# don't need / needn't



## santodomingo

please I would like to know the difference if any between I *don't need* and I *needn't.

*thanks a lot in advance.

Jorge Flores

Lima Peru


----------



## bailarín

They mean the same thing but "needn't" sounds very archaic.  Nobody uses that word in everyday speak unless they're trying to be funny (at least here in the USA).


----------



## grubble

Interesting.

_I need to go home.

I do not need to go home.

I don't need to go home.

I need not go home.

I needn't go home._

The placing of "not" makes a difference because "need" is followed by a full infinitive ("I do not need *to* <verb>")
However "not" is followed by the bare infinitive. (I need *not* <verb>)


----------



## grubble

bailarín said:


> They mean the same thing but "needn't" sounds very archaic.  Nobody uses that word in everyday speak unless they're trying to be funny (at least here in the USA).


How about, for example:

"You needn't think I'm giving you a lift/ride home after the party...not after what you said to me!"

Is that current in US English?


----------



## santodomingo

thank you very much, is there any difference in meaning? thanks again.
Jorge


----------



## bailarín

grubble said:


> How about, for example:
> 
> "You needn't think I'm giving you a lift/ride home after the party...not after what you said to me!"
> 
> Is that current in US English?



I would completely understand it, but I would never say that myself.

I'd say something like: "Don't expect a ride home after the party... not after what you said to me!"



santodomingo said:


> thank you very much, is there any difference in meaning? thanks again.
> Jorge



Perhaps grubble can be of more help.  They both mean the same to me, but perhaps there is an example that I'm not thinking about right now in which one would prefer one over the other.


----------



## ElRojito

Needn't is quite archaic


----------



## grubble

I would say that they mean the same but, judging by the above, "needn't" is used in the UK but not the USA.


----------



## santodomingo

thank you bailarin, you have been a great help.
Jorge


----------



## elprofe

But you (people from EE.U.U) do use "needn't" in past sentences without sounding archaic, right?

At least in British English, there is a difference between "I didn't need to" and "I needn't have"

For example:
_You needn't have bought any food, we have already had lunch _(you did buy some food)
_You didn't need to buy any food because we had already had lunch _(you didn't buy some food because it was not necessary)

Does that sentence with "needn't" sound odd too?


----------



## bailarín

Hi, elprofe.  No, I see your subtle difference, but we would still use "didn't" for both cases.

You didn't have to buy any food.  We already had lunch.

We simply do not use "needn't."  I'm speaking generally, of course.  I'm sure you can find someone who uses it.  It's just not common to my ears.


----------



## elprofe

Ok! Thank you very much for clearing up that doubt for me 
Anyway, I will stick to the British version, I'm sorry hehe


----------



## Masood

_needn't_ sounds rather formal to me. I don't think I've ever used it, to be honest.


----------



## cubaMania

The main grammatical difference between "I don't need...."  and "I  needn't..." is that in the first, the verb "need" is a main verb,  whereas in the second it is an auxiliary verb.  In order to get good  answers to your questions, you should provide complete sentences instead  of fragments.  Nevertheless, here are a few points regarding these two  versions of "need".

You can say "I don't need any more pencils."  where "need" is the main verb.  But you cannot reasonably say "I  needn't any more pencils." because the form "need not" is the negative  form for the auxiliary verb and requires some other verb as a main verb.
You  can say "I don't need to go to school today."  Its equivalent using  "need" as an auxiliary verb is "I needn't go to school today." They mean  the same thing, but note that in the second the bare infinitive "go" is  functioning as the main verb, whereas in the first "need" is the main  verb and the full infinitive "to go" is functioning as a complement, the  object of the main verb "need".

Another thing to note is that  "need" as an auxiliary is used today only in the negative with "not".   Many people (yes, including Americans like me) do say "You needn't worry..." or  "You needn't bother..." or "You needn't go to school today." but as far  as I know a positive use of "need" as a modal auxiliary does not exist  in modern English.   "You need go to school today." would be the form,  be we don't say that.  Instead we say "You need to go to school today."  making "need" the main verb and the infinitive "to go" the complement.

Another thing to note is that when used as an auxiliary the verb is not inflected as it would be when used as a main verb.
He need not go. versus He *does*n't need to go. or He need*s* more pencils.


----------



## gengo

cubaMania, your explanation is all very fine, but the fact remains that in modern US English, we simply do not use "need not" or "needn't."  When I say "we" I mean virtually all Americans.  Of course, there are always exceptions, but using this language in the US makes you sound rather erudite, even snobbish.  Like Frasier or Niles Crane, if you know who they are.

I'm saying this not to criticize you or your English, but to let non-natives know what I believe to be the state of usage in the US.  Your mileage may vary, as they say.


----------



## bailarín

I am no grammarian, but listen to what cubaMania says.  Aside from that, I used to live in San Francisco... and we do not say "He need not go."  Sure, you can say it... and you will even be understood, but you will be probably looked at as a snotty Niners fan who has box seat tickets.  (Para que sepan, lo de "Niners" es un chiste sobre los fanáticos del futbol americano y los 49ers)


----------



## cubaMania

I do not doubt the sincerity of gengo's and bailarín's declarations that Americans absolutely do not say "needn't", and that such use would be considered "snotty" or "snobbish" or "erudite" (erudite used as a pejorative!)  However, I am a native speaker, also lived in San Francisco for many years as well as in other parts of the U.S., and I can say that I personally know and have known many American native speakers of English (including myself) who occasionally use the form and do not consider it snooty, snobbish, nor even "erudite" in either a positive or a pejorative sense. Just as there are in other languages, there are different styles and different levels of English spoken or written in different environments.


----------



## gengo

cubaMania said:


> ...such use would be considered "snotty" or "snobbish" or "erudite" (erudite used as a pejorative!)



Reread my post and you'll see that I did not use erudite as a pejorative.  I said that such usage sounds erudite, and may even sound snobbish.  Erudition itself is a good thing, but we must be careful, or others may think that we are rubbing it in their faces, which is the point when we cross the line into snobbery.  

Non-native speakers need to know these nuances.  There are situations when "needn't" would be appropriate, but I maintain that those situations are quite sparse in everyday American speech.


----------



## cubaMania

We disagree on both of your points.
 1.  To me the usage does not sound erudite at all; it is just an ordinary alternative form.
2.   When I speak with those of different backgrounds than mine, I do not  imitate their manner of speech nor expect them to imitate mine.  In  fact, contrary to your warning about "snobbery", if I were to dumb-down  my normal language when speaking with adult native speakers, I would  consider that to be condescending and insulting to them.  I make the  assumption that they are intelligent adults, and do not generally encounter  resentment over my use of the standard educated English which comes naturally to me since I absorbed it as a child from my parents, friends,  and neighbors.
I may use simple forms and a restricted vocabulary when  speaking with young children or with some non-native speakers who have  limited mastery of English, but not when speaking with normal adult  native speakers of whatever background.


----------



## gengo

Just so the OP doesn't think I'm making this up, the following is from a website that deals with differences between American and British English.

Need
In British English *needn't* and *don't need* *to* are both possible. Americans normally use *don't need to*.

You needn't reserve seats. OR You don't need to reserve seats. (BE)
You don't need to reserve seats. (AE)

CubaMania, do you really assert that "needn't" is something the average American on the street would use in everyday conversation?  If so, I guess we will indeed just have to disagree.


----------



## cubaMania

gengo said:


> ...CubaMania, do you really assert that "needn't"  is something the average American on the street would use in everyday  conversation?  If so, I guess we will indeed just have to  disagree.


I don't think I'd "assert" much of anything about the language of the  "average American on the street".  The concept of the (linguistic)  existence of such a person in a country as diverse as ours seems to me  meaningless.  My language is not identical to the language of somebody  raised in Appalachia, nor does it include the "y'all" so common in some  of our southern states, nor is it that of a Boston brahmin, nor does it  include some significant portion of the vocabulary of someone raised in the  Cabrini-Green housing projects in Chicago, and so on.

I do assert that absolute  sweeping pronouncements that "Americans don't say 'needn't'" are  demonstrably not accurate based upon my direct experience.  Again and  finally, I am a native speaker of American English of a type which can  fairly (though not perfectly) be described as standard educated American English  (to the extent that such a thing exists) and I occasionally use the  "needn't" form, particularly but not exclusively with the verbs "bother"  and "worry".  I also sometimes hear and read the form from other native  speakers.  I also don't think I have ever personally encountered a case  in which a native speaker was in any way confused about or failed to  understand or appeared to be taken aback by the use of that form.   Something like "You needn't bother with the dishes; I'll wash them in  the morning." sounds perfectly normal and natural to me.  So does "You  don't need to bother with the dishes; I'll wash them in the morning."

I  also do not partake of the idea that using natural, standard educated  English could reasonably be interpreted as "snooty" or "snobbish" or  "erudite" or evidence of "rubbing it in their faces", and somehow  offensive to anyone who happens not to include the "needn't" form in  their own natural speech.  It has not been my experience that people  generally respond that way, but I fear I hear a slight echo in that  attitude of the disturbing trend in our country toward a kind of anti-intellectual, militant,  prideful ignorance (think anti-science politicians or Sarah Palin.)  And  to your "... we must be careful, or others may think that we are  rubbing it in their  faces, which is the point when we cross the line into snobbery" I just  restrained myself from responding with the words from the comedic  punchline where, surrounded by an American Indian war party, the  fictional character Tonto says to the Lone Ranger "What you mean '*we*', Kemosabe?"

Without  the categorical pronouncements implying that your experience must necessarily be the  universal American norm and that any differing experience must be somehow weird, and without the anti-intellectual and condescending warnings  implying that if we don't dumb-down our language the pitiable masses will take offense and brand us as  "snobbish" or worse, I would have no problem with giving credit to your  opinions about the terminology--as opinions, and your experience--as yours.

My hope for any further discussion would be a focus on the interesting language issues. 





			
				santodomingo said:
			
		

> please I would like to know the difference if any between I *don't need* and I *needn't.
> *


  I find the grammatical differences between the forms under discussion to be interesting.  I am also intrigued by the subtle difference pointed out by elprofe in post #10, which had not previously occurred to me.


----------



## bailarín

I haven't replied back to this thread, mainly because I really don't care for the war of words on WR when I've already stated my case (and quite honestly, I have better things to do); however, I do want to comment on your statement about not asserting anything about the language of the "average American on the street."  You say that we shouldn't make sweeping announcements, but you're making a big assumption that I am a so-called American on the street by not using "needn't."  I am very well-educated, and judging from gengo's past posts, he is, too.  I made quite clear in my past posts that it is an acceptable form of "did not" but I wouldn't use it myself.   Everyone on this post (with the exception of you) does not use this phrase.  Heck, even Masood from England says it sounds formal.  I think foreigners learning a language should learn colloquial or the most commonly used phrases rather than trying to learn phrases that are uncommon with the majority of us.

I'm sorry if you took the "snotty" comment as a rip on you personally, sir. I bundled it with the Niners comment and it was a poor attempt at humor; but you don't have to insinuate that I am from the street because I do not choose to use your speak.  Eye for an eye, eh?


----------



## Chispa123

What an interesting exchange!  Language is often about tone and intonation.  I think both Cuba and Gengo are right.  If I say "You needn't come."  It's a gentler way of either letting a person off the hook or a subtle threat.  I don't think the younger generation uses it much, but they all understand it, based on exposure to the media.


----------



## chileno

Interesting, indeed!

I have heard American people use the "you needn't apply for this job" and mainly were grown people 70's or 80's. In the few instances that I recall this form being used, was in California years ago.


----------



## grubble

chileno said:


> Interesting, indeed!
> 
> I have heard American people use the "you needn't apply for this job" and mainly were grown people 70's or 80's. In the few instances that I recall this form being used, was in California years ago.


Yes, another version is:

Wanted: Part-time cook and pastry chef. Must be experienced. Time-wasters need not apply.


----------



## Sunshine on Leith

Hello!

I am just joining what seems a heated debate from post 21, (sorry, a bit tired to read the whole thing so I hope I am not duplicating opinions). But just reading the last two posts, it's making me think if in the language of (jobs) advertising, economy of words was important when you paid for adverts in newspapers by the word, so it would make economic sense to say 'need not apply' or 'needn't apply' instead of ' do not need to apply'. And maybe it developed from there...

Any thoughts?


----------



## cubaMania

bailarín said:


> ... I do want to comment on your statement about not asserting anything about the language of the "average American on the street."  You say that we shouldn't make sweeping announcements, but you're making a big assumption that I am a so-called American on the street by not using "needn't."...


You have misunderstood me, bailarín.  The term "average American on the street" is not mine.   I took it directly from gengo's post where he or she asks me "CubaMania, do you really assert that 'needn't' is something the average  American on the street would use in everyday conversation?". My point was that I don't think there is such a thing as "the average American on the street", linguistically speaking, so I am not asserting anything about such a non-existent person.   I have no problem with your posts, which generally acknowledged that you were talking about your own opinions and experience.


----------



## grubble

Sunshine on Leith said:


> ...
> I am just joining what seems a heated debate from post 21, (sorry, a bit tired to read the whole thing so I hope I am not duplicating opinions). But just reading the last two posts, it's making me think if in the language of (jobs) advertising, economy of words was important when you paid for adverts in newspapers by the word, so it would make economic sense to say 'need not apply' or 'needn't apply' instead of ' do not need to apply'. And maybe it developed from there...
> ...


After reading this thread, the conclusions I personally have drawn about * needn't* are:

1. It is often seen and heard in Britain and could be used by anyone without it seeming strange. It is more common in some types of phrase than in others.
2. There is controversy about how widespread its use is in the USA but it is certainly less used than in Britain.
3. There is a controversy about how what type of person might use it in the USA and whether it might sound pretentious or not.
4. Everyone of whatever country or background would understand what it means.

So I would say that a non-native English speaker will always be safe and idiomatic in using _*don't need *_and_,_ if they do use _*needn't*,_ it will be understood and will not be seen as a grammatical error but may sound 'too educated' to some people.

That's my view. Others may disagree.


----------



## bzu

grubble said:


> After reading this thread, the conclusions I personally have drawn about * needn't* are:
> 
> 1. It is often seen and heard in Britain and could be used by anyone without it seeming strange. It is more common in some types of phrase than in others.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's my view. Others may disagree.


I would definitely have to disagree with you on point 1 at least .

In my opinion, everything that has been said in previous posts about the "average American on the street" could be applied to "the average Briton on the street" with regard to the word "needn't". 

I can't imagine the average working class British person saying "needn't" in normal conversation ever. It would just sound totally out of place, pretentious or whatever.

Reading this thread has reminded me that Americans tend to think they speak the modern version of English, while we have our own quaint and old-fashioned little way of speaking here.


----------



## grubble

bzu said:


> I would definitely have to disagree with you on point 1 at least .
> 
> In my opinion, everything that has been said in previous posts about the "average American on the street" could be applied to "the average Briton on the street" with regard to the word "needn't".
> 
> I can't imagine the average working class British person saying "needn't" in normal conversation ever. It would just sound totally out of place, pretentious or whatever.
> 
> Reading this thread has reminded me that Americans tend to think they speak the modern version of English, while we have our own quaint and old-fashioned little way of speaking here.


Oh no... let's not start the argument again!

I'll make just three points and then withdraw from the thread!

1. I have absolutely seen job adverts that say_* "time-wasters needn't apply"*_. These tend to be the very jobs that attract your average working class person and are not aimed at high-powered executives.

2. I have heard an average working class girl (in Liverpool as it happens) say* "You needn't think I'm going to ... 'cos I'm not"*

3. I clearly stated that it is heard in certain types of phrase. The types of phrase I had in mind were the ones I have just mentioned.

Now I am off to new pastures before things get violent


----------



## bzu

Come on, I love a good argument .

Well, I accept what you say grubble, but I would add that the original post was specifically about using "I needn't" instead of "I don't need to", i.e. when expressing a lack of necessity to do something.

I would say the two examples you mentioned are different in that they use "needn't" in an idiomatic way with more or less the meaning of "don't". 

Time-wasters needn't apply = Don't apply if you're a time waster
You needn't think I'm going to... 'cos I'm not = Don't think I'm going to... 'cos I'm not

^I agree that both these phrases sound commonplace (so I take back part of what I said in my previous post).

But when used to express literally a lack of necessity, e.g. "You don't have do it now", then saying "You needn't do it now" would (in my opinion) sound kind of pretentious in everyday conversation, and wouldn't be something you'd hear from the average Joe Bloggs.


----------



## Chispa123

I must say, Grubble, you do a good job, summing things up


----------



## grubble

bzu said:


> *1.* Come on, I love a good argument .
> *2.* I would say the two examples you mentioned are different in that they use "needn't" in an idiomatic way with more or less the meaning of "don't".
> 
> Time-wasters needn't apply = Don't apply if you're a time waster
> You needn't think I'm going to... 'cos I'm not = Don't think I'm going to... 'cos I'm not
> ...
> But when used to express literally a lack of necessity, e.g. "You don't have do it now", then saying "You needn't do it now" would (in my opinion) sound kind of pretentious in everyday conversation, and wouldn't be something you'd hear from the average Joe Bloggs.


1. Oh all right then!

2. I take your point that it can mean "don't" but then, in the case you give "You needn't do it now" falls under the same category (i.e. _Don't do it now_) and yet you don't like that.

3. Maybe it's regional. However I suspect that when you imagine someone saying "needn't", in your mind you are giving them a posh accent. In my mind it is said fast, in a flat tone with no particular emphasis.

Example:
_"Give us a hand holding this shed wall up while I put the screws in."
"Okay, do you want the power driver?"
"No, you needn't bother. I'll use the ordinary screwdriver."



_


----------



## bzu

Well, it would definitely be "No, don't bother" where I live (= grim north), and if in my mind I'm putting a posh accent on the "needn't" users, then I can honestly say it's because I've never heard anyone with a non-posh accent use "needn't" in that way. I did notice that earlier in the thread Masood said "needn't sounds rather formal to me. I don't think I've ever used it, to be honest" and that's more or less the same for me. But it  would be interesting to get views from other UK foreros on this (...or maybe we should just call it a day here ).


----------



## gengo

cubaMania said:


> I don't think I'd "assert" much of anything about the language of the  "average American on the street".  The concept of the (linguistic)  existence of such a person in a country as diverse as ours seems to me  meaningless.



Your point is well taken, but this is a language forum where non-native speakers of one language ask native speakers of the other language questions about usage, and if we just threw up our hands and said that anything is possible because somebody, somewhere probably uses it, the forum wouldn't be of much use.  It is incumbent on us to try and give useful advice about the register of words and phrases, so that learners can know when and when not to use them.  I don't think I have said that no American ever uses "needn't," but rather have tried to express my opinion (yes, opinion) that its use is very limited, and can have a certain flavor.



> ...I occasionally use the  "needn't" form, particularly but not exclusively with the verbs "bother"  and "worry".



I agree that when I do hear the word needn't, it is most often used with these verbs.  It would be interesting to know why, but language is often nothing more than a set of conventions.  We say things because we have heard other people say them.

At any rate, I hope you don't take my statements as criticism of your own personal language preferences.  I'm just trying to help the OP by stating what are my firmly held beliefs about how the word is used in American English as I have experienced it in my life.  You obviously disagree, and the OP can decide whom to believe.

Saludos


----------



## grubble

Chispa123 said:


> I must say, Grubble, you do a good job, summing things up


Thanks Chispa


----------



## grubble

bzu said:


> Well, it would definitely be "No, don't bother" where I live (= grim north)...it would be interesting to get views from other UK foreros on this (...or maybe we should just call it a day here ).


Fair do's. It's a day!


I leave you with this song (from 1940's America and lately revived by Jamie McCullum)


_"Well, You Needn't" is a jazz standard composed by Thelonious Monk...inspired by a protegé of Monk's, the jazz singer Charlie Beamon; Monk wrote a song and told Beamon he was going to name it after him, to which Beamon replied "Well, you needn't"._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well,_You_Needn't


_You're dressin' with class well you needn't
You're holdin' your sass well you needn't
You think you're a gas well you needn't
It's over now, it's over now_


...and indeed so is this enjoyable discussion, so far as I am concerned


----------

