position of adverb

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Grzegorz Forc - 27 Mar 2010 22:09 GMT

Hi,
Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is wrong
while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?

Best Regards

Signature

Reply to this Message

Lewis - 27 Mar 2010 23:21 GMT

> Hi,
> Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is wrong
> while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?

Because the first needs commas.

I won't, probably, be at work.

Signature

A man does not make his destiny: he accepts it or denies it.

Reply to this Message

Stan Brown - 28 Mar 2010 02:39 GMT

27 Mar 2010 22:21:26 GMT from Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>:

> > Hi,
> > Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is wrong
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I won't, probably, be at work.

Bleccchhhh!

Inserting punctuation into a wrong sentence hardly ever fixes it.
The real issue is that the adverb is following the word that it
modifies, and it should precede it. (There are exceptions to that
rule, but this isn't one of them.)

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Reply to this Message

Lewis - 28 Mar 2010 04:24 GMT

> 27 Mar 2010 22:21:26 GMT from Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> I won't, probably, be at work.

> Bleccchhhh!

> Inserting punctuation into a wrong sentence hardly ever fixes it.
> The real issue is that the adverb is following the word that it
> modifies, and it should precede it. (There are exceptions to that
> rule, but this isn't one of them.)

The two sentence give a very different feel. The first is simply stating
a probability that one will not be at work. The other is stating one
will not be at work, while acknowledging this is only probable.

"I won't be at work, probably."

That would be better, but better is not always how people talk.

Signature

Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart. Captain Renault:
That is my *least* vulnerable spo

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 27 Mar 2010 23:35 GMT

> Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is wrong
> while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?

Yes: for the reasons explained on the thread of your identical but
separate post to a.e.u.

Signature

Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

Grzegorz Forc - 28 Mar 2010 08:43 GMT

Dnia 27-03-2010 o 23:35:47 Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com> napisał(a):

>> Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is wrong
>> while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?
>
> Yes: for the reasons explained on the thread of your identical but
> separate post to a.e.u.

Thanks a lot for you help. I promise not to clone posts in the future.
Best Regards

Signature

Reply to this Message

Joe Fineman - 28 Mar 2010 22:44 GMT

> Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is
> wrong while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?

"Probably" is what is called a sentence adverb -- that is, it
qualifies the whole sentence rather than a particular word in it.
Such adverbs idiomatically go early in the sentence. In contrast, an
adverb that modifies the main verb tends to come late, especially if
it is emphatic: "I will be at work early".

However, there is an oddity about your example that I cannot at the
moment explain. That is, that if there is a helping verb and the
sentence is positive, it is acceptable -- in fact, usual -- for the
sentence adverb to go after the helping verb: "I will probably be at
work" is perhaps more common than "Probably I will be at work" or "I
probably will be at work", tho all are acceptable. But, as you have
surmised, that is impossible when the verb is negated. Offhand I
can't say why.

As others on this thread have noted, if "probably" is stuck in as a
parenthesis or an afterthought, it can go almost anywhere; but then it
should be set off with commas or dashes or parentheses: "We'll fool
the doctor this time, probably."

Signature

--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net

||: Sometimes I don't know where my last meal is going to. :||

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 29 Mar 2010 00:03 GMT

[...]

> "Probably" is what is called a sentence adverb -- that is, it qualifies
> the whole sentence rather than a particular word in it. Such adverbs
> idiomatically go early in the sentence. In contrast, an adverb that
> modifies the main verb tends to come late, especially if it is emphatic:
> "I will be at work early".

A true adverb--that is, one that modifies only the sense of a verb--
follows that verb as closely as possible: either directly after it or
directly after the direct object if there is one. An adverb-form word in
any other location is a so-called "sentence adverb" (a terrible name as
it in fact modifies a clause).

"Sentence adverbs" can appear almost anywhere in a clause except where a
true adverb goes, but typically come either directly before the verb, at
the beginning, or at the end. There is an especially strong feeling,
though, that the sentence adverb "not" wants to go directly before the
verb, and in fact the "do-form" evolved largely to make that possible:

I think it not so.
I do not think it so.

The urgency about getting "not" where it "feels" best is what controls
the structure of the rest of the clause, including the position of
"probably".

Signature

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 29 Mar 2010 00:25 GMT

> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> the structure of the rest of the clause, including the position of
> "probably".

And (in case nobody's mentioned it already), of course, a negative has
to be placed very carefully in an English sentence, because it has a
proximity fuse which may or may not go off in any particular case. You
can sometimes end up negating the wrong word and changing the emphasis,
or even the meaning.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

John O'Flaherty - 29 Mar 2010 08:41 GMT

>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>the structure of the rest of the clause, including the position of
>"probably".

Using a different word, though,
"I won't likely be at work."
sounds better to me than
"I likely won't be at work."
What do you think?

Signature

John

Reply to this Message

Peter Moylan - 29 Mar 2010 13:04 GMT

>> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> "I likely won't be at work."
> What do you think?

This, I am forced to conclude, is multi-pondial. "I won't likely be at
work" doesn't even have a meaning in my (AusE) dialect. "I likely won't
be at work" will be understood here, but will be understood as BrE.

The AusE version is "I probably won't be at work". The variant "I won't
probably be at work" would be marked as ungrammatical.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 30 Mar 2010 02:19 GMT

[...]

> Using a different word, though,
> "I won't likely be at work."
> sounds better to me than
> "I likely won't be at work."
> What do you think?

As an opinion, the first is dreadful: I cannot imagine anyone ever
writing or saying it (though at times, in speech, slips can occur when
the speaker tries to change horses mid-stream, so to speak).

It remains ever so that the "not", contracted or no, urgently wants to
immediately precede the verb being negated: ". . . I won't be . . . ."

Signature

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

John O'Flaherty - 30 Mar 2010 17:17 GMT

>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>It remains ever so that the "not", contracted or no, urgently wants to
>immediately precede the verb being negated: ". . . I won't be . . . ."

Well, with you and Peter finding the construction strange, I wondered
whether this is an idiolectic abnormality of mine, but I do find it in
Google Books at only slightly lower frequency than the other order -
"likely won't": 857
"won't likely": 692

The numbers don't support my preference for the latter phrase, but I
don't think it's a monster. Here are a few examples from modern stuff:

"For most general users, though, you won't likely need this
statistic."
"There won't likely be many out."
"...although it won't likely be in the double."
"Smaller, innovative developers won't likely commit..."

I see some instances in older publications, for example -
Willa Cather, My Antonia: "I won't likely forget."

Signature

John

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 31 Mar 2010 03:16 GMT

[... in an earlier post]

> Some commoner exceptions:
>
> My life won't ever be normal again.
> It can't conceivably work that way.

Those are interesting examples. They seem unexceptionable, but
nonetheless, if one--at least this one--substitutes in "likely", they
collapse:

My life won't likely be normal again.
It can't likely work that way. [even ignoring the clash of sense]

I, at least, cannot at once put my finger on why these modifiers can
successfully displace the "not" from its wonted position while "likely"
cannot (at least not without sounding extraordinarily bizarre).

[...]

> Here are a few examples from modern stuff:
>
> "For most general users, though, you won't likely need this statistic."
> "There won't likely be many out."
> "...although it won't likely be in the double." "Smaller, innovative
> developers won't likely commit..."

Those just sound--again, to me--like people without a decent grasp of
idiom, or who are accustomed to uttering sentences even as they are in
the process of forging them.

> I see some instances in older publications, for example - Willa Cather,
> My Antonia: "I won't likely forget."

That strikes me as a literary ellipsis for "I won't [be] likely [to]
forget." I suppose the first "modern" example above could be excused on
the same ground, though it doesn't sound so neat as Ms. Cather's use.

Signature

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

John O'Flaherty - 31 Mar 2010 19:24 GMT

>[... in an earlier post]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>successfully displace the "not" from its wonted position while "likely"
>cannot (at least not without sounding extraordinarily bizarre).

I thought about it overnight. At least for the case of "can't
conceivably", I'm inclined to think that the negation is of
"conceivably", and the negative unit so formed then negates the verb.
Certainly, "can't conceivably" is way different than "conceivably
can't". A similar argument could apply to "won't ever", even if the
flavor is different.

>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>forget." I suppose the first "modern" example above could be excused on
>the same ground, though it doesn't sound so neat as Ms. Cather's use.

Signature

John

Reply to this Message

Eric Walker - 01 Apr 2010 00:18 GMT

[...]

>>> My life won't ever be normal again.
>>> It can't conceivably work that way.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> can't". A similar argument could apply to "won't ever", even if the
> flavor is different.

Yeah, I had something of the same thoughts myself at the time. It's
probably worth some pondering, but I'm about fresh out of ponder just
now, and am quite glad to accept your explanation as exactly correct.

Signature

Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Reply to this Message

John O'Flaherty - 30 Mar 2010 19:58 GMT

>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>It remains ever so that the "not", contracted or no, urgently wants to
>immediately precede the verb being negated: ". . . I won't be . . . ."

Some commoner exceptions:

My life won't ever be normal again.
It can't conceivably work that way.

Signature

John

Reply to this Message

Stan Brown - 29 Mar 2010 08:28 GMT

Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:44:17 -0400 from Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net>:

> However, there is an oddity about your example that I cannot at the
> moment explain. That is, that if there is a helping verb and the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> surmised, that is impossible when the verb is negated. Offhand I
> can't say why.

I couldn't articulate a reason, but earlier I thought "IO will
probably not be at work" would be acceptable. Now you have
articulated the reason -- "probably" can follow the helping verb.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Reply to this Message

Nick - 29 Mar 2010 07:51 GMT

> Hi,
> Can you please tell me guys why: "I won't probably be at work" is
> wrong while "I probably won't be at work" is ok?

The first is very odd. It's as if you started with a sentence saying
you'd probably be at work, and then negated it. About the only way I
can see that working is in something like:

"You know I said I might need a few days off work next week, but would
probably be in on Friday? Well I won't probably be at work on Friday, I
definitely will [or won't be]". Contrived, and there are some virtual
quotes around the second "probably".

Signature

Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2010

position of adverb