5

  • That would not have happened if John had completed his work.

  • That would have not happened if John had completed his work.

The former seems correct. The latter doesn't seem incorrect.

Are there any cases where one ought to use the latter instead of the former?

Community
  • 1
Hal
  • 2,024

4 Answers4

2

The latter seems very wrong to me. Putting the word "not" after "should have" may possibly be correct form in other languages, but seems to me to be incorrect in American English. Also, I'm no English professor; but I would question the use of a comma in that sentence.

user83140
  • 67
  • 4
1

Well, in my opinion when we say "I would not like to know him" the word "not" makes the verb "to like" negative but when we say "I would like not to know him" the word "not" makes the verb "to know" negative. These are different situations.

Hilario
  • 19
-1

The latter seems ungrammatical.

Negation 'not' ought to be placed right after a modal verb. Of the second sentence, 'would' is a modal auxiliary verb. The verb 'have', in here, is conceived as a principal verb. Let me bring the following example to your attention.

I drink tea.

The negative of this sentence would be; I do not drink tea. It is quite clear that the negation 'not' comes soon after the primary auxiliary verb 'do'.

On the contrary, the sentence 'I do drink not tea' is ungrammatical, and hence incorrect. Therefore, according to my knowledge of English Grammar, the sentence, 'That would not have happened if John had completed his work.' is grammatical.

Nisal Kevin Kotinkaduwa
  • 233
  • Unfortunately, the example you give in reference to drinking tea is not apt. Would have not vs. would not have can have distinct meanings due to the imposition of a different modal verb than do. The verb would invokes types of hypotheticals in which case the two possibilities can be distinct (would not have vs. would have not). – virmaior Jul 06 '14 at 16:41
  • In my perspective, I solidly believe, you attention was too much drawn to my example. I wanted to emphasis the fact that the negation 'not' comes directly after any auxiliary verb; it could be all the modal verbs as well as all the primary auxiliary verbs. I am speaking of its grammar. The sentence itself could invoke different possibilities, but one could not change its grammar. If you could find me a perfective sentence where the negation has placed after a principal verb. – Nisal Kevin Kotinkaduwa Jul 06 '14 at 18:31
  • By 'perfective' I meant a sentence like 'He would have visited .......'. The negative of this sentence clearly is; He would not have visited, NOT He would have not visited. – Nisal Kevin Kotinkaduwa Jul 06 '14 at 18:32
  • No, I'm not being distracted by the example. Whoever taught you the rule is mistaken. "I would not like to know him" and "I would like not to know him" are both valid sentences with different meanings. – virmaior Jul 06 '14 at 22:49
-2

” to have happened ” is an infinitive, the same as ” to happen ”, just a past tense infinitive.

  1. Infinitive cannot be broken.
  2. ” not ” must always be before the infinitive, just the same as in ” would not happen ”.

Therefore, the correct way is : ” would not have happened ”.

The incorrect way is : ” would have not happened ”.

With abbreviations, because of a lack of any other way, the correct way is ” would’ve not happened ”, because the abbreviation ” would’ve ” cannot be made into ” would’nt’ve ”.

Because of the abbreviation, many people use the incorrect way without the abbreviation. This and other mistakes with present and past perfect tenses are very common in the Southern USA and, even, have become a part of the local folklore.

Even more incorrect : ” would not have had happened ”, ” would have not had happened ” and ” would have had not happened ”. ” had happened ” and ” have had happened ” are not infinitives. There is no infinitive more past tense than the past tense. Thus, even in conditional sentences, the ” more past ” infinitive is not an infinitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive

Section : ” Marking for tense, aspect and voice ”.

Please, note : Some native English speakers omit ” to ” in the past tense of must ” had to ”. ” Children had better listen to their teacher. ” is the incorrect form of ” Children had TO better listen to their teacher. ”. The more past tense of must is ” have had to ”. ” Children would have had TO better listen to their teacher. ” may, incorrectly, be abbreviated to ” Children would have had better listen to their teacher. ”. This is a different subject than the original question, but, is good to mention.

StevenStanleyBayes
  • 1