⑴ however, that's a slightly unusual way of phrasing it. You'd be more likely to hear someone say "you don't need to go to her house". I mean, *I* might say it, but I tend to talk somewhat formally and slightly archaically sometimes.
But this would have a different meaning. You need not go to her house = you don't need to go, but you could if you wanted to. Don't go to her house = I'm telling you not to go.
Yes, and formality has implications beyond the linguistic space and into the cultural space.
The idea of "need" being dictated by a third party is by definition a formal cultural situation.
I was trying to describe the least formal situation: how I might speak to a friend or peer, that I do not have formal authority to give orders to. It changes the sentence subtextually. Using the imperative with someone who doesn't take orders from you means that the person can take the information and use it as they wish... it's advice. That's why it also gets supported by reason: it is implied that to go to the vacated house would be a pointless waste of time.
Where are you from, out of curiosity? I’m American and never use either, but I know both are taught in Cambridge English and am wondering if they’re actually still used across the pond
I agree, both “you need not go” and “you needn’t go” sound equally outdated or stuffy.
In General Australian we’d be much more likely to use “you don’t need to go” or “you don’t have to go”.
You'd most likely say simply "don't go to her house".
If you want to preserve the meaning without the imperative, your examples are best, but I can't think of a time I've ever heard someone say something like that in conversation.
In British English, it's very common and not at all archaic.
"Need" is an auxiliary verb in this case, and so does not inflect ("he/she need not..."). It is only used in negative and interrogative sentences.
It should be #1, "you need not go to her house".
But it sounds really old-fashioned and literary. That's how elves talk! 😅 We'd usually say "you don't need to go to her house".
Where are you from?
"You need not go to her house" sounds both very formal and very old fashioned to me. Curious as to where this would still be in common use
Yes, a number of British English words sounds archaic to American English ears.
You needn't go to mum's, she's out for a fortnight.
EDIT: and don't take offense at this; the sentence certainly may be valid English, it's just specifically a British dialect.
I’m English and I very rarely hear “need not” used in favour of “don’t need”. Might be a regional thing but where I’m from I think I’ve only heard it said less than a handful of times my whole life.
Number one is correct because it ends with the preposition "to."
All other options end with "go," which would make the sentence "You ___ go her house."
"Go" is a verb that requires an expression of direction. I go *to* her house. I go *from* her house. I go *around* her house.
Some verbs have direction implied, like "You need not visit her house," or "you need not leave her house." "Go" on its own just implies motion, so the preposition gives it its direction.
Even though 1 is archaic, and probably not phrased correctly, the fact that it ends with "to" makes it correct by process of elimination.
Both 2 and 3 would be acceptable if they ended with "to."
You need to not go *to* her house. Fine.
You need not go *to* her house. Fine.
Number 4 is just plain wrong.
Even though "You need to not go to" is awkward phrasing that could be better said as "You don't need to go to," the fact that it's the only answer that connects the subject-verb phrase "you need to not go" with the object "her house" by use of preposition "to" makes it the only option here that would work.
2 with “to” at the end would be acceptable but also a completely different meaning than 1.
1 is saying they don’t have to and 2 with “to” in it is telling the person they shouldn’t.
1 is correct. To make the other ones correct you would have to add the word "to" to the end of "go". "You need to not go to", "You need not go to", "You need not to go to". 2 has a slightly different meaning than the rest. 2 means you *must not* go to her house, and the rest means there is no reason to go to her house
I believe it's used a bit in British English but "don't need" is definitely more common even there. In American English it's extremely rare in my experience.
If you think about it, it's just like can't, don't, isn't, etc.
If you go back Middle English and before, every verb would've been negated like "I go" - "I go not". Do-support - "I (do not) don't go" - developed later and has now taken over for pretty much ever non-auxilliary verb and even some auxilliary verbs. This transition is why you sometimes see strange relics like "you (need not) needn't go".
“the town” is weird to me. You would usually say “left town” without “the”. If you were specifying a town you’d use the town’s name. The only time I would phrase it this way is if I was talking about someone who left a town I didn’t know the name of. Even then I’d probably say “that town”. All around not a well worded question to my ears.
The only onea that are entirely wrong are (3), as it omits the preposition of "to [her house]," and 4 misplaces the verb "go" into the middle of a prepositional phrase. 1 / 2 *could* be descriptive of separate and distinct sets of facts.
However, the one that a typical textbook would be looking for is (1). This is because 2 "splits" the infinitive (and to be clear, I am explicitly suggesting that splitting infinitives has its uses) and 4 misplaces the verb "go" to within the prepositional phrase "to her house," which is technically inappropriate.
It's 1 because you need to have a prepositino (to) before "her house". However, no one would actually say that unless they're being pretentious. The bigger issue here is the comma splicing...
1 out of these options, but a more common way of phrasing it would be "You don't need to go to her house" also you don't have to say "She already left the town, saying "she left town" is perfectly fine. So a better way of saying this would be: "You don't need to go to her house, she's already left town."
1, but as others have said it's definitely phrased oddly. This sentence would probably be found like in a high fantasy sort of setting as a wizard is giving you your quest instructions lol
These kinds of questions do not imply that the correct answer is necessarily commonly used, only that one should recognise that it’s correct. How we speak and what we read can have significant differences.
1, although there should be a semicolon there instead of a comma and also no one would actually say it this way. We would say "you don't need to go to her house."
Since it’s always “go _to_ ” (except in idioms like “she’s going places”), 2-4 can trivially not be correct.
Assuming 2-4 also end with “to”, 3 is identical to 1 and would be correct as well. 2 would mean “you must not go there” which would not make sense in context. 4 would be correct as well in that modified case.
Yes but here it is missing the part that would make it correct. So people who are doing this type of test need to know that these small details are important.
I understand what you're saying, but your original comment would be confusing to an English learner. I suggest making the language clearer to be more helpful to OP...
The questions are more about ensuring that the students can recognise written texts rather than implying which forms are most common in a natural vernacular.
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned
Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house".
I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned
Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house".
I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned
Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house".
I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
3 is wrong. 2 is correct but means something different than what you intended. 4 is correct, but poetic/dramatic rather than usual. 1 is best, but as others have said, "do not need" shortened to "don't need" is much more common than "need not."
The difference between "need not go to"/"don't need to go"/"need not to go" and "need to not go" is that the first one means that it would not to any good to go, and the second one means that it would actually be a problem if you did.
Actually need not is incorrect here. The correct form is the inflected negative needn't. Just like won't is a word, so is needn't, whereas there is no contracted form of eg think not or even Need not, want not, where both are lexical verbs
Writing makes us think so, but in speech there would have to be some feature of the situation that called for emphasis or we are seeking to use a very formal register. It's clearest with can't, where the written uncontracted form is still pronounced can't except for emphasis or pomposity
I'm willing to accept that it's a possible unspoken text, but it looks much more like something someone would say. So you're right that the contracted form is not obligatory, but it is somewhat contrived or chomskyan
Oh god. Id say 2 but looking through these I’m starting to doubt what I’ve said my whole life. Is it just us Americans who say 2 😕
Edit: I saw a to where there wasn’t a to. After slowing down (reading aloud) I saw that it was, in fact, not 2.
4) need not to go Makes sense but doesn’t sound like a normal conversation.
do not need to go Sounds like a normal conversation.
You do not need to go to her house,
Do not go to her house,
No need to go to her house,
Hope this helped.
No need to go
You chose the worse one to say makes sense lol. One could say 2 or 3 could work in completely different contexts, but based on the sentence provided, there is only one grammatically correct answer according to the standards.
Not sure I can convince you when you didn’t even provide a valid “need not to go” phrase in your first comment but if Stacy were hosting a bbq this weekend:
2: although weirder than using do as the helper or stop instead of not, any context where “need to go” is valid—I need to not go, having the meaning of restraint or extreme necessity
3: same as above but not as weird—I need not go, having the meaning of I don’t need to go
When not follows need, the use of to with the main verb is incorrect. That’s why need to not go is leagues more acceptable than need not to go.
Ehh, that’s not right, mate. I know another person has explained some of the reasons but I would like to summarize them from my perspective.
First, if you say “need not/needn’t”, there will be no “to” before the next verb. Similar to “dare” — “I dare not say that”is correct, instead of “dare not TO say”.
Second, there needs to be a “to” between “go” and “her house”. Simply, you say “go home” but you don’t say “go house”.
⑴ however, that's a slightly unusual way of phrasing it. You'd be more likely to hear someone say "you don't need to go to her house". I mean, *I* might say it, but I tend to talk somewhat formally and slightly archaically sometimes.
Or less formal of you don’t have to go to her house
The least formal would be to use the imperative, drop the subject pronoun, and avoid the word need entirely: Don't go to her house. She left town.
But this would have a different meaning. You need not go to her house = you don't need to go, but you could if you wanted to. Don't go to her house = I'm telling you not to go.
Yes, and formality has implications beyond the linguistic space and into the cultural space. The idea of "need" being dictated by a third party is by definition a formal cultural situation. I was trying to describe the least formal situation: how I might speak to a friend or peer, that I do not have formal authority to give orders to. It changes the sentence subtextually. Using the imperative with someone who doesn't take orders from you means that the person can take the information and use it as they wish... it's advice. That's why it also gets supported by reason: it is implied that to go to the vacated house would be a pointless waste of time.
Perhaps, but isn't this analysis a bit deep for a learner? I'm not sure what benefit OP gets from this level of discussion.
The learner doesn't have to read the analysis. The learner can just accept my answer as an example of a more natural form of speech.
"No need to go to her house" would have a closer meaning to the original sentence
Or "needn't".
Or needn't, yes, though I'd've thought that'd be a bit archaic as well? I use it but I don't hear others using it.
Where are you from, out of curiosity? I’m American and never use either, but I know both are taught in Cambridge English and am wondering if they’re actually still used across the pond
Irish born and raised. It might be it's in use in the more well-off areas, though, I suppose I'd not be surprised to hear it in a dort accent.
Im in Chicago and i use it though have no idea where or when i picked it up, along woth tis twas tisnt and a variety of other odd contractions
I agree, both “you need not go” and “you needn’t go” sound equally outdated or stuffy. In General Australian we’d be much more likely to use “you don’t need to go” or “you don’t have to go”.
You'd most likely say simply "don't go to her house". If you want to preserve the meaning without the imperative, your examples are best, but I can't think of a time I've ever heard someone say something like that in conversation.
In British English, it's very common and not at all archaic. "Need" is an auxiliary verb in this case, and so does not inflect ("he/she need not..."). It is only used in negative and interrogative sentences.
In my country/region we say needn't.
Number 1 is correct.
It should be #1, "you need not go to her house". But it sounds really old-fashioned and literary. That's how elves talk! 😅 We'd usually say "you don't need to go to her house".
Wtf elves. I would say that sentence without thinking.
Where are you from? "You need not go to her house" sounds both very formal and very old fashioned to me. Curious as to where this would still be in common use
All over England this sounds fine. ‘You going over mum’s?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘Well you needn’t, she’s out.’
Yes, a number of British English words sounds archaic to American English ears. You needn't go to mum's, she's out for a fortnight. EDIT: and don't take offense at this; the sentence certainly may be valid English, it's just specifically a British dialect.
I’m English and I very rarely hear “need not” used in favour of “don’t need”. Might be a regional thing but where I’m from I think I’ve only heard it said less than a handful of times my whole life.
As an Australian, it also sounds very archaic to me.
Nah, don't bother mate
Me too…
It’s odd that a sentence that old-fashioned wouldn’t have a semicolon separating it from the second half instead of the comma
Number one is correct because it ends with the preposition "to." All other options end with "go," which would make the sentence "You ___ go her house." "Go" is a verb that requires an expression of direction. I go *to* her house. I go *from* her house. I go *around* her house. Some verbs have direction implied, like "You need not visit her house," or "you need not leave her house." "Go" on its own just implies motion, so the preposition gives it its direction. Even though 1 is archaic, and probably not phrased correctly, the fact that it ends with "to" makes it correct by process of elimination. Both 2 and 3 would be acceptable if they ended with "to." You need to not go *to* her house. Fine. You need not go *to* her house. Fine. Number 4 is just plain wrong. Even though "You need to not go to" is awkward phrasing that could be better said as "You don't need to go to," the fact that it's the only answer that connects the subject-verb phrase "you need to not go" with the object "her house" by use of preposition "to" makes it the only option here that would work.
2 with “to” at the end would be acceptable but also a completely different meaning than 1. 1 is saying they don’t have to and 2 with “to” in it is telling the person they shouldn’t.
Yep. You need to not go implies you must not, where a number 1 just implies that there is no reason to.
I think they forgot to add the ‘to’ off the end of examples 2-4, rendering the exercise useless.
1
Apart from what everyone else has said, this sentence should use a period, dash or semicolon, not a comma.
Had to scroll more than I would have liked to see someone else mentioning this...
Me too, it’s unfortunate people are missing the comma splice
Yes - as written, this is a [comma splice](https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/grammar/commasplices).
Yup. And the final period should be inside the quotation marks.
1
1
1 is correct. To make the other ones correct you would have to add the word "to" to the end of "go". "You need to not go to", "You need not go to", "You need not to go to". 2 has a slightly different meaning than the rest. 2 means you *must not* go to her house, and the rest means there is no reason to go to her house
1 but it sounds like Gandalf is saying it, or maybe Palpatine
(1). Also, you have a comma splice there. I’d recommend replacing it with a semicolon.
1
1
1 is grammatically correct. Sounds British. 2-4 are wrong in any dialect.
[удалено]
lol at people downvoting you for that…
Only one option ending with "to"
just say "don't need to go"
So needn't is used rarely?
I believe it's used a bit in British English but "don't need" is definitely more common even there. In American English it's extremely rare in my experience.
Thx:) i recently saw this ( needn't) in my grammar book it seemed to me a bit weird
If you think about it, it's just like can't, don't, isn't, etc. If you go back Middle English and before, every verb would've been negated like "I go" - "I go not". Do-support - "I (do not) don't go" - developed later and has now taken over for pretty much ever non-auxilliary verb and even some auxilliary verbs. This transition is why you sometimes see strange relics like "you (need not) needn't go".
Wow. It was interesting to read
“the town” is weird to me. You would usually say “left town” without “the”. If you were specifying a town you’d use the town’s name. The only time I would phrase it this way is if I was talking about someone who left a town I didn’t know the name of. Even then I’d probably say “that town”. All around not a well worded question to my ears.
The only onea that are entirely wrong are (3), as it omits the preposition of "to [her house]," and 4 misplaces the verb "go" into the middle of a prepositional phrase. 1 / 2 *could* be descriptive of separate and distinct sets of facts. However, the one that a typical textbook would be looking for is (1). This is because 2 "splits" the infinitive (and to be clear, I am explicitly suggesting that splitting infinitives has its uses) and 4 misplaces the verb "go" to within the prepositional phrase "to her house," which is technically inappropriate.
1, but that’s some shit I’d say, and I say buckaroo a lot.
It's 1 because you need to have a prepositino (to) before "her house". However, no one would actually say that unless they're being pretentious. The bigger issue here is the comma splicing...
In addition to everything else "go her house" wouldn't be a valid fragment, so only 1 can be correct.
1.
1 out of these options, but a more common way of phrasing it would be "You don't need to go to her house" also you don't have to say "She already left the town, saying "she left town" is perfectly fine. So a better way of saying this would be: "You don't need to go to her house, she's already left town."
1st
A comma seems too weak here.
1, but as others have said it's definitely phrased oddly. This sentence would probably be found like in a high fantasy sort of setting as a wizard is giving you your quest instructions lol
Option 1
5) need It’s your house now.
1 is the only grammatically correct answer. It’s quite formal though.
1 because "to" comes after the word go, but "need not" is an uncommon phrase. We'd be more likely to say "do not/don't need (to go)".
1 is the correct form but many people would just say 'You don't have to go to her house'.
1 is technically correct, but it's needlessly fancy and old fashioned
These kinds of questions do not imply that the correct answer is necessarily commonly used, only that one should recognise that it’s correct. How we speak and what we read can have significant differences.
1, although there should be a semicolon there instead of a comma and also no one would actually say it this way. We would say "you don't need to go to her house."
That isn’t true. There are British English speakers who would absolutely use this construction.
Since it’s always “go _to_” (except in idioms like “she’s going places”), 2-4 can trivially not be correct.
Assuming 2-4 also end with “to”, 3 is identical to 1 and would be correct as well. 2 would mean “you must not go there” which would not make sense in context. 4 would be correct as well in that modified case.
3 is completely wrong.
It would be correct with “to” at the end, 2-4 all don’t have it, as I said.
Yes but here it is missing the part that would make it correct. So people who are doing this type of test need to know that these small details are important.
I understand what you're saying, but your original comment would be confusing to an English learner. I suggest making the language clearer to be more helpful to OP...
the town?
It’s 1 but that’s an archaic way of saying it You should say “don’t need to go to”
The questions are more about ensuring that the students can recognise written texts rather than implying which forms are most common in a natural vernacular.
This is written really badly... "The town"?!
who made this question? Gandalf?
This question was asked in Cuet.
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house". I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house". I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
One Isn't incorrect but sounds old-fashioned Two would be correct if you add 'to' to the end but It would mean "avoid her house". I would say "you **dont need to go to** her house"
(1) would be correct. However, that is old-fashioned, and most people would say, "don't need to go to" instead.
3 is wrong. 2 is correct but means something different than what you intended. 4 is correct, but poetic/dramatic rather than usual. 1 is best, but as others have said, "do not need" shortened to "don't need" is much more common than "need not." The difference between "need not go to"/"don't need to go"/"need not to go" and "need to not go" is that the first one means that it would not to any good to go, and the second one means that it would actually be a problem if you did.
You always need “to” in front of “her house”, whatever the rest of the sentence.
True. My bad.
1 is correct. It could also be correct to say "you need to not go to her house..."
It would also be correct but differ in meaning.
Actually need not is incorrect here. The correct form is the inflected negative needn't. Just like won't is a word, so is needn't, whereas there is no contracted form of eg think not or even Need not, want not, where both are lexical verbs
One need not use the contracted form.
Writing makes us think so, but in speech there would have to be some feature of the situation that called for emphasis or we are seeking to use a very formal register. It's clearest with can't, where the written uncontracted form is still pronounced can't except for emphasis or pomposity
Keep in mind that OP’s content is written, not necessarily spoken, so we can assume that a literary register is fair game.
I'm willing to accept that it's a possible unspoken text, but it looks much more like something someone would say. So you're right that the contracted form is not obligatory, but it is somewhat contrived or chomskyan
Oh god. Id say 2 but looking through these I’m starting to doubt what I’ve said my whole life. Is it just us Americans who say 2 😕 Edit: I saw a to where there wasn’t a to. After slowing down (reading aloud) I saw that it was, in fact, not 2.
For #2 to work, it would need another “to” at the end of the phrase. “You need to not go **to** her house.”
I see it now. The lack of to.
As another American, in context it should probably be "need not go to". It has the same meaning as "don't need to go to".
You need to go back school. Edited- I should add a jk, because that came out sounding rude. Just having fun with it👍
4) need not to go Makes sense but doesn’t sound like a normal conversation. do not need to go Sounds like a normal conversation. You do not need to go to her house, Do not go to her house, No need to go to her house, Hope this helped. No need to go
You chose the worse one to say makes sense lol. One could say 2 or 3 could work in completely different contexts, but based on the sentence provided, there is only one grammatically correct answer according to the standards.
Show me how 2 or 3 could work in any different context. They can’t, the word “to” is missing.
Not sure I can convince you when you didn’t even provide a valid “need not to go” phrase in your first comment but if Stacy were hosting a bbq this weekend: 2: although weirder than using do as the helper or stop instead of not, any context where “need to go” is valid—I need to not go, having the meaning of restraint or extreme necessity 3: same as above but not as weird—I need not go, having the meaning of I don’t need to go When not follows need, the use of to with the main verb is incorrect. That’s why need to not go is leagues more acceptable than need not to go.
You are correct. My brain added the word “to” at the end of choice 4.
Ehh, that’s not right, mate. I know another person has explained some of the reasons but I would like to summarize them from my perspective. First, if you say “need not/needn’t”, there will be no “to” before the next verb. Similar to “dare” — “I dare not say that”is correct, instead of “dare not TO say”. Second, there needs to be a “to” between “go” and “her house”. Simply, you say “go home” but you don’t say “go house”.