# EN: It need not be so



## Corneille

Hello, 

I'd like to get a "scientific" explanation as to why there is no "s" on "need" in spite of "it" being the subject of the sentence.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## jann

Because this is one of the rare cases of the English subjunctive!


----------



## samavecelan

I would always say "It does not need" (without the 's'), but "It needs," or similarly "It seems" but "It doesn't seem."  Maybe someone else could back me up, but "it," which would normally be conjugated as a singular noun, gets a plural conjugation when negative.


----------



## jann

> Maybe someone else could back me up, but "it," which would normally be conjugated as a singular noun, gets a plural conjugation when negative.


I think you've confused yourself 

The conjugated verb in your negative is "to do" --> does, which is 3rd person singular. 

It does need... / It does not need....

But "It need not" is something else... and I believe it to be the subjunctive.   To be confirmed...


----------



## floise

samavecalan,

The explanation for using the base form of the verb (need/seem in your examples) is that in English, when you make a question or a negative with does or do, the verb reverts to its base form and does not get the third person singular inflection (s). (It is not a plural form, by the way).

So:

He loves milk.

Does he love milk? 

He does not love milk.

No 's' on the main verb when an auxiliary is used.
*******************************
(after some research):

I found an explanation for Corneille's example: it need not be so. _Need_ itself is the auxiliary! 

See here (grammar explanation 323):

http://books.google.com/books?id=z6...ts=XVnZs0yjxH&sig=fREWuXwTisVtpF-fX_IWqewbFZY

floise


----------



## Corneille

Thanks everybody for your helpful explanations.  I'll do some research as well.  By the way, this sentence comes from a short essay by Arthur Miller.  Here is the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6D7133EF93BA35756C0A964958260.  The problematic sentence is in the third paragraph.


----------



## floise

Corneille,

Please see the edit on my post (5) above. 

floise


----------



## Corneille

_"Need_ itself is the auxiliary!".  It's crystal clear now and scientific enough for my standards.


----------



## samavecelan

Oops, that makes much more sense.  I guess I need to go back and learn grammar.  This is just one of those things I've never had explained to me.
Interesting article, Corneille.  The sentence is, to be honest, a little awkward, and might sound better with "does," in my humble opinion.


----------



## Corneille

It's an unusual sentence in my humble opinion as well.  At least, I've never heard such turns of phrase.  Besides, I would have thought that this sentence was not grammatically correct if the author had not been a well-known expert.


----------



## floise

Corneille,

I have seen this expression used and it does not look odd to me. I may even have used it myself a few times!  Keep reading; you'll surely come across it again.


floise


----------



## sound shift

I don't find anything unusual about the sentence either.


----------



## Emillyb

No, there's nothing wrong with it, although it would be quite formal if used in speech. I actually find it very elegant.

Be careful samavecelan - if you do decide to add 'does' to a phrase like this, you also have to add 'to':

"It does not need to be so."

But I don't think anyone would actually ever say this. You'd be more likely to say "It does not need to be like that."

Now I'm not an expert, but my opinion is that even if 'need' is itself the auxillary (which makes sense to me), this phrase is nevertheless in the subjunctive mode (given the use of 'be').


----------



## floise

Hi Emillyb,

If 'need' is the auxiliary in the sentence under discussion (which I am quite convinced is the case), 'be' is the main verb. When you use an auxiliary, the main verb is in its base form (the infinitive), and that is the reason it says 'it need not be so' It cannot be in the subjunctive if it is with an auxiliary verb. 

Here's an example of 'be' as a subjunctive:

Whether it *be* tomorrow or next week is not the point; I just want the job done'.

floise


----------



## itka

Hi Floise !



> If 'need' is the auxiliary in the sentence under discussion (which I am quite convinced is the case), 'be' is the main verb.



I agree with you, but... I don't understand why even if it's the auxiliary it doesn't take the "s" of the 3rd person...

Usually, the auxiliaries are conjugated like main verbs : I don't/he doesn't... Why not : I need to be.../it needs to be...

I don't understand at all the possibility it were a subjunctive... Why a subjunctive in this sentence ?


----------



## floise

Hi itka,

If you look at the link I posted earlier (see grammar point 323):

http://books.google.com/books?id=z6...ts=XVnZs0yjxH&sig=fREWuXwTisVtpF-fX_IWqewbFZY

The use of 'need' as an auxiliary is explained. 

It's a rarer auxiliary, not like 'do', which is inflected in the third person singular (_does_). It acts more like '*must'*, which I would call a '_modal auxiliary_', and which does not get an inflection (I must wait/he must wait). 

There is no justification for its being a subjunctive. 

floise


----------



## itka

Thank you Floise, for your explanations and for the link. Very interesting for other auxiliaries too !


----------

