optional in the negative.
Google fight!
I have not – 1.78 million hits
I haven’t – 3.2 million hits
I’ve not – .35 million hits
And the results of other contractional google fights.
Peace.
:smack:
Duh! Of course.
I would argue that correct usage is “You ought do that” and therefore “you ought not do that” and “you oughtn’t do that” are the correct negative forms.
“You ought to do that” sounds to me a lot like “You should try and do that”, where the ignorant idiom “try and” rears its ugly head. The “to” is strictly unnecessary and borders on being jarringly wrong.
Then again, I have a fairly predantic speaking style for an American, so maybe it’s just me.
I’ve never heard this sentence without the “to”. Merriam-Webster describes it as a verbal auxiliary, and gives no examples without the “to”.
“You ought do that” sounds plain wrong to me.