Along the same lines as the 'next week' thread,

a. I was trying to not get fired, or
b. I was trying not to get fired

Which is more correct? Does it depend on context?

Were you fired?

It depends upon whether you did this on work time or not. :}

b, a sounds like summat they would use in the seventeenth century version of English they speak across the Atlantic.
:rolleyes:

I'd go with a), because it's equivalent to "I was trying to avoid getting fired". It's of the form "I was trying to (action)".

b) doesn't work for me because getting fired is a passive act from your perspective. It's not you who does the firing, it's your boss. You can't try not to do something that someone else does. :8

My head hurts when I think about this.

Is it not normal?

b) sounds better as a) contains a split infinitive (just about acceptable but clumsy).

I would prefer, "I was trying to keep my job".

Cheers

Whirls

Or we would use the perfectly good English word "Sacked" :rolleyes:

To get, or not to get, that is the question.

When in doubt, avoid the word 'get'. There is always a better way, if you obtain my meaning ...

A better approach might be " I told the gaffer to shove it!" :}

b) sounds better as a) contains a split infinitive (just about acceptable but clumsy).


Oh Whirls, our first tiff :( It really is a bit pedantic to complain about split infinitives. Assiduously to avoid them can seem equally clumsy ;)

Mind you I agree, (b) does sound better.

TTN

2B - or not 2B - that is the pencil . . .

What would you rather bee or a wasp.:)

If that is the question, what is the answer . . .

Not a tiff I hope TTN .... Just a wee difference of opinion. :)

Assiduously to avoid them can seem equally clumsy To avoid them assiduously just takes a bit of forethought. ;)

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls

Brilliant! Kissed and made up, lol :ok:

TTN

Apparently the human brain comes hard wired at birth to accept the rules of grammar as well as pre prepared disk space to learn a language,so we may read a sentence, a series or words put together that makes perfect sense but we instinctively know that the words slightly re arranged would be more elegant.
:rolleyes:
Well some people can.:(

Language Log: Not to or to not (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002139.html)

not to, or to not?

Few things cause one true mental anguish, but this comes close. Negation is such a big thing in life -- a kind of fire with which one may not idly play, lest something smite.

Seems that the multiplicity of paths for the historical evolution of English has put us in this quandary: The Aryan-Teutonic side would have us say: "not to think, but only to do as told", with the negative nicht preceding and the infinitive "to think" effectively a set-piece compound word (zu denken) that would have different meanings in the series nicht zu denken and zu denken, nicht. By contrast, a Latin (with kudos to my one remaining active Latin brain cell) might say "think not, but act" using putasne as the conjugated verb "to not think".

(Hope I have that right... somewhat hastily done....on-the-run, as it were)

Whatever the origins, one has found the best way to noodle through this is to accept the flexibility of English to create new compound words on-the-fly.
With that leap of conscience, one may then think of using two different verbs - one for affirmation (to think ) and the other for negation (to notthink), with the latter fully equivalent to the latinic derivation (to thinknot).

A lot depends on whether one is going for tradition, style or clarity. On a weak or noisy radio channel, in the middle of a war, tothinkaffirmative and tothinknegative might be preferable.

Thank you all. I think!

No Lars, I have not been fired. My example comes from a post made in the Plan B thread and the way in which it was worded. I have always struggled with it and thought I'd ask.

Had I thought of it at the time, I would have included option c for you all to consider:

c. I was not trying to get fired

Splitting the 'not' and the 'to' would I think, be the most likely if spoken. Certainly if you were from round these parts

c. I was not trying to get fired


ie, I was not trying to get fired, it all happened automatically without any effort on my part.

I'd have to go with (c) - where 'not' modifies 'trying' as opposed to 'get fired'. Just sounds better to my ear.

Ah, the vagaries of the English language!

-------
Spiny

Gaunny no do that?

(copyright Chewing the Fat)

"To not get fired"

Pedantry or not, anyone who splits an infintive that clumsily deserves to get fired.

Stick with the Bard, let anyone else try and claim he was wrong. :ok:

"To be or not to be" NOT "To be or to not be"

Trying not to be fired. :ok:

I couldn't help but not to disagree with you less.:)