Japanese negatives
Calling all Japanese-speaking folk -- I've been contemplating the nuances of Japanese negatives in the more complex verb constructions, particularly ones in which a negative could be formed at one of two points, and whether or not there is a nuanced difference in meaning between the two.
For example, do you perceive any difference between the two statements:
A) 見ないべきだ and B) 見るべきじゃない
I tend to see a difference between these two, albeit one that is very subtle. Translating べき as an implication of obligation, I perceive statement A as an implication that the act of seeing/viewing is something that one must not do, whereas statement B is that there is no obligation to see or not to see. In other words, B implies that there is no obligation at all, whereas A implies that the obligation is in the act of not seeing. The same thing can be applied to はず statements and similar constructions.
Does anyone else get this kind of feeling from the difference in negative placement, or am I just imagining things? I haven't been able to find any sort of grammatical text supporting this, but it might just be something that's not discussed often.
For example, do you perceive any difference between the two statements:
A) 見ないべきだ and B) 見るべきじゃない
I tend to see a difference between these two, albeit one that is very subtle. Translating べき as an implication of obligation, I perceive statement A as an implication that the act of seeing/viewing is something that one must not do, whereas statement B is that there is no obligation to see or not to see. In other words, B implies that there is no obligation at all, whereas A implies that the obligation is in the act of not seeing. The same thing can be applied to はず statements and similar constructions.
Does anyone else get this kind of feeling from the difference in negative placement, or am I just imagining things? I haven't been able to find any sort of grammatical text supporting this, but it might just be something that's not discussed often.