Why doesn't “need” take a “to” infinitive in some cases? [duplicate]












1
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Why use “need not” instead of “do not need to”?

    1 answer




In a book of Alexander McCall Smith I found this phrase:




No historical novelists need apply.




Why isn't it this with a to for the infinitive?




No historical novelist need to apply?







negation bare-infinitive semi-modals







share|improve this question









New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by Laurel, tchrist♦ 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1





    It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago


















1
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Why use “need not” instead of “do not need to”?

    1 answer




In a book of Alexander McCall Smith I found this phrase:




No historical novelists need apply.




Why isn't it this with a to for the infinitive?




No historical novelist need to apply?







negation bare-infinitive semi-modals







share|improve this question









New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by Laurel, tchrist♦ 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1





    It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago
















1












1








1


1







This question already has an answer here:




  • Why use “need not” instead of “do not need to”?

    1 answer




In a book of Alexander McCall Smith I found this phrase:




No historical novelists need apply.




Why isn't it this with a to for the infinitive?




No historical novelist need to apply?







negation bare-infinitive semi-modals







share|improve this question









New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













This question already has an answer here:




  • Why use “need not” instead of “do not need to”?

    1 answer




In a book of Alexander McCall Smith I found this phrase:




No historical novelists need apply.




Why isn't it this with a to for the infinitive?




No historical novelist need to apply?






This question already has an answer here:




  • Why use “need not” instead of “do not need to”?

    1 answer







negation bare-infinitive semi-modals




negation bare-infinitive semi-modals






share|improve this question









New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









tchrist♦

109k28290464




109k28290464






New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









SettembriniSettembrini

61




61




New contributor




Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Settembrini is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




marked as duplicate by Laurel, tchrist♦ 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Laurel, tchrist♦ 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1





    It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago
















  • 1





    It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

    – michael.hor257k
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago






  • 1





    @tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago










1




1





It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

– michael.hor257k
2 days ago







It's a reference to a well-known idiom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

– michael.hor257k
2 days ago






1




1





@tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

– michael.hor257k
2 days ago





@tchrist The question is why does the author use this form. The answer is that he uses it because it's a well-known idiom. He would be well justified to use it, regardless of it being grammatical (which I am not entirely convinced of) or not.

– michael.hor257k
2 days ago




1




1





@tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago







@tchrist I thoroughly disagree that the "to" in "need to apply" is ungrammatical.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago






1




1





@tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

– Weather Vane
2 days ago





@tchrist sorry yes I already deleted that part. But "I need to think" is perfectly good English, not "I need think".

– Weather Vane
2 days ago




1




1





@tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago







@tchrist IMO the grammatical error is that "need" should be "needs". And note the typo in the question, "novelists" became "novelist" in the second version. Kept in the plural, "No historical novelists need to apply" is quite grammatical, but not idiomatic.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














It's a polite idiom used to tell them not to apply, because they are not wanted.



The phrase is often seen when a job vacancy is re-advertised after a suitable person was not found.




Previous applicants need not apply.







share|improve this answer
























  • This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago













  • Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago





















1














A variant is "need not apply," and as the previous poster said, it's an idiomatic expression that doesn't follow precisely the rules of English.



You should keep in mind that signs that people make are notoriously bad examples of proper English.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago






  • 1





    +1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

    – Jason Bassford
    yesterday




















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














It's a polite idiom used to tell them not to apply, because they are not wanted.



The phrase is often seen when a job vacancy is re-advertised after a suitable person was not found.




Previous applicants need not apply.







share|improve this answer
























  • This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago













  • Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago


















1














It's a polite idiom used to tell them not to apply, because they are not wanted.



The phrase is often seen when a job vacancy is re-advertised after a suitable person was not found.




Previous applicants need not apply.







share|improve this answer
























  • This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago













  • Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago
















1












1








1







It's a polite idiom used to tell them not to apply, because they are not wanted.



The phrase is often seen when a job vacancy is re-advertised after a suitable person was not found.




Previous applicants need not apply.







share|improve this answer













It's a polite idiom used to tell them not to apply, because they are not wanted.



The phrase is often seen when a job vacancy is re-advertised after a suitable person was not found.




Previous applicants need not apply.








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Weather VaneWeather Vane

1,897313




1,897313













  • This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago













  • Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago





















  • This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago













  • Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

    – Weather Vane
    2 days ago



















This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago







This is not an idiom. It's modal need, which means it does not take a to-infinitive.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago






1




1





@tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago







@tchrist by "idiom" I mean that the phrase indicates that historical novelists are not welcome, not that it is ungrammatical. As pointed out by michael.hor257k above.

– Weather Vane
2 days ago















Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago







Here are similar examples of modal need: One need only apply..., One need never apply..., Need one apply...? Those are all the base form of the verb, not the one inflected for number and person which would take a to-infinitive as in One needs to apply oneself.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago






1




1





@tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

– Weather Vane
2 days ago







@tchrist I understand that, but the sentence "No historical novelists need to apply" posted could be taken to mean they will be considered without applying, whereas the idiomatic use "No historical novelists need apply" says they are unwelcome. Far from "need not" it means "must not". Do you know this usage?

– Weather Vane
2 days ago















1














A variant is "need not apply," and as the previous poster said, it's an idiomatic expression that doesn't follow precisely the rules of English.



You should keep in mind that signs that people make are notoriously bad examples of proper English.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago






  • 1





    +1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

    – Jason Bassford
    yesterday


















1














A variant is "need not apply," and as the previous poster said, it's an idiomatic expression that doesn't follow precisely the rules of English.



You should keep in mind that signs that people make are notoriously bad examples of proper English.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago






  • 1





    +1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

    – Jason Bassford
    yesterday
















1












1








1







A variant is "need not apply," and as the previous poster said, it's an idiomatic expression that doesn't follow precisely the rules of English.



You should keep in mind that signs that people make are notoriously bad examples of proper English.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










A variant is "need not apply," and as the previous poster said, it's an idiomatic expression that doesn't follow precisely the rules of English.



You should keep in mind that signs that people make are notoriously bad examples of proper English.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









Alana ForsythAlana Forsyth

493




493




New contributor




Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Alana Forsyth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago






  • 1





    +1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

    – Jason Bassford
    yesterday





















  • No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

    – tchrist♦
    2 days ago






  • 1





    +1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

    – Jason Bassford
    yesterday



















No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago





No, this is the wrong answer. It is not an idiom. The verb need is a semi-modal one, and in negative and interrogative contexts it can become a full modal: He was content knowing that he need never apply to that school.

– tchrist♦
2 days ago




1




1





+1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

– Jason Bassford
yesterday







+1 You are correct. It's both a regular sentence and an idiom. Generally speaking, in the specific sense of telling people to "go away" (which is a different meaning than just the words themselves), it's being used idiomatically.

– Jason Bassford
yesterday





-

Popular posts from this blog

If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

Image
5 This question already has an answer here: How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? 3 answers There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt? magic-the-gathering probability share | improve this question asked Nov 23 '18 at 12:12 dan dan 152 4
Read more

Alcedinidae

Image
Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
Read more

Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]

Image
9 $begingroup$ This question already has an answer here: What happens if we put together a proton and an antineutron? 2 answers Is it theoretically possible to make a "deuterium" atom containing a proton and an antineutron in its nucleus? Would the strong nuclear force cause attraction between a proton and an antineutron? Would such a nucleus be stable, or would the proton somehow annihilate the antineutron when close enough? nuclear-physics antimatter share | cite | improve this question asked yesterday
Read more