Explain the difference between negating a sentence where the verb "to be" is used and a sentence where any other verb is used.

Question

Explain the difference between negating a sentence where the verb "to be" is used and a sentence where any other verb is used. The explanation should be valid for both simple past and simple present tenses.

Answer 1

When you are using "to be" for the simple present and simple past tenses, add the word "not" after the verb.

e.g. He is a nice man...........negated would be "He is not a nice man." In simple past, "He was a nice man" is negated simply as "He wasn't a nice man."

Using other verbs, we generally use "to do" before the verb. "She cooks stew once a week" would be negated as "She doesn't cook stew once a week." In simple past, "They drove to Boston yesterday" would be negated as "They didn't drive to Boston yesterday." Notice the base form of the verbs "cook" and "drive" are used here.

Fred

Answer 2

To be and auxiliary verbs like have (have eaten etc.) are negated by adding "not" after the verb, whereas most verbs are negated by prefixing a negated auxiliary to do:

The sheep are wolves in disguise / The sheep are not (aren't) wolves in disguise

The sheep have exploded / The sheep have not (haven't) exploded

The sheep can juggle flaming torches / The sheep cannot juggle flaming torches

The sheep will pay the tab / The sheep will not pay the tab

Those sheep should behave like mature adults / Those sheep should not behave like mature adults

BUT

The sheep discuss quantum mechanics / The sheep do not (don't) discuss quantum mechanics

The sheep danced the Lindy Hop / The sheep did not (didn't) dance the Lindy Hop

Notice that to do takes the tense: "did not danced" is wrong.

That's the basics. Hope it helps! Search "negative verbs in English grammar" for more.

Richard