# Ought not to worry / Ought not worry [to-infinitive vs bare infinitive]



## toygekko

I've just finished a modal verbs exercise and having done one yesterday I knew I had to use *ought not + to. *However, this last exercise required the use of *ought not *with the bare infinitive. The one I did yesterday was designed to get you ready for a Cambridge English exam and the one I did today is located at the site www.englishpage.com, which is dedicated to US English. Is this discrepancy a matter of US English v. UK English? Do you use the bare infinitive or the infinitive with "to" in this construction?


----------



## velisarius

Please show us a sample sentence from the exercise, to show us where you saw "ought not" + bare infinitive.


----------



## toygekko

velisarius said:


> Please show us a sample sentence from the exercise, to show us where you saw "ought not" + bare infinitive.



_You *ought not* worry so much. It doesn't do you any good. Either you get the job, or you don't. If you don't, just apply for another one. Eventually, you will find work.

_http://www.englishpage.com/modals/interactivemodal3.htm, #13. The correct ones are *should not *and *ought not. *Try *ought not to *and it'll be considered incorrect in this exercise.


----------



## velisarius

That page tells you to use the verbs "might", "must", or "should". It doesn't say anything about "ought".

It says redo the exercises afterwards, using "could", "ought to" or "have to".


----------



## toygekko

velisarius said:


> That page tells you to use the verbs "might", "must", or "should". It doesn't say anything about "ought".
> 
> It says redo the exercises afterwards, using "could", "ought to" or "have to".



If you redo #13 using *ought not to *you'll score 0%. HOWEVER, if you redo it using *ought not *you'll score 6% (or 4% if you've made a mistake the first time round).


----------



## bennymix

> _You *ought not* worry so much._


  strikes me as a little odd in AE.   Most of us insert 'to' here.

However, it may depend on the second verb, e.g. You ought not concern yourself with such things sounds passable


----------



## velisarius

"Ought not to worry" would be correct in BE. Since they haven't even presented the option of "ought" for this exercise, I'd say they made a mistake in giving "ought not worry" as correct.

Even if they accept the dubious "ought not worry" they should also accept "ought not to worry".


----------



## wandle

That web page is saying that 'ought not worry' is not usual in American English. 
Let me add that in British usage it is optional to say 'ought not worry' or 'ought not to worry'.

When we go to that web page and then follow the link at the foot of the page, we find the following note:


> ATTENTION #13
> _13. You ought not worry so much. It doesn't do you any good. Either you get the job, or you don't. If you don't, just apply for another one. Eventually, you will find work._
> "Ought not" is not commonly used in American English.


The meaning of the note is that 'ought not worry' is correct English, but is not in common use in the US.
In other words, some Americans say this, but many do not.

Thus the conclusion we may draw is that the two alternatives are optional in both US and UK usage, but the frequency of use may be different.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

It's Cambridge, England, not Cambridge, MA, USA, so we'd use the BE form in cases of trans-Atlantic usage difference. I thought that the two-word modal verb "ought to" is followed by the bare infinitive, like one-word modals: "You must/ought to/should do it." In the negative, then, wouldn't we say "You must not/should not/ought not to *do it*", still without "to" after the modal verb, with the incorrect form (in red) being "You must not to/should not to/ought not to *to do it*"? Somehow, though, at least to this Yank (as to bennymix), "You oughtn't/ought not do it" sounds a bit off (although strictly speaking it's correct).


----------



## toygekko

Wandle, your first sentence is misquoted. The web page only says that, quote, _"ought not" is not commonly used in American English._


----------



## wandle

If you notice, later in my post, I gave the exact quotation, in the WR quotation balloon, of the note as written on the web page.

What I gave in my first sentence was deliberately _not the exact words_ of that note, but the _meaning of the note_.

The fact is that their note is imprecisely expressed, because every time someone says 'ought not to' they are automatically saying 'ought not' as part of that phrase.

Let me say again that the 'takeaway' from this (the conclusion we can draw in the end) is that the two variants 'ought not [verb]' and 'ought not to [verb]' are optional on both sides of the Atlantic, even if the frequency of usage is different.


----------



## toygekko

I believe they want to say you won't hear *ought not *very often. You're more likely to hear *should not *in negative sentences. Sounds more plausible to me than what you're saying.


----------



## PaulQ

The Google Ngram viewer shows that in English generally, *ought not to be* is by far commoner and more so in BE.


----------



## wandle

onetwothreefour said:


> I believe they want to say you won't hear *ought not *very often. You're more likely to hear *should not *in negative sentences. Sounds more plausible to me than what you're saying.


Excuse me, but I took it for granted that the point at issue was this one:


onetwothreefour said:


> I've just finished a modal verbs exercise and having done one yesterday I knew I had to use *ought not + to. *However, this last exercise required the use of *ought not *with the bare infinitive.


----------



## velisarius

I don't think the "second try" with the verbs "could", "ought to' or "have to" has been well thought out. I confess I scored 66% on that part, and in several of the sentences I was happy with none of those three choices. Apparently my answers to questions 9,10,11,13,14 were all wrong.

I defy anyone to place one of those three verbs in this sentence:

"11. We had better call Tony to see if he's at home before we go over to his house. He    ---------   be there and we don't want to drive all the way over there for nothing." 

Maybe the correct answer would be to leave a blank space where none of those verbs will fit. I didn't try that.


----------



## PaulQ

That's the type of quiz you give to someone who you don't want to get the job.


----------



## Forero

Curiously, I would never use "to" after "ought not", "need not", or "dare not" (except in a structure like "We ought not only to wait but to stay until they return").


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I've never heard anyone speaking BE use the_ ought not + bare infinitive_ form, and I've never seen it written.

I have searched the BNC (BE corpus) in vain for examples, and I had a quick look in a large literature database without success, and with declining expectations of finding an example admittedly.

On every occasion I found, _ought not_ when followed by a verb took the form _ought not to + bare infinitive_.

I think people who say it's idiomatic in BE should give some examples.

I went to the COCA (AE corpus) and found about a 50/50 split between the two versions (with _to_ and without).

I found no instance of the without-to form in Henry James, Melville, or Thoreau.  They all say _ought *to*_, always, as far as I could see.

Many modern authors are still under copyright, so it can be hard to check.  Edith Wharton always says _ought *to*_.

I couldn't find any pattern to the sort of writing or speech using one version rather than the other.  Is it fair to say that the usage with _to_ has become more accepted in the last hundred years?

ps.  Here are the ngrams, for what they are worth.  I find it hard to be  sure that they isolate the usage we are examining.  It seems to me that  they suggest:

1.  That we are right to say the without-to form is more popular in AE than in BE.
2.  That the without-to version is more current in spoken than in  written AE.  The preference they record for the to-version is not matched by the COCA  results, which also include speech.
3.  That there are some BE writers who use the without-to version.  This surprises me.
4.  That the use of _ought not _in all versions has declined over the  years.  Whether this reflects the growing liberalism of the times, or a  migration to other ways of expressing moral disapproval, I leave for  other people to speculate.


----------



## bennymix

"ought not" plus bare infinitive does show up in UK English.   There are old examples, but I'll give newer ones.
(The is, of course, related to the problem that dare not speak its name, the s*********e in Great Britain.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/.../Ask-Margaret-Hodge-how-horrors-can-hide.html

*Ask Margaret Hodge how horrors can hide* 


By Jenny McCartney

12:01AM GMT 02 Mar 2008
[New mothers--can they be 'yummy mummies'?]



> Come that evening, the attempted trappings of the "yummy" will lie crumpled on the floor, and the pyjama-clad mummy will have resumed her normal shuffling service. We should learn to ignore Beckham, Jolie and the other full-time competitive yummies. Let them get on with it: the truth is it must be hell up there.
> 
> The love that ought not speak its name



=====

'Making the invisible, visible': Haunting pictures of America's ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Making-invisible-visible-Haunting-pictures-Am...

Mar 21, 2012 - 





> ... in it, then you KNOW NOTHING about it, and really ought not speak until you learn something first. ...



Mark Sampson, London UK, 2 years ago.

----


----
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal...ef_and_Knowledge_Attributions_penultimate.pdf

The Normative Evaluation of Belief and the Aspectual
Classification of Belief and Knowledge Attributions*
Matthew Chrisman
University of Edinburgh




> But all of that flies in the face of the philosophically popular idea that
> deontological evaluation of a subject (e.g. with a particular species of ‘ought’) requires
> something like the sort of voluntariness or control (e.g. that we would describe with a particular
> species of ‘can’) manifested in conscious choice. So, why do we so blithely evaluate what
> people ought or ought not believe, given that their beliefs are mostly automatic and unchosen?


I

Alcohol in Taroudant - Taroudant Message Board - TripAdvisor
www.tripadvisor.co.uk › ... › Taroudant › Taroudant Travel Forum
Oct 5, 2013 





> - London, United... What's this? Destination ... If you can't go that long without alcohol, maybe you ought not come here. Maybe go somewhere ...



===

CORRECTION.  The_ Daily Mail_ example is withdrawn.  Upon closer inspection, at the behest of Thomas T, I have determined that the reporter's article, is NOT being quoted, but rather a comment on it that is clearly labeled as coming from an American.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wondered if someone would confuse this usage with the subjunctive.

I'm afraid I can't take Bennymix's examples seriously:

1.  The Telegraph example is a deliberate variation on Alfred Douglas's poem.

2.  The Daily Mail example comes from a London-based reporter on American affairs - this article is about photographs of "America's vulnerable people".  The writer speaks with authority about American affairs.  I suspect him of being an AE speaker.

3.  Matthew Chrisman is an American academic - he took his first degree at Rice University, Houston, and his doctorate at the University of North Carolina.

4.  The tripadvisor's forum contributor is called Daud and lives in Taroudant, Morocco.  He doesn't sound like a typical BE speaker to me.

The ngrams suggest there are some _bona fide_ BE examples in Google books.  I wonder where they are.


----------



## toygekko

velisarius said:


> I don't think the "second try" with the verbs "could", "ought to' or "have to" has been well thought out. I confess I scored 66% on that part, and in several of the sentences I was happy with none of those three choices. Apparently my answers to questions 9,10,11,13,14 were all wrong.
> 
> I defy anyone to place one of those three verbs in this sentence:
> 
> "11. We had better call Tony to see if he's at home before we go over to his house. He --------- be there and we don't want to drive all the way over there for nothing."
> 
> Maybe the correct answer would be to leave a blank space where none of those verbs will fit. I didn't try that.


You're supposed to use the "old" modal wherever you can't put any of the "new" modals. #11 is in fact the only sentence where you HAVE TO use the old one. See 
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/interactivemodal3_answers.htm.


----------



## bennymix

I don't think that's the best way to discount that example, Thomas, nor would mentioning that the reporter is known to have dated an American in the year 2000.

The actual problem is that the article has a comments section, and one person, labelled as below, said that quotation.  He's not the author of the article and he's an American.

I apologize to readers for not more rigorously screening the habits and pedigrees of the writer and speakers of my examples, and for letting a Yankee s********vizer through the screening process.

T. Payne, San Antonio, TX, 2 years ago


> I  like how there are all these comments telling poor people to stop  having babies. I'd bet a million dollars that these same commenters  would be opposed to free birth control, and certainly opposed to  abortion.   It's easy to talk about it. Why don't you get off your derriere and DO  something about it. Poverty is a self-perpetuating cycle. The children  don't choose to be born into the situation, [...] As someone who did get out of poverty, by hard work yes  but by a whole damn lot of luck as well, if you have not lived in it,  then you KNOW NOTHING about it, and really ought not speak until you  learn something first.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-photojournalists-poverty.html#ixzz3M8LhjRse 


=====
Thomas said in part:





> 2.  The Daily Mail example comes from a London-based reporter on  American affairs - this article is about photographs of "America's  vulnerable people".  The writer speaks with authority about American  affairs.  I suspect him of being an AE speaker.


----------



## bennymix

Here is a British example, likely from the 30s or 40s of _ought not _+ bare infinitive.

http://paulbrunton.org/notebooks/2/5

Paul Brunton was a noted British writer (over a dozen books published in England), philosopher and student of Eastern thought--a follower of India's famous sage, Ramana Maharshi.
_
Notebooks_, part 2.    {published after PB's death; }


> 137
> [PB is speaking of an exemplary person, one wishing to become a fuller human being.]
> 
> If on the one hand he ought not try to turn philosophy into sectarian dominated theology but keep it rigorously upon the wide bases of experience-supported Reason, critical judgement, and balanced synthesis, on the other hand he ought not desert the precinct of holiness: daily he should seek a reverent atmosphere and become suffused with divine feeling.
> [...]



===

As to classic English examples:


http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/julius_1_1.html

Act I, Scene 1, _Julius Caesar._



> Flavius [addressing a carpenter]:
> Is this a holiday? What, know you not,
> Being mechanical, you ought not walk
> Upon a laboring day without the sign
> Of your profession?—Speak, what trade art thou?


----------



## Forero

These quotes with "ought not" sound perfectly natural to me. The Shakespeare quote uses antiquated/poetical phrasing, but the line "Being mechanical, you ought not walk" sounds like something I might say (I would not follow it with "upon" though).

And inserting "to" after any of these "ought not"s would sound unnatural to me.


----------



## bennymix

Well, Forero, then you, like me, are one of those outside the UK who wish to preserve--in our 'outlying districts' such as the US, Canada, and Australia-- some of the niceties of BE as it existed 200 or more years ago, esp. for example, in the writings of Shakespeare.



Forero said:


> These quotes with "ought not" sound perfectly natural to me. The Shakespeare quote uses antiquated/poetical phrasing, but the line "Being mechanical, you ought not walk" sounds like something I might say (I would not follow it with "upon" though).
> 
> And inserting "to" after any of these "ought not"s would sound unnatural to me.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Forero said:


> These quotes with "ought not" sound perfectly natural to me. The Shakespeare quote uses antiquated/poetical phrasing, but the line "Being mechanical, you ought not walk" sounds like something I might say (I would not follow it with "upon" though).
> 
> And inserting "to" after any of these "ought not"s would sound unnatural to me.



They also sound perfectly fine to me, preferable even. I speak an ''outlying'' BE-descended dialect though.


----------



## velisarius

bennymix said:


> Well, Forero, then you, like me, are one of those outside the UK who wish to preserve--in our 'outlying districts' such as the US, Canada, and Australia-- some of the niceties of BE as it existed 200 or more years ago, esp. for example, in the writings of Shakespeare.



Benny, I'm surprised at you. The only person here referring to "outlying districts" is you. 

The OP was asking about normal usage in two main varieties of English, so it isn't surprising that speakers of British English should put forward their own versions of how the phrase is used in present-day English..


----------



## bennymix

The phrase, indeed, was humorous, and coined by me,    But it was intended to capture an ambiance in some posts by some posters.  For example:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2938284&page=3
Thomas Tompion.


> We've noted before that the subjunctive is more in use in the Celtic fringe than in the more central parts of Britain.



====

I don't, however, really want to debate whether Toronto, New York, Dublin, or London is the center of the Anglo universe!
Let's just say that the 'fringe' speakers now vastly outnumber the metropolitan types around 0 degrees longitude (which itself says something about centrality).







velisarius said:


> Benny, I'm surprised at you. The only person here referring to "outlying districts" is you.
> 
> The OP was asking about normal usage in two main varieties of English, so it isn't surprising that speakers of British English should put forward their own versions of how the phrase is used in present-day English..


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Just to try to avoid even deeper misunderstanding: the term 'Celtic fringe' is a standard term to describe the western parts of the continent of Europe.  Here's an explanation of the term from _the Wiki article on the Celtic nations_:

_These areas of Europe are sometimes referred to as the "Celt belt" or  "Celtic fringe" because of their location generally on the western edges  of the continent, and of the states they inhabit (e.g. Brittany is in the northwest of France, Cornwall is in the south west of Great Britain, Wales in western Great Britain and the Gaelic-speaking parts of Ireland and Scotland are in the west of those countries). Additionally, this region is known as the "Celtic Crescent" because of the near crescent shaped position of the nations in Europe._

As someone who was brought up in the West of Wales, I, like most BE speakers, use the term in absolutely no pejorative sense, any more than I use an expression like the Home Counties, or New York State, in a pejorative sense; these terms are standard descriptions of places, and we need occasionally in this forum to be able to describe places.

The Celtic fringe is inhabited by peoples who have kept alive many of the traditions and languages of the Celtic peoples.

We have often noted on this forum that many of the people living in the Celtic fringe speak their own languages as first languages, and have regional variations in the English they speak.


----------



## Loob

Forero and Pedro, does your use of _ought_ + bare infinitive work in the interrogative and affirmative as well as the negative?

In other words, are:
_Ought you go?_
and
_You ought go._
OK, alongside
_You ought not go/You oughtn't go_.
?


(I was wondering if it was similar to modal _need_/_dare_, which work in the negative, 'sort-of' work in the interrogative, and don't work in the affirmative.)


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> Forero and Pedro, does your use of _ought_ + bare infinitive work in the interrogative and affirmative as well as the negative?
> 
> In other words, are:
> _Ought you go?_
> and
> _You ought go._
> OK, alongside
> _You ought not go/You oughtn't go_.
> ?
> 
> 
> (I was wondering if it was similar to modal _need_/_dare_, which work in the negative, 'sort-of' work in the interrogative, and don't work in the affirmative.)


Yes, just like modal _need_ and _dare_.


----------



## bennymix

I think you're pulling our collective leg a bit, Loob.    I addressed this issue in another thread

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2942831&p=14876307#post14876307

It's when and where ellipsis is permitted.   Papa R and Thomas T seem to say 'never' in these cases.    The 'opposing' rule is 'Sometimes it's permitted.'  The Americans sometimes do it, and Shakespeare did it.    This did NOT mean that promiscuous ellipsis always generates a happy (mellifluous) result;  it's not compulsory over the range of possible cases. But it is,
I say, sometimes done, sometimes with a happy result.   Shakespeare, at least, thought so.




Loob said:


> Forero and Pedro, does your use of _ought_ + bare infinitive work in the interrogative and affirmative as well as the negative?
> 
> In other words, are:
> _Ought you go?_
> and
> _You ought go._
> OK, alongside
> _You ought not go/You oughtn't go_.
> ?
> 
> 
> (I was wondering if it was similar to modal _need_/_dare_, which work in the negative, 'sort-of' work in the interrogative, and don't work in the affirmative.)


----------



## Loob

No, I wasn't pulling anyone's leg, benny.

As I said, I was wondering whether _ought + bare infinitive _worked in the same way as modal _need/_modal _dare. _Forero has confirmed it does.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Loob said:


> Forero and Pedro, does your use of _ought_ + bare infinitive work in the interrogative and affirmative as well as the negative?
> 
> In other words, are:
> _Ought you go?_
> and
> _You ought go._
> OK, alongside
> _You ought not go/You oughtn't go_.
> ?
> 
> 
> (I was wondering if it was similar to modal _need_/_dare_, which work in the negative, 'sort-of' work in the interrogative, and don't work in the affirmative.)



Yes indeed, same principle at work!

Edit: For some reason (which can't be terribly logical), I think I'd be more likely to say ''you ought to go'' _but_, when it's flipped around,''you ought not go''.


----------



## bennymix

Pedro proposed  





> "you ought not go''.


   Excellent, to this AE ear.  A bit literary, but excellent!


----------



## toygekko

Why is it a bit literary? What's a more colloquial way of saying it?


----------



## sonorous

you should not go


----------



## PaulQ

*"Garner's Modern American Usage" *By Bryan Garner has a substantial section given over to explaining why “ought not to verb” is correct and “ought not ø verb” is wrong. It contains the observation (not applicable to Bennymix):





> As if striving to earn some type of scholastic badge, some writers omit the particle _to, _especially when the expression is in the negative or interrogative. But there is no warrant for this usage…


And, in a speech liberally peppered with *ought not*s, from *Hansard *(BE), 1823, 





> But such a proceeding ought not fairly to be cast on any one individual. Government ought to interfere. They ought not to stand by us, a neutral party, in this great question. Either they ought to protect the character of the judge, from the attack of ...


And from “*Debates in the House of representatives of the United States ...,*” *Volume 2 1796* at p20 (and numerous examples throughout) 





> On the contrary, he could easily think of a treaty with Spain that ought not to be executed.


To me this is indicative of there being no modern or old fashioned support for ought not <bare infinitive>.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

PaulQ said:


> To me this is indicative of there being no modern or old fashioned support for ought not <bare infinitive>.



This is a curious statement. I can find many thousands of examples (both modern and 'old') in contexts ranging from the everyday to the highly technical and legal where "ought not <bare infinitive>" is employed. (Here, here, and here are three). Surely such generalized usage is "support enough".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

One problem with a blanket disqualification like _As if striving to earn some type of scholastic badge, some writers omit the particle to, especially when the expression is in the negative or interrogative_ is that it's hard to find the canonical writer whose example lends respectability to the locution.

In anyone else, use of the form seems to condemn them rather than recommend the form.


----------



## PaulQ

Pedro y La Torre said:


> This is a curious statement. I can find many thousands of examples (both modern and 'old') in contexts ranging from the everyday to the highly technical and legal where "ought not <bare infinitive>" is employed. (Here, here, and here are three). Surely such generalized usage is "support enough".


The examples are where people (with a good education in the area) have considered their use of English, rather than just saying something. The first is a title on what appears to be a children's page, the second leads to a French book but the page is one that is not shown, the third may be an example of use but not necessarily correct use. 

When advising students of English, who may be about to be marked in life-changing exams, or to translators who need articles that do not make the reader stop for a moment, I think it justifiable to give the far more commonly accepted version as correct and dismiss the idiolectic (is that a word?) version.





Thomas Tompion said:


> One problem with a blanket disqualification


It is not a blanket disqualification: it is _argumentum ad hominem_, and, as I remarked, is an observation (thus the "bennymix caveat"). With regard to Garner as a whole, although the general cannot disprove the specific, there comes a point at which we must agree that the accepted wisdom is that earth is spherical. 

My comments went to not only what I used but are an addition to the previous posts 'supporting' the *to *version, which seems universally accepted, as opposed to the *ø *version which is a subject of contention: hence my coming down firmly on the side of the *to* version.

I looked at OED, which is helpful:





> _Ought_ , in standard  English, has many of the characteristics of the other modal auxiliaries,  notably the lack of inflections and tense distinction and the absence  of the _do_  construction in forming negatives and  interrogatives. The main exception to this is the retention of the  to-infinitive. *The construction with bare infinitive *arises early in  Middle English and survives to the present day, in modern English  especially in non-assertive contexts (compare need v.2 10c), but this *has never become standard*, perhaps owing to the influence of the parallel deontic _have to_


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

PaulQ said:


> The examples are where people (with a good education in the area) have considered their use of English, rather than just saying something. The first is a title on what appears to be a children's page, the second leads to a French book but the page is one that is not shown, the third may be an example of use but not necessarily correct use.



Perhaps the links are not showing correctly. Regardless, the first example is from a blog; the second is an academic title written by a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Missouri (not a "French book"); the third is also an academic publication.

You say 



> the third may be an example of use but not necessarily correct use



This, again, is a confusing statement. It's clear you don't favour such usage but it's quite a leap from that to maintaining that such usage is "incorrect". I only cited three examples at random but as I mentioned previously, I could cite many thousands.



PaulQ said:


> When advising students of English, who may be about to be marked in life-changing exams, or to translators who need articles that do not make the reader stop for a moment, I think it justifiable to give the far more commonly accepted version as correct and dismiss the idiolectic (is that a word?) version.



I see no reason whatever to ''dismiss" _ought not + bare infinitive_. It is in (relatively widespread) use and merits mention, like any other part of the language.


----------



## PaulQ

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Perhaps the links are not showing correctly. Regardless, the first example is from a blog; the second is an academic title written by a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Missouri (not a "French book"); the third is also an academic publication.





Pedro y La Torre said:


> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> the third may be an example of use but not necessarily correct use.
> 
> 
> 
> This, again, is a confusing statement. It's clear you don't favour such usage but it's quite a leap from that to maintaining that such usage is "incorrect". I only cited three examples at random but as I mentioned previously, I could cite many thousands.
Click to expand...

It appears from earlier Ngram references that the rate of _ought not + bare infinitive_ is running at about 9% of possible instances.





> I see no reason whatever to ''dismiss" _ought not + bare infinitive_. It is in (relatively widespread) use and merits mention, like any other part of the language.


Unfortunately, the existence of something does not make it normal, and I stand by my reference to students and translators in para 2 #41. Yes, _ought not + bare infinitive _does warrant mention, but only as a non-standard version that should be followed by advice not to use it.


----------



## bennymix

Paul said,


> Unfortunately, the existence of something does not make it normal, and I  stand by my reference to students and translators in para 2 #41. Yes, _ought not + bare infinitive _does warrant mention, but only as a non-standard version that should be followed by advice not to use it.



I think you mean to apply your advice, "in British and on British tests."   Yes?

There are some examples of "ought not" and verb, which are of slightly different ilk, and these are found in Britain.   The verb is 'be'.  After 'be' comes a passive or adjectival verb form.

 Date     (1985-1994)
Title     _The Wimbledon poisoner._ Williams, Nigel. London: Faber & Faber Ltd, 1990, pp. 1-127.
[These are the thoughts of a fellow about to murder someone.  I note, however, that they are recounted by an omniscient narrator, in sentences, proper English, not Joycean-style stream of consciousness.]



> He stopped. Maisie was looking at him doubtfully. He wasn't getting the story right. It was infected with doubt. Somehow the outside world had intruded and broken up the fabric of the tale. [...] He saw himself suddenly, a fat man on a bed, haranguing his daughter about feminism. Was that what he was? Did he, perhaps, really hate women? Maybe Elinor was right. And if she was, perhaps he ought not be trying to murder her? No. It was just a difficult, demanding task to perform.





Some thoughts on worker-priests - St James's Church ...
www.sjp.org.uk/some-thoughts-on-worker-priests.html
Hugh Valentine




> Like all institutions, the church is concerned with control and survival.
> These are often buried motives - subconscious - so this ought not be read as any criticism of individuals or a comment on their considered actions.




Birmingham: How to kill a city | The Economist
www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/05/birmingham


> May 31, 2013 - Birmingham itself was second only to London for the creation of new jobs ... stagnating economies of the North of England, Scotland and Wales, ... unpleasant things like mushrooms that ought not be allowed to grow too fast



Shobdon, St John Church - Britain Express
www.britainexpress.com › England › Herefordshire › Historic Churches


> This ought not be too surprising, as the Batemans were close friends with Walpole, and his ideas ... Address: Shobdon, Herefordshire, England, HR6 9LZ


----------



## bennymix

Reply to Paul on his authority, quoted.



PaulQ said:


> *"Garner's Modern American Usage" *By Bryan Garner has a substantial section given over to explaining why “ought not to verb” is correct and “ought not ø verb” is wrong. It contains the observation (not applicable to Bennymix):
> 
> As if striving to earn some type of scholastic badge, some writers omit the particle _to, _especially when the expression is in the negative or interrogative. But there is no warrant for this usage…
> [This remark is followed by three examples, the first from the _Journal of Higher Education_.]



Here is Garner's example:



> "A postmodern view of organizational culture argues that we ought not think [read 'ought not to think'...] of socialization as a series of social acquisitions that occur in unchanging contexts." William G Tierney, ..._ J. Higher Edu_c,  1 Jan, 1997.


[The insertion is Garner's;  Benny]

Garner, here, is actually self refuting, for he quotes three examples of 'ought not' plus verb and inserts in them the wording he'd like to see.

Given the obvious presence of (AE) counterexamples, he has to resort to a bit of rhetorical legerdemain.   In effect saying,  "Oh yes, people do say this, but there's no warrant for it."

That's merely to say,  Garner sees no reason.    But the usage (AE) is there, staring him in the face, and it's not typos or uneducated folks nor does it give any of the grounds that posters here commonly use to dismiss purported examples.

The appeal to purported motives [_striving to earn some type of scholastic badge_] is particularly unconvincing.   It's like my finding an example of Americans saying,   "May I come in."  And Garner replies, "The author is merely striving to win a badge for grammar."


----------



## Andygc

<--- > Yes, it is possible to find examples of the bare infinitive used after 'ought not' in BE. Yes, the structure is more commonly found in AE. The available evidence from Google's ngrams is that this usage was about as rare in 19th century AE as it was in 19th century BE. It has remained less common in both languages, but AE has changed more rapidly than BE. It remains a relative rarity in BE, and people wanting to learn to communicate in BE would probably do better to avoid it.

That is, learners and translators ought not to say or write "ought not say or write" unless their target audience uses AE. (or, perhaps, occupies the Celtic fringe).

There's a regional difference, so there's little point in arguing about it.


----------



## Cagey

The essential grammatical question has been answered as well as it can be.
Consensus will not be reached on the question of actual usage.  

Thank you, *onetwothreefour,* for your interesting question. 
Thank you to everyone else for your contributions. 

This thread is closed. 

Cagey, moderator.


----------

