Hi ALL!

I read in a novel by Judith Wright:

"Driving away, John Condon was the minor business-man again. He had not much time to get to town for that appointment."

I heard that if you had a real thing you say "I had it", but if it was not a real thing you should say "I didn't have it". But "time" is not a real thing? ;-) Is there a more accurate rule?

Bye, ALL!
Alexander
English_tutor

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
* Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)

Alexander Koryagin:

I read in a novel by Judith Wright:

Driving away, John Condon was the minor busi-
ness-man again. He had not much time to get to
town for that appointment.

I heard that if you had a real thing you say "I
had it", but if it was not a real thing you
should say "I didn't have it". But "time" is not
a real thing? ;-) Is there a more accurate rule?

In classic literary English "not" negates the verb
it follows. You shall find plentiful examples in
such disparate writers as Lewis Carrol, Arthur Conan
Doyle, and Emily Bronte.

The rule you quoted is superficial and purely mne-
nomic, for it provides neither deep insight into the
"make" of the language nor any kind of rationale.
Shun such rules like the plague and study the lan-
guage instead of drilling ill-devised pseudo-rules,
whose only value is in helping poor IELTS and TOEFL
students pass the tests.

To get a feeling of what true study grammar looks
like, try reading some Folwer or Goold Brown:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11615/pg11615-images.html

I should with pleasure recommend more contemporary
works, but I know none that show the same level of
coherence and discipline as these old books do.

--- Sylpheed 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; i686-pc-mingw32)
* Origin: *** nntp://rbb.bbs.fi *** Lake Ylo *** Finland *** (2:221/360)

Hi, Anton Shepelev!
I read your message from 22.09.2017 00:30
about Have not or didn't have.

I read in a novel by Judith Wright: Driving away, John Condon was
the minor business-man again. He had not much time to get to town
for that appointment.

I heard that if you had a real thing you say "I had NO/NOT it",
but if it was not a real thing you should say "I didn't have it".
But "time" is not a real thing? ;-) Is there a more accurate rule?

In classic literary English "not" negates the verb it follows. You
shall find plentiful examples in such disparate writers as Lewis
Carrol, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Emily Bronte.

I asked where is preferable to use "I have not" instead of "I don't have" and vice versa. Both terms mean denying of possession.

The rule you quoted is superficial and purely mnenomic, for it
provides neither deep insight into the "make" of the language nor
any kind of rationale. Shun such rules like the plague and study
the language instead of drilling ill-devised pseudo-rules, whose
only value is in helping poor IELTS and TOEFL students pass the
tests.

To get a feeling of what true study grammar looks like, try reading
some Folwer or Goold Brown:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11615/pg11615-images.html

It is too late to eat in such large portions. I prefer to nibble it. ;-)

I should with pleasure recommend more contemporary works, but I
know none that show the same level of coherence and discipline as
these old books do.

I often ask just to talk. Google has killed good companies. Google knows all, and I don't like it. There was time when people preferred live conversations instead of asking robots or getting URLs.

Bye, Anton!
Alexander Koryagin
ENGLISH_TUTOR 2017

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
* Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)

Alexander Koryagin:

I read in a novel by Judith Wright:

Driving away, John Condon was the minor
business-man again. He had not much time to
get to town for that appointment.

I heard that if you had a real thing you say
"I had it", but if it was not a real thing you
should say "I didn't have it". But "time" is
not a real thing? ;-) Is there a more accurate
rule?

In classic literary English "not" negates the
verb it follows. You shall find plentiful ex-
amples in such disparate writers as Lewis Car-
rol, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Emily Bronte.

I asked where is preferable to use "I have not"
instead of "I don't have" and vice versa.

No, your question was specifically about a "rule"
you heard about and whether there was a more accu-
rate one -- see above.

The concept of preference is vague. It depends on
one's taste and the desired style. I answered from
the viewpoint of bare grammar.

Both terms mean denying of possession.

Denial of posession. In general, the true noun is
preferable to the -ing form.

The rule you quoted is superficial and purely
mnenomic, for it provides neither deep insight
into the "make" of the language nor any kind of
rationale. Shun such rules like the plague and
study the language instead of drilling ill-de-
vised pseudo-rules, whose only value is in
helping poor IELTS and TOEFL students pass the
tests.

To get a feeling of what true study grammar
looks like, try reading some Folwer or Goold
Brown:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11615/pg11615-images.html

It is too late to eat in such large portions. I
prefer to nibble it. ;-)

Some things you can't nibble, for they come down
smooth only in hearty lumps. The more complicated
the subject, the longer attention span you need.

I should with pleasure recommend more contempo-
rary works, but I know none that show the same
level of coherence and discipline as these old
books do.

I often ask just to talk.

Do you this time? It is my fast conviction that
talk is cheap unless supported by intensive study
and reading. As talent is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration, so is the mastering of any knowledge:
conversation should form the icing on the very tip
of the iceberg of reading :-) I for one feel myself
able to say or write something after I have read
many times as much on the subject, or, if it is my
original work, after I have spent many days working.
A ten-page article may be the fruit of several
months of hard work. I can even talk about it for
about fifteen minutes, but fifteen minutes is in-
significant in comparison to several months.

Google has killed good companies. Google knows
all, and I don't like it.

As one Russian scientist said, "There are thousands
of books in my library, but it is I who is a profes-
sor of mathematics, not my bookcase."

There was time when people preferred live con-
versations instead of asking robots or getting
URLs.

They used libraries and reading rooms instead of
robots and URLs. There was a time, and not very
long ago, when our country was the most reading
country in the world. Editions of 200-300 thousand
were normal, whereas nowadays they run around five
thousand.

---
* Origin: *** nntp://fidonews.mine.nu *** Finland *** (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton Shepelev!
I read your message from 04.10.2017 23:38
about Have not or didn't have.

Driving away, John Condon was the minor business-man again. He
had not much time to get to town for that appointment. I heard
that if you had a real thing you say "I had not it", but if it
was not a real thing you should say "I didn't have it".

<skipped>

The concept of preference is vague. It depends on one's taste and
the desired style. I answered from the viewpoint of bare grammar.

Both terms mean denying of possession.

Denial of posession. In general, the true noun is preferable to
the - ing form.

My error IMHO was in the other place. I meant a true gerund (a verb form), and it should be written without "of" - "Both terms mean denying possession."
BTW [posSession].

The rule you quoted is superficial and purely mnenomic, for it
provides neither deep insight into the "make" of the language nor
any kind of rationale. Shun such rules like the plague and study
the language instead of drilling ill-devised pseudo-rules, whose
only value is in helping poor IELTS and TOEFL students pass the
tests.

To get a feeling of what true study grammar looks like, try
reading some Folwer or Goold Brown:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11615/pg11615-images.html

It is too late to eat in such large portions. I prefer to nibble
it. ;-)

Some things you can't nibble, for they come down smooth only in
hearty lumps. The more complicated the subject, the longer
attention span you need.

A clever man should divide a big, complicated problem into many small and easy ones. It is a good remedy against a muddle.

I should with pleasure recommend more contemporary works, but I
know none that show the same level of coherence and discipline as
these old books do.

I often ask just to talk.

Do you this time? It is my fast conviction that talk is cheap
unless supported by intensive study and reading. As talent is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration

That IMHO was said by a common, not talented person. ;=)

so is the mastering of any knowledge: conversation should form the
icing on the very tip of the iceberg of reading :-)

Wow! ;)

I for one feel myself able to say or write something after I have
read many times as much on the subject, or, if it is my original
work, after I have spent many days working. A ten-page article may
be the fruit of several months of hard work. I can even talk about
it for about fifteen minutes, but fifteen minutes is insignificant
in comparison to several months.

We both have been studying English for a long time. Most of all, we probably need practice, to specify and clarify details, as long as our brains permit it.
As for rules we can compare them with the Mnemonic skill. Rules are things for remembering, for making the system.

Google has killed good companies. Google knows all, and I don't
like it.

As one Russian scientist said, "There are thousands of books in my library, but it is I who is a professor of mathematics, not my
bookcase."

What's your occupation?

There was time when people preferred live conversations instead of
asking robots or getting URLs.

They used libraries and reading rooms instead of robots and URLs.
There was a time, and not very long ago, when our country was the
most reading country in the world. Editions of 200-300 thousand
were normal, whereas nowadays they run around five thousand.

Now people prefer playing games. ;-)

Bye, Anton!
Alexander Koryagin
ENGLISH_TUTOR 2017

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
* Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)

I wrote:

As one Russian scientist said, "There are thou-
sands of books in my library, but it is I who is
a professor of mathematics, not my bookcase."

It should read: "... it is I who am..."

---
* Origin: *** nntp://fidonews.mine.nu *** Finland *** (2:221/6.0)