0

One of my friends once said “At least you didn’t be diplomatic.”. It somehow felt a little unsettling. Is “didn’t be” acceptable? Is it grammatically correct?

Ram Iyer
  • 101
  • 1
  • 3
  • It might be intended as a substitute for "You at least needn't be diplomatic" or a shorter version of "You at least didn't need to be diplomatic". – satnam Jul 03 '17 at 09:05
  • 1
    No, it isn't correct. Maybe a slip of the tongue for "didn't try to be diplomatic". –  Jul 03 '17 at 09:08
  • To add to what @KateBunting has said, he could have said "weren't diplomatic." – BlackSwan Jul 03 '17 at 09:24
  • It's unusual, but I don't agree that it's ungrammatical. – Colin Fine Jul 03 '17 at 10:07
  • 1
    “Weren’t diplomatic” is what I thought it should’ve been. But I also wanted to know if it was acceptable to use it. –  Jul 03 '17 at 13:10
  • I would think your friend was trying to say that you weren't undiplomatic. –  Jul 03 '17 at 20:54
  • @Xanne nah, she was saying that I wasn't being diplomatic. :) –  Jul 04 '17 at 17:24
  • Related: [Conditional: “are not” vs. “don't be”](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/44100) – sumelic Jul 06 '17 at 03:32
  • @sumelic Thank you! Don't have enough rep to upvote the comment. :) – Ram Iyer Jul 07 '17 at 05:50

1 Answers1

0

Most verbs in English form the negative in a strange way:

You jumped -> you didn't jump
You saw -> you didn't see

using the infinitive form ("jump", "see") and an auxiliary verb ("do", for example).

But a few special verbs (auxiliary verbs) form their negative in a different way by adding "not"

You were -> you were not = you weren't
You should -> you should not = you shouldn't

instead of

You were -> *you didn't be
You should -> *you didn't should

Perhaps if you read very old things, you find that even normal verbs used to do it this way

You jumped -> you jumped not
She loves me -> she loves me not

GEdgar
  • 705
  • 4
  • 9