Had not is used right?

Question

The sentence: He had not been ill, he might have come.

We can change it as follows: Had he not been ill, he might have come.

Now I have a question. Can I change it as follows: Had not he been ill, he might have come.

Thank you everyone.

Miriam · Accepted Answer

"He had not been ill, he might have ccome."
I think this sentence should read "IF he had not been ill, he might have come." In your sentence, the conjunction that introduces the conditional clause is missing.

The second sentence is fine. When a conditional clause contains one of the auxiliary verbs "were", "had" or "should", it can be replaced by a clause without "if" by inversion of verb and subject. Here are a few examples:
"Were he here now, he would tell you the truth." (= If he were here now)
"I will leave, should it be necessary." (= if it should be necessary)

Now, "Had not he been ill" is not grammatically correct -as far as I know. In order for the negation to appear right after the auxiliary verb ~~and still make a grammatically acceptable construction~~ you should use the contracted form: "Hadn't he been ill". When you do not use a "short form", the construction "Aux + subject + not" is used.

This also applies to questions in the negative:
"Were you not expected to be here at 3 pm?" / "Weren't you expected to be here at 3 pm?"
"Has she not been waiting for an hour already?" / "Hasn't she been waiting for an hour already?"

The question of placing the negative adverb before or after the subject is not really a matter of conditional sentences, but a matter of the rules for forming questions in the negative.

I hope it helps. And I hope my explanation is correct! :-S

Soochu · Answer

Thank you very much. Miriam. Now I understand it clear.
Yeah, I am very sorry I missed the auxiliary verb ' if '.

Had not is used right?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬