3 ms·
The meaning is as if "not" modified "run", but syntactically "not" is attached to "must", I think. You can probably convince yourself of that by considering a s
by bloak 7y ago
The meaning is as if "not" modified "run", but syntactically "not" is attached to "must", I think. You can probably convince yourself of that by considering a sentence such as: they can yet must not run. So you are absolutely right to be confused by such sentences. There is something weird going on.
- brlewis 7y agoSee wiml's sibling comment for a correct reason why someone might be confused by such sentences. "Not" negates, so it is definitely not modifying "must". Clearly the word being negated is "run".
- bloak 7y agoBelieve it or not, as a native speaker of English who has studied linguistics, I do know that "not" negates, but thanks anyway.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoPerhaps an analogy to C's multiple declarations: int *i, j; i is a pointer to an int, j is an int. The * binds to the variable identifier, not to the type. Famously troublesome for beginners.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago"Mustn't" means exactly the same thing as "must not" (but makes it clear that the negative should be scoped to the verb, by using an inflected negative form of the verb itself), so yes, there's something funny going on with "must".