grammar - "I can not attend to something" meaning "I'm free not to attend to something"?


When I say "I cannot attend to it" it sounds like I'm saying "I'm not able to attend to it", while what I want to express is that I'm capable of doing it, but I just don't need to.


In Slavic languages it's resolved by changing the negation particle position: [negation] [can] [do something] vs. [can] [negation] [do something]. In the first case I negate "can", while in the second I negate the "do" verb.


How to achieve the same in English and not be ambiguous?



Answer



In English this is often achieved by using the opposite verb. In this sentence you could say "I'm free to avoid something" or "I'm free to skip something".


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

etymology - Since when has "a hot minute" meant a long time?

etymology - Why "silver-tongued" for someone who is convincing?

usage - "there doesn't seem" vs. "there don't seem"

etymology - Origin of "queer as a clockwork orange"

First floor vs ground floor, usage origin

meaning - What is meant by "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining"?