# He's not / he isn't ; You're not / you aren't



## Edher

Saludos,

          I know that these two options are both gramatically correct,

He's not the fastest person in this room.

or 

He isn't the fastest person in this room.

and

You're not the fastest person in this room.

or

You aren't the fastest person in this room.

        However, are they interchangeable or does one use " 's not" for certain occations and "isn't" for something else? 

                                                          Thank you, Edher


----------



## zebedee

There's no difference at all in meaning. They're interchangeable
I'd use "He's not the fastest person in the room" because you're being ironic and the emphasis when you speak on *not * helps to make your irony more blatant.

But that's probably just me!

zeb


----------



## B. Davis

Edher said:
			
		

> He cuts his own hair, and listens to Avril Levigne



Edher,

Those are some fairly serious indicators of potential abnormaility. I avoid the 's not construction simply because it's difficult to annunciate clearly. If I encountered that in a written speech that I was delivering I would substitute "is not" for the contraction to avoid the situation, unless my intention was to be sardonic, and then I would use the 's not construction, over the top.


Bruce


----------



## Edwin

Edher said:
			
		

> Corrections are encouraged and appriciated appreciated.
> Citar y responder



¿O fue eso intencionado?


----------



## Edwin

B. Davis said:
			
		

> I avoid the 's not construction simply because it's difficult to annunciate clearly.



Noo, it's not!   I think it's not hard to say, "it's not, he's not, she's not".


----------



## esme

I had never really realized the 'interchanablity'. I guess when you speak it all the time it really does not matter. However, in college level writing one is required not to have any contractions at all.


----------



## Jazztronik

What type of contraction is more used depending on countries? or cases?

eg:

"It isn't funny!"
"It's not funny!" 

"There isn't anyone here".
"There's not anyone here".

"You're not a good guy".
"You aren't a good guy".


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> What type of contraction is more used depending on countries? or cases?
> 
> eg:
> 
> "It isn't funny!"
> "It's not funny!"
> 
> "There isn't anyone here".
> "There's not anyone here".
> 
> "You're not a good guy".
> "You aren't a good guy".



First, in my English there is no such thing as "There's not anyone here." 

Second, the other sentences have different meanings according to how they are contracted in my English.

It isn't funny. "No es chistoso."
It's not funny. "No es un chiste/juego."

"You're not a good guy". "No eres un tipo bueno"
"You aren't a good guy". "No eres uno de los buenos."

Jerry Lewis isn't funny. The war in Iraq is not funny. I'm a good *GUY*. Superman is a *GOOD *guy.


----------



## Jazztronik

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I'm a good *GUY*. Superman is a *GOOD *guy.


 
I'm not sure what you mean here.

So, both contractions make different meanings?? I wouldn't ever have guessed. (or is it "I would never have guessed" better?)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean here.
> 
> So, both contractions make different meanings?? I wouldn't ever have guessed. (or is it "I would never have guessed" better?)


When you speak, you can stress either syllable of goodguy (I don't think you can spell it like that but I will to illustrate my point.

You can say good*gúy* (persona bueno) or *góod*guy (el bueno de la pelicula).

In the _Terminator_ Arnold is first the *bád*guy but in the sequels I think he becomes the *góod*guy. I don't know if he's a good*gúy* or a bad*gúy* because I have never met him.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> I wouldn't ever have guessed. (or is it "I would never have guessed" better?)


I like the second one much more than the first option. But "I wouldn't have ever guessed" is better too, I think.


----------



## Jazztronik

Thanks Residente! But do these particularities happen in every case like in "good" or "funny"? I mean the different meanings in different stress and contractions.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> Thanks Residente! But do these particularities happen in every case like in "good" or "funny"? I mean the different meanings in different stress and contractions.


You kind of memorize the meanings as you go along. It's really just like_ b*e*so_ and _bes*ó *_in Spanish. Or even "The *pro*duce section" and "I prod*uce* results."  Even if you can't read or are blind you hear and learn the difference.  Also, a *dárk *room used to be the place where you developed pictures as opposed to any old dark *róom*.

And sometimes there are nuances with the contractions. Bill Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman..." to stress that he absolutely did not. If he had said "I didn't have..." the lie would have been less emphatic.

Don't worry, even if you don't want to, these nuances will creep into your brain and you will know how to use them and understand them.


----------



## Soy Yo

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> First, in my English there is no such thing as "There's not anyone here."
> 
> Second, the other sentences have different meanings according to how they are contracted in my English.
> 
> It isn't funny. "No es chistoso."
> It's not funny. "No es un chiste/juego."
> 
> "You're not a good guy". "No eres un tipo bueno"
> "You aren't a good guy". "No eres uno de los buenos."
> 
> Jerry Lewis isn't funny. The war in Iraq is not funny. I'm a good *GUY*. Superman is a *GOOD *guy.


 
No veo la distinción que das, Residente.  Creo que, en "my English", el contexto y la manera en que lo dices es lo que da el significado a la oración.  Pero es muy interesante tu perspectiva...


----------



## Soy Yo

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean here.
> 
> So, both contractions make different meanings?? I wouldn't ever have guessed. (or is it "I would never have guessed" better?)


 
Lo más natural para mí es:

I would never have guessed.
I never would have guessed.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> No veo la distinción que das, Residente.  Creo que, en "my English", el contexto y la manera en que lo dices es lo que da el significado a la oración.  Pero es muy interesante tu perspectiva...



Yeah. In my English, when you forego the contraction you get more serious.

Jerry Lewis *isn't *funny. (So what? He's just an actor. Big deal!)

The war in Iraq *is not* funny. (People are dying. It's a pretty big deal)

I *can't* believe what you just said.  (what you said is important to me).

I *cannot* believe what you just said (what you said is *more *important to me).

Even my nephews do it. When they say "I *did not* do blah blah blah." it's more emphatic than "I *didn't* do blah blah blah."

And for some reason, "I didn't do _nothing_" happens but "I did not do nothing." almost never does. 

If you said "you aren't a good *gúy*" I would know you're not from around "the way." Don't ask me how. It just sounds off to me.

So they are different in these parts. (Crooklyn)


----------



## Soy Yo

Wow! Well, I will not be going to those parts for fear of contracting when I should not.

I agree that basically "did not" is more emphatic than "didn't"...but I believe that in most cases  you can say and mean the same thing with either one (in my English).


----------



## jacinta

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> What type of contraction is more used depending on countries? or cases?
> 
> eg:
> 
> "It isn't funny!" common
> "It's not funny!" common
> 
> "There isn't anyone here". common
> "There's not anyone here". not common
> 
> "You're not a good guy".
> "You aren't a good guy".



The two last sentences mean exactly the same to me.  I understand what Resident is saying but regardless of the stress you put on the words, the construction doesn´t change the meaning for me at all.  I vote for the first one. "You´re not a good guy."

It would be rare to hear someone say: "There´s not anyone here."
I think the most common way to say this is:  There´s no one here."


----------



## Jazztronik

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> And sometimes there are nuances with the contractions. Bill Clinton said "I *did not* have sex with that woman..." to stress that he absolutely did not. If he had said "I *didn't* have..." the lie would have been less emphatic.


 
Yes, I understand the use or not of the contraction implies difference of emphasis. I think it's the same way like saying:

I *like* 'gore' movies. (_normal way to say I like this type of movies_)
I *do* like 'gore' movies. (_I assure you I like this type of movies, because you don't seem to believe me_).

But my question was more aimed to analyze when it's better to use either *'s not* and *'re not*, or *isn't* and *aren't*.


----------



## jess oh seven

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> First, in my English there is no such thing as "There's not anyone here."
> 
> Second, the other sentences have different meanings according to how they are contracted in my English.
> 
> It isn't funny. "No es chistoso."
> It's not funny. "No es un chiste/juego."
> 
> "You're not a good guy". "No eres un tipo bueno"
> "You aren't a good guy". "No eres uno de los buenos."
> 
> Jerry Lewis isn't funny. The war in Iraq is not funny. I'm a good *GUY*. Superman is a *GOOD *guy.


There's not anyone here/There isn't anyone here = There's nobody here. Same thing.



> It isn't funny. "No es chistoso."
> It's not funny. "No es un chiste/juego."


i don't see where you're drawing the distinction from here...? both of them to me would mean "no tiene gracia". but of course depending on the context you'd want to emphasise the particular words accordingly.



> "You're not a good guy". "No eres un tipo bueno"
> "You aren't a good guy". "No eres uno de los buenos."



again, both the English sentences, to me, mean the same thing. you can change the emphasis on GOOD or GUY in them to make them differ in meaning, but it has nothing to do with the contraction.


----------



## AmethystSW

I think that these particular sentences have gained connotation from being overly used in one way or the other, but they still mean the same thing underneath.  It's like the difference between "It's just that I don't get to go." and "It is just that I don't get to go."  In reality, they are the same sentence. However, when a reader influenced by years of overuse sees "It's just" they immediately think "It's only." And when that same reader sees "It is just" they think "It is right."  So then, the two sentences would be different in their eyes:

"It's just that I can't go." --> "It's only that I can't go."
"It is just that I can't go." --> "I deserve not being able to go."

The sentences are, nevertheless, exactly the same.  It is only the conditioned mind of the reader that changes such meanings.


----------



## API003

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> And for some reason, "I didn't do _nothing_" happens but "I did not do nothing." almost never does.


Then you say that I didn't do nothing is correct? Or you only say that it's sometimes used?


----------



## Jazztronik

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> And for some reason, "I didn't do _nothing_" happens but "I did not do nothing." almost never does.


OMG!  Now I'm pretty puzzled!

you're using the negative twice!:

"I did *not* do *no*thing", when I always thought you have to choose only a negative:

either 
"I did *not* do anything"
or
"I did *no*thing"

So, wouldn't this sentence "I did *not* do *no*thing" be gramatically incorrect??


----------



## API003

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> So, wouldn't this sentence "I did *not* do *no*thing" be gramatically incorrect??


Correct or not it sounds more empathic to me...


----------



## soxlady

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> What type of contraction is more used depending on countries? or cases?
> 
> eg:
> 
> "It isn't funny!"
> "It's not funny!"
> 
> "There isn't anyone here".
> "There's not anyone here".
> 
> "You're not a good guy".
> "You aren't a good guy".


 
Actually I believe both mean the same thing:

It isn't funny and it's not funny= it is not funny
you're not a good guy and you aren't a good guy= you are not a good guy
it's just a shorter way to write, like don't(do not) and can't (cannot)

with the "There isn't anyone here" both are incorrect, it should be "There is no one here"


----------



## susantash

Hi,
I agree that    's not and isn't have the same meaning but the first is much more commonly used. At least I've heard it much more often.


----------



## Soy Yo

Jazztronik said:
			
		

> OMG!  Now I'm pretty puzzled!
> 
> you're using the negative twice!:
> 
> "I did *not* do *no*thing", when I always thought you have to choose only a negative:
> 
> either
> "I did *not* do anything"
> or
> "I did *no*thing"
> 
> So, wouldn't this sentence "I did *not* do *no*thing" be gramatically incorrect??


 
We did not do _nothing _is an emphatic way of saying "We did something."  This is the only way it can be considered grammatically correct.  It's like refuting someone who said "...and you did nothing!"  Your response is:  "We did not do _nothing_; we called 911 and the police came immediately."

If you mean to say "We did nothing."  Then the correct way to express that (with "not" is): We did not do anything. (We didn't do anything.); we did nothing.  To express this as "We didn't do nothing" is grammatically incorrect.


----------



## Soy Yo

AmethystSW said:
			
		

> I think that these particular sentences have gained connotation from being overly used in one way or the other, but they still mean the same thing underneath. It's like the difference between "It's just that I don't get to go." and "It is just that I don't get to go." In reality, they are the same sentence. However, when a reader influenced by years of overuse sees "It's just" they immediately think "It's only." And when that same reader sees "It is just" they think "It is right." So then, the two sentences would be different in their eyes:
> 
> "It's just that I can't go." --> "It's only that I can't go."
> "It is just that I can't go." --> "I deserve not being able to go."
> 
> The sentences are, nevertheless, exactly the same. It is only the conditioned mind of the reader that changes such meanings.


 
Amethyst, you are technically correct about just / only.  However, in normal speech, everyday speech we wouldn't use "just" to express this, we would use "fair."  "Just" sounds very formal and almost forced.  But as I said, you are correct in that both meanings are possible...and your point that the choice between "it's" and "it is" makes a difference is also well taken (but it could depend as much on the emphasis placed on the word "just" as on the choice between it's and it is.  Oh well, your comments are very interesting.


----------



## API003

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Amethyst, you are technically correct about just / only.  However, in normal speech, everyday speech we wouldn't use "just" to express this, we would use "fair."  "Just" sounds very formal and almost forced.  But as I said, you are correct in that both meanings are possible...and your point that the choice between "it's" and "it is" makes a difference is also well taken (but it could depend as much on the emphasis placed on the word "just" as on the choice between it's and it is.  Oh well, your comments are very interesting.


Really? I always use "just" 
So it'd be:
It's fair that I can't go
?

Thanks!


----------



## Soy Yo

API103, I think I'm correct.  Maybe you should wait for other opinions before you discard your "just."


----------



## API003

Okay, you are a native, you HAVE to be right


----------



## Soy Yo

Not necessarily, my friend.   I have a right to my opinion, but I may not be "right."


----------



## AmethystSW

I still like the word "just" but I can see what you are saying.  You certainly would not use it in that sentence.  I was trying to come up with an example for my post, and you caught me.  That meaning of "just" has been taken up by "fair" and "right."

It isn't just that the boy should die so young. (old fasioned)
It isn't fair that the boy should die so young. (weaker)
It isn't right the the boy should die so young. (stronger)


----------



## zmariel-x

Jazztronik said:


> What type of contraction is more used depending on countries? or cases?
> 
> eg:
> 
> "It isn't funny!"
> "It's not funny!"
> 
> "There isn't anyone here".
> "There's not anyone here".
> 
> "You're not a good guy".
> "You aren't a good guy".


 
You can use either of them most of the time, and as far as I'm aware, in any English speaking country.
However, there is no such thing as "There's not anyone here." That is a double negative. Instead we would say "There's nobody here."
If you wanted to exaggerate that there is nobody there you could say "There's not a single person there."


----------



## LaReinita

Jazztronik said:


> OMG!  Now I'm pretty puzzled!
> 
> you're using the negative twice!:
> 
> "I did *not* do *no*thing", when I always thought you have to choose only a negative:
> 
> either
> "I did *not* do anything"
> or
> "I did *no*thing"
> 
> So, wouldn't this sentence "I did *not* do *no*thing" be gramatically incorrect??


 
Tienes razón.  Esta oración es incorrecta.  No puede usar dos negativos en inglés.


----------



## HistofEng

"It's not" and "They're not" are more common, I think, because they're easier to say.


----------



## Soy Yo

zmariel-x said:


> You can use either of them most of the time, and as far as I'm aware, in any English speaking country.
> However, there is no such thing as "There's not anyone here." That is a double negative. Instead we would say "There's nobody here."
> If you wanted to exaggerate that there is nobody there you could say "There's not a single person there."


 
Are  you sure that "There's not anyone here" is a double negative?

I don't know anyone here so I think I'll go home.


----------



## Jazztronik

Soy Yo said:


> Are  you sure that "There's not anyone here" is a double negative?
> 
> I don't know anyone here so I think I'll go home.



Yes, I've been always taught that *anyone* is not a negative actually. *Nobody* and *no one* would be negative but not *anyone*.

Regarding  "I did *not* do *no*thing" (double negative), I understand that this is incorrect if you mean to say the same as in "I did *not* do *any*thing". But you can say it in some context to "deny the negative". Like saying in Spanish: "No es que no hice nada --> Sí que hice algo". So, "I did not do nothing --> I *did* do something actually". Or in this example similar to the one Soy Yo wrote: "You did nothing!". "That's not true! I didn't do _nothing_. I did do something!".


----------



## Soy Yo

Jazztronik said:


> Yes, I've been always taught that *anyone* is not a negative actually. *Nobody* and *no one* would be negative but not *anyone*.
> 
> Regarding "I did *not* do *no*thing" (double negative), I understand that this is incorrect if you mean to say the same as in "I did *not* do *any*thing". But you can say it in some context to "deny the negative". Like saying in Spanish: "No es que no hice nada --> Sí que hice algo". So, "I did not do nothing --> I *did* do something actually". Or in this example similar to the one Soy Yo wrote: "You did nothing!". "That's not true! I didn't do _nothing_. I did do something!".


 
So, Jazz, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?  I think that "There's not anyone here" is NOT a double negative.  That's what you said, too, right?


----------



## FromPA

There is absolutely no difference in the essential meaning between the contracted and non-contracted versions.  However, you can change the meaning of any sentence by stressing different words in a sentence, but I think that's reading way too much into the original question.


----------



## Forero

It is most common to contract the word _not_ to _n't_ and suffix it to the auxiliary verb.  This serves to negate the whole clause.  Second most common is to contract the auxiliary verb.

To contract or not to contract can be an issue that affects meaning several ways:

1. The most formal language avoids contractions, never contracting the verb and rarely contracting _not_.  Using formal language where informal is expected can definitely affect the meaning:  "George Kingfish Stevens!  That is not funny."

2. Contractions, especially those that are less common now than formerly, can make language sound poetic, or humorous: "'Tisn't funny as once 'twas."

3. Sometimes a contraction takes on a special meaning or is less likely to have the literal meaning of the uncontracted form.  For example, "let us" can mean "allow us", but "let's" never does.

4. An emphasized word is not contracted.  A word like _not_ can be emphasized for various purposes:

    a. To change the phrasing.  This is important with adverbs, and especially with _not_.
    b. For parallel constructions.
    c. To contrast with something that has been said.
    d. To contrast with what may be in someone's mind.
    e. To avoid mishearing: "I can. You cannot."
    f. For the sake of variety.

Sometimes the two forms can have identical meaning, but the less common form tends to suggest a less common interpretation.  I find Residente's interpretations as fitting the context he gives.  Context is important to distinguish the various possibilities (the ones I just listed and any I missed).


----------

