[過去ﾛｸﾞ] スレッドを立てるまでもない質問スレッド Part 366 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
抽出解除 ﾚｽ栞

---

このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索 歴削→次ｽﾚ 栞削→次ｽﾚ 過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ

---

66(1): (ｱｳｱｳｴｰT Sab2-u+pL) 2023/08/26(土)10:35 ID:+AEcqSzga(2/3) AAS
>>62
I want to explain to you why we are talking about "double negation".
We see "double negation" in a clause "but you might not [have no problem] in your case." ([have no problem] is an omitted phrase)

A: Do you believe in God?
B: Yes I do.

In this case, "do" substitutes for "believe in God", which has been given in context.

C: John eats apples but Tom don’t.

What does "Tom don’t" mean? If there’s an omission, it should be "eat apples" ("Tom don’t eat apples").
省2

---

70(2): 外人◆a0V.EBsnGU (GB 0H32-lN7b) 2023/08/26(土)10:57 ID:FzphKDlFH(7/7) AAS
>>66 >>69
>John eats apples but Tom doesn't/does not.
You are right in saying there is an omitted phrase. The "doesn't" is referring to "eats apples". The full un-omitted sentence would be,
> John eats apples but Tom doesn't/does not eat apples.
By the way "John eats apples but Tom don't" is meant to be incorrect English, but in the town I grew up in in England, many young people and people that speak in heavy dialect use "don't" like that. However, you don't ever see it like that in written English, and it is not a standard thing.

>but you might not in your case
This refers to the fact that the speaker has no problem in the hospital with only those items.

Normal version: In my case, I’ll have no problem in the hospital with only these items, but you might not in your case.
"Full" version: In my case, I’ll have no problem in the hospital with only these items, but you might not have no problem in the hospital with only these items in your case.

The "full" version is way too long and redundant lol, so we obviously don't say that.
省5

---

上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

---

ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ

---

ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 0.029s