# If I were, I must not.



## Egoexpress

Well hello there,

I've got a strange question here concerning grammar, which has been bugging me for a while.

There are things you have to do, in other words you must do. It's pretty obvious to say:

- If I were a baby I wouldn't have to make breakfast for myself.

meaning if you could than you could make breakfast for yourself but since you'd have a mum, you wouldn't have to, right?
but what if I'd like to combine "must not" (a thing that you're not allowed to do). I know that "must" and "would" don't go together but still it's been lingering in my head how to say someting like this:

- If I were a soldier, I must not violate military  rules.

I'm pretty sure the above one is not grammatically correct, is it?

If I say - If I were a soldier, I would not violate military rules.

means that you would not do such a thing, it's your principal and your belief not to do so and not because that's the rule.

I hope I'm making at least a little sense here.

Thanks for the help.

PS: There's another option came to mind

- If I were a soldier I could not violate military rules - souds as if something is preventing you to do so, I think it's still not the one I'm looking for.


----------



## xplorer

"If I were a soldier, I would not violate military rules." - It sounds to me like someone who is saying this sentence tells that he or she is not a soldier, so they don't have to obey the military rules, because these rules do not apply to them. In fact, the meaning of the sentence depends on the context in which it was said.

"If I were a soldier, I must not violate military rules." - this sentence doesn't work at all. If I get what you're trying to say by that right, I suggest you say something like:
"If I were a soldier, I would have to obey the military rules."


----------



## phosphore

"If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate the rules" would be my try.


----------



## Egoexpress

Yeah I understand that, yet I was puzzled by what my student asked the other day.

1, I have to obey rules.

2, I must not break violate rules.

1a, If I were a soldier, I would have to obey rules

2b, If I were a soldier, I would 

Actually I understand the way my student tried to figure the whole issue but I believe the only way to say someting similar is:

If I were a soldier I would not violate rules.

I thought I'd ask what your opinion was.

Thanks for helping.


----------



## Egoexpress

phosphore said:


> "If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate the rules" would be my try.



Wow that sounds little off to my non-native ears.


----------



## Frank78

If I were a soldier, I must not violate military  rules. - Everything is fine here.

It´s the same as "solders must obey the rules"
or:
Soldiers are not allowed to violate the rules (although this sounds weaker)


----------



## Thawt

This route isn't necessarily the best one. There are plenty of ways to say that and not using conditionals.. but if I had to use one it would be something like that
*if I am a soldier I must not violate the military rules*
but it's just my proposal...hey there natives! is it ok??
thanks


----------



## phosphore

I understand you want to say that if one were a soldier, one would have to obey the rules? Then, the other of saying that would be, I think, that one would have not to break them.


----------



## Egoexpress

Frank78 said:


> If I were a soldier, I must not violate military  rules. - Everything is fine here.



Erm..I don't say it's incorrect but I do say it sounds odd.


----------



## phosphore

Frank78 said:


> If I were a soldier, I must not violate military rules. - Everything is fine here.


 
I don't think so; "must not" when put to the past becomes "had not to".


----------



## Frank78

phosphore said:


> I don't think so; "must not" when put to the past becomes "had not to".



You´re right, but:
If - clause is followed by main clause (would + infintive)

So it should be

If I were a soldier I would have to obey the rules

negative sentence:

If I were a soldier I wouldn´t have to violate the rules

It doesn´t seem to work with "must" although it´s somehow present i think or at least the infinitive.


----------



## phosphore

Then, "must not" when put to the future becomes "will have not to", and then that put to the past again becomes "would have not to"


----------



## Egoexpress

phosphore said:


> Then, "must not" when put to the future becomes "will have not to", and that then put to the past again becomes "would have not to"


Hm, yes I think that's the only logical answer to the issue.


----------



## Machin

However I am almost sure you can also say:
If I were a soldier, I should not violate the military rules.


----------



## panjandrum

If I were a soldier is subjunctive (not past).
It is therefore hypothetical (you are not a soldier).
I expect someone will find a well-expressed rule of grammar that says the subjunctive has to be followed by some kind of conditional usage, not a simple indicative form.

If I were a soldier I will wear a red uniform 
If I were a soldier I must wear a red uniform 
If I were a soldier I would wear a red uniform 

I am less sure of this one, but it sounds so very strange that it almost gets a red X too:
If I were a soldier I should not violate the military rules.
Comments from a more experienced should/would user would be very welcome.


----------



## JamesM

If the idea is to say that a soldier cannot violate rules and if I were a soldier I would be in the same position, I would say:

If I were a soldier, I would be required to follow the rules.
If I were a soldier, I would be forbidden from violating the rules.  (less clear)


----------



## Philo2009

Frank78 said:


> If I were a soldier, I must not violate military rules. - Everything is fine here.


 
_Not _fine at all, I'm afraid! 'Must', as a present tense form, cannot occur in the apodosis of an English second conditional.

_If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate military rules._

, as suggested by an earlier contributor, is the only correct option to convey precisely the intended meaning.


----------



## elirlandes

Philo2009 said:


> _Not _fine at all, I'm afraid! 'Must', as a present tense form, cannot occur in the apodosis of an English second conditional.
> 
> _If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate military rules._
> 
> , as suggested by an earlier contributor, is the only correct option to convey precisely the intended meaning.



There is a syntax error here. It should read:

If I were a soldier, I would have to not violate military rules.

This is permissible, but a native would more likely use difference vocabulary:
If I were a soldier, I would [have to/be obliged to] conform to military rules.


----------



## Philo2009

panjandrum said:


> I am less sure of this one, but it sounds so very strange that it almost gets a red X too:
> 
> If I were a soldier I should not violate the military rules.
> 
> Comments from a more experienced should/would user would be very welcome.


 
Structurally acceptable, but only as a rather old-fashioned BrE alternative to 

_If I were a soldier I *would* not violate the military rules._

'Should' as a form of the conditional mood naturally loses its characteristic deontic sense - or, put more simply, while it can mean '_am_ obliged/supposed to' , it normally cannot mean '_would be_ obliged/supposed to'.


----------



## Philo2009

elirlandes said:


> There is a syntax error here. It should read:
> 
> If I were a soldier, I would have to not violate military rules.


 
I beg to disagree!

The natural position for 'not' relative to an infinitive in formal/careful usage is _before_ 'to'.  The medial position may often be preferred colloquially, but that hardly amounts to the former's being an 'error of syntax'!


----------



## JJohnson

A soldier _should_ not violate military rules.
A soldier _must_ not violate military rules.

Any person can talk about what soldiers should or must do or not do. But non-soldiers can only speculate about what they themselves might do if they were a soldier. That's where the if/would or if/could comes in.

If I were a soldier, I would not violate military rules.
If I were a soldier, I could help protect my country.


----------



## elirlandes

Philo2009 said:


> I beg to disagree!
> 
> The natural position for 'not' relative to an infinitive in formal/careful usage is _before_ 'to'.  The medial position may often be preferred colloquially, but that hardly amounts to the former's being an 'error of syntax'!



You cannot separate the "to" from the "have" in "to have to".

The "to" in this sentence is not part of an infinitive of "to violate".

The same phrase in a positive and then a negative light would read as follows:
I have to violate the rules.
I have to not violate the rules. This reads less strangely if you say, "I must not violate the rules". Unfortunately the phrase originally used is in the conditional for which there is no form for "must".

As I said below, although this construction works, it would be better to change vocabulary to avoid it - resulting in something like "If I were a soldier, I would have to obey military rules". This rather clunky construction can be (and often is) used for precision; to take ambiguity out of a previously uttered phrase.


----------



## Philo2009

*elirlandes* wrote:

You cannot separate the "to" from the "have" in "to have to".

You most certainly can!!

For example: 

_You *have *only *to* call me and I'll help you._
_I *have *simply* to* press this button and the police will come._
_They *have* not *to* borrow the money but to earn it._

Negative adverb 'not' is simply one among a range of structures that our wonderfully fluid English syntax permits to be placed between a deontic 'have' and the subsequent 'to'.

The "to" in this sentence is not part of an infinitive of "to violate".

Indeed? I am most curious as to the grounds on which this fiat is based. Normal processes of grammatical analysis would reckon any 'to' that precedes any infinitive to be, by definition, a part of a to-infinitive.

Presumably the same sort of arbitary reasoning process would conclude that the word 'the' placed before a noun is not a part of the noun phrase but somehow belongs with that which precedes it!

The same phrase in a positive and then a negative light would read as follows:
I have to violate the rules.
I have to not violate the rules. 

Yes, or, as already stated, as a _more formal_ alternative to the second of these:

_I have *not to violate* the rules. _


----------



## JamesM

Both "I have not to violate the rules" and "They have not to borrow the money but to earn it" may be grammatically correct but they certainly look very odd to me.  I would not understand their meaning without some work. Perhaps it's a difference between American English and British English.


----------



## SevenDays

Egoexpress said:


> Yeah I understand that, yet I was puzzled by what my student asked the other day.
> 
> 1, I have to obey rules.
> 
> 2, I must not break violate rules.
> 
> 1a, If I were a soldier, I would have to obey rules
> 
> 2b, If I were a soldier, I would
> 
> Actually I understand the way my student tried to figure the whole issue but I believe the only way to say someting similar is:
> 
> If I were a soldier I would not violate rules.
> 
> I thought I'd ask what your opinion was.
> 
> Thanks for helping.


 
Hello.
 
This is my understanding, and perhaps it might be of help.
 
If I am a civilian, then _If I were_ _a soldier_ is a contrary-to-fact (unreal) situation and needs the appropriate modal auxiliary (would, could, or might) in the independent clause.  “Must” doesn’t fit because it means “compelled to,” “urged to,” “mandated to,” etc., and I can’t, for example, be compelled to obey the rules in a situation that is contrary-to-fact (unreal).  
 
_If I were a soldier, I would not violate (the) rules._
 
_If I were a soldier, I would be compelled not to violate rules_ is ok too, though a bit wordy, as “_would be_” provides the proper conditionality for “_compelled not to violate rules_.”
 
It is conceivable that I, being a civilian, can go to a recruitment office, enlist, and become a soldier.  If I can imagine that _I am a soldier_, then it is perfectly logical to imagine that I _must_ obey the rules.
 
_If I am a soldier, I must obey the rules._
 
But if I am too young, too old, or incapacitated, then being or becoming a soldier is and can only be an unreal situation, which necessitates _If I were a soldier_ and rules out the use of “must” in the independent clause.
 
(I think…….)
Of course, I find that I learn more from being wrong than being right.
Cheers


----------



## Philo2009

JamesM said:


> Both "I have not to violate the rules" and "They have not to borrow the money but to earn it" may be grammatically correct but they certainly look very odd to me. I would not understand their meaning without some work. Perhaps it's a difference between American English and British English.


 
I'll take that as a qualified support of the syntactic soundness of my sentence!

As to whether it's the most natural or idiomatic possible way of phrasing it, that - I will grant - is debatable.

The original question posed here was, however, one relating to grammatical correctness and that therefore has been the focus of this discussion!


----------



## JamesM

There are many sentences that are grammatically correct but do not convey meaning.  Both grammar and conveyed meaning are worth discussing when someone asks "how do you say this?"


----------



## 89ten

For me, the best one is;
-I would be forbidden… or
  -I would have to stick to…
  Simple clear syntax and conveys the message


----------



## panjandrum

The point of the thread is not whether it is appropriate to use the subjunctive.
The point is whether it is correct/acceptable to say "If I were a soldier, I must not ..."

Posts on the use of the subjunctive have therefore been deleted.

panjandrum
(Moderator)


----------



## Philo2009

JamesM said:


> There are many sentences that are grammatically correct but do not convey meaning.  Both grammar and conveyed meaning are worth discussing when someone asks "how do you say this?"



Yes indeed, if we are dealing with a sentence such as, say,

_!Green ideas lavish patient yearning on fermenting buffaloes.

_- structurally impeccable, but utter nonsense.

Are you, then, suggesting that

_If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate the rules._

is also nonsense, on the grounds that you personally find it unidiomatic?


----------



## JamesM

That seems a rather extreme interpretation of what I said. I don't believe I ever used the word nonsense. I think I was fairly clear in what I said: I would not understand their meaning without some work. 

The meaning of "I would have to not violate the rules" would be immediately apparent to me. "I would have not to violate the rules" would appear to be a mistake to me at first. It would not become clear until I thought about it for a bit. I don't think I am alone in that experience. In fact, I think that that would be a common reaction among AE speakers. It is beyond unidiomatic to me; it is actually puzzling.  I can see the logic of it grammatically.


----------



## elirlandes

JamesM said:


> That seems a rather extreme interpretation of what I said. I don't believe I ever used the word nonsense. I think I was fairly clear in what I said: I would not understand their meaning without some work.
> 
> The meaning of "I would have to not violate the rules" would be immediately apparent to me. "I would have not to violate the rules" would appear to be a mistake to me at first. It would not become clear until I thought about it for a bit. I don't think I am alone in that experience. In fact, I think that that would be a common reaction among AE speakers. It is beyond unidiomatic to me; it is actually puzzling.  I can see the logic of it grammatically.



I am in agreement. 

I would have to not violate the rules - will be easily understood.
I would have not to violate the rules - will not be easily understood


----------



## AustralianEnglishSpeaker

JamesM said:


> That seems a rather extreme interpretation of what I said. I don't believe I ever used the word nonsense. I think I was fairly clear in what I said: I would not understand their meaning without some work.
> 
> The meaning of "I would have to not violate the rules" would be immediately apparent to me. "I would have not to violate the rules" would appear to be a mistake to me at first. It would not become clear until I thought about it for a bit. I don't think I am alone in that experience. In fact, I think that that would be a common reaction among AE speakers. It is beyond unidiomatic to me; it is actually puzzling.  I can see the logic of it grammatically.



As a neutral Australian English speaker, as opposed to a British or American, perhaps I can offer my own understanding of the situation. 

Whether British or American, it is a rule of the English language that one cannot 'split' an infinitive (the grammatical term is, in fact, called a 'split infinitive'). I don't mean to offend, but there isn't much to be puzzled about. In fact, it is often acceptable to split infinitives, though perhaps not in the esoteric 'advanced' English-speaking circles.

All of those who have stated 'If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate the rules' as being the correct phrasing were completely right in doing so. However, if it makes more sense to you to split the infinitive, then feel free to do so.

Just don't start accusing us better English-speakers of speaking incorrectly.


----------



## Cagey

The question of whether or not it is acceptable to split infinitives has been discussed many times and is not the subject of this thread.  Any one who is interested should look at previous threads.  Here are two interesting ones:I've decided <to not, not to> take more medicine.
Verb + not to + do or Verb + to not + do

You will find more by clicking here: "to not" "not to".​It is far from agreed that refusal to split the infinitive is the mark of a better-English speaker. 

The topic of this thread laid out by the FIRST POST  is the question of how construct a conditional form for the second half of this sentence._If I were a soldier_, [I must not violate military  rules.]​Cagey
English Only moderator


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> The point of the thread is not whether it is appropriate to use the subjunctive.
> The point is whether it is correct/acceptable to say "If I were a soldier, I must not ..."
> 
> Posts on the use of the subjunctive have therefore been deleted.
> 
> panjandrum
> (Moderator)


But Panj. if it's not correct to say 'if I were a soldier', it's not correct _a fortiori_ to say 'if I were a soldier, I must not...'.

That was the point I was making.


----------



## Snowite

How about keeping it simple and say:
If I were a solder, I would be not to violate military rules.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It occurs to me that we could avoid the vexed subjunctive issue by moving to the second person singular, where the forms are the same. That would mean the sentence starting _'if you were a soldier'_. That way we can look at the issue of how the second part of the sentence should be constructed, and avoid objections to the form of the if-clause.

To my ear,

_If you were a soldier, you must keep military rules _ is out of the question.

You can keep the straightforward rules for sequencing of tenses (2nd conditional, in this case), in the usual way for handling _must_ in this sense, by changing the verb to _to have to_. Then the sentence becomes:

_If you were a soldier, you would have to keep military rules_  which is fine. Perfect in the if-clause, conditional in the main clause, as usual.

P.S. If you insist on using _to violate_, you have difficulty avoiding a less elegant, double negative construction:

_If you were a soldier, you would have to avoid violating military rules._


----------



## Ynez

Egoexpress said:


> but what if I'd like to combine "must not" (a thing that you're not allowed to do). I know that "must" and "would" don't go together but still it's been lingering in my head how to say someting like this:



*SHOULD*

As Machin and JJohnson said. I am 99% sure that is what you were trying to say if you wanted to mix "must" and "would". Now I'm going to read the whole thread. It looks interesting


----------



## Philo2009

elirlandes said:


> I am in agreement.
> 
> I would have to not violate the rules - will be easily understood.
> I would have not to violate the rules - will not be easily understood



OK, I can accept that position.  More formal structures will inevitably tend to be less immediately semantically accessible, even to natives, than more commonly encountered informal structures.

But I trust I've at least managed to persuade you that there is no error of syntax here...!



AustralianEnglishSpeaker said:


> I don't mean to offend, but there isn't much to be puzzled about. In fact, it is often acceptable to split infinitives, though perhaps not in the esoteric 'advanced' English-speaking circles.
> 
> All of those who have stated 'If I were a soldier, I would have not to violate the rules' as being the correct phrasing were completely right in doing so. However, if it makes more sense to you to split the infinitive, then feel free to do so.
> 
> Just don't start accusing us better English-speakers of speaking incorrectly.



Thank you!
I rest my case.


----------



## Philo2009

Snowite said:


> How about keeping it simple and say:
> If I were a solder, I would be not to violate military rules.



Sorry - nice try, but ungrammatical.

(The [be to V] construction is only ever realized in sentences by _finite_ verb forms.  Its infinitive form is no more than a theoretical label by which linguists can refer to it.)



JamesM said:


> That seems a rather extreme interpretation of what I said. I don't believe I ever used the word nonsense.



No, but you did refer to sentences that "do not convey meaning" - that, to my mind, amounts to a suggestion of 'nonsense'!


----------



## Egoexpress

Thanks for all the inputs!


----------

