negative force
<I think your dialect has a stronger preference than mine for "to not [verb]". >
Here's a few examples from Time mag:
"I'd like a list of books for advice on my issues: how to be supportive, how to not give up on myself while waiting for others to act or not, how to deal with his kids (all grown and married) if this were to become a reality, etc. -- "
......................
"Thank you so much for making it O.K. for me to not dress trashy to be cool.' " Time to rethink your wardrobe, Britney?"
................
Under the guidance of a music-video director who is known simply as McG, they all manage to not quite fall out of their costumes numerous times. But that's about it for suspense. Mostly, this movie is a succession of knock-offs.
----------------
And one from Calif.
As a certified pediatric nurse practitioner, I am constantly preaching to families that the real trick to not getting sick is eating healthy, getting vaccinated and exercising. If we can get more kids and their families to follow this advice, the next generation of adults will be healthier. KATHY FERTIG Santa Fe,
But is the second much clearer choice is here:
You should be briefed not to give him the keys.
You should be briefed to not give him the keys.
And here, according to Fitzmaurice, the insertion of "not" seems to turn "go" into a main verb and "to" into an infinitive marker proper.
"She's going not to make friends."
So there are restrictions.
<<Tis true - the examples with "not to" almost make it not clear just what is being negated (as it still echos Early New English negation and New English auxiliary/modal negation), whereas "to not" makes it very clear that it is the infinitive being negated.>>
<<I would not be surprised myself, as it makes just what is being negated less ambiguous and allows constructions like "I can't afford to not do math" possible in a way not really doable previously.>>
I disagree. I think my own preference would be for "not to" rather than "to not" in most of these cases, and I definitely don't perceive any ambiguity there. In a sentence like, "She decided not to tell him", it's completely clear to me what's meant - it wouldn't even occur to me that "not" might be negating "decided". So I don't think that the use of "to not" enables the use of double negative sentences that weren't doable before - it sounds perfectly natural for me to say, "I can't afford not to do math."
She supposed not to make friends. (Ambiguous in BrEng.)
She supposed to not make friends. (Unmbiguous in AmEng.)
>>"She's going not to make friends."<<
I should note that this is actually ungrammatical here - it *has* to be "She's going to not make friends" here.
<<I should note that this is actually ungrammatical here - it *has* to be "She's going to not make friends" here. >>
Why?
The "not" has to be placed after "is" (the verb) rather than "going" (a gerund). It should be "She is not going to make friends."
<The "not" has to be placed after "is" (the verb) rather than "going" (a gerund). It should be "She is not going to make friends." >
Kathy: Mary will probably make a few friends when she visits France.
Glen: She's going for exactly the opposite reason. She going not to make friends. She wants to be left alone.
Empahsis on "not".
"She going not to make friends."
That is a very nice sentence. LOL
It should "She isn't going to make friends." or "She is going to not make friends."
<It should "She isn't going to make friends." or "She is going to not make friends." >
You forgot to add "be" after "should".
It should be "She isn't going to make friends." or "She is going to not make friends."
And why should it be what you say? "She isn't going to make friends" is a perfectly grammatical sentence.
It seems that "not to" is sometimes equally favored to or favored over "to not" in form contrasting two things, hence my "to be or not to be" sounds okay to me and why in your example "She's going not to make friends. She wants to be left alone" actually sounds like the best choice even though normally "not" does not separate "going" from "to" here.
However, in these cases, I perceive the "not" not as simple negation, though, but rather as part of a contrast between two different things, even if such is separated between two sentences. As a result, "She's going not to make friends. She wants to be left alone" is actually not synonymous to "She's going to not make friends. She wants to be left alone" to me; the former indicates a contrast between "make friends" and "be left alone", whereas the latter just states two unconnected facts.
Similarly, "She's going not to make friends" is ungrammatical to me in isolation. It only becomes grammatical when followed by "She wants to be left alone", and in that case it is distinct from the normally grammatical "She's going to not make friends" to me.
"She's going not to make friends. She wants to be left alone" is still ungrammatical. It would be okay if it were "She's going not to make friends but to be left alone." but if you kept the second sentence "She wants to be left alone.", you would have to change the first to "She is not going to make friends." to make it correct.
<<"She's going not to make friends. She wants to be left alone" is still ungrammatical. >>
You still haven't expained why you think that is so. Want to explain?