n't

In the case of n't, the negation can also be emphasized by stressing the word to which the clitic is attached:

A common variation in an amphibrachic line, in both Russian and English, is to end the line with an iamb, as Thomas Hardy does in " The Ruined Maid ": " Oh did n't / you know I'd / been ru in'd / said she ".

" I have < u > n't </ u > < u > never </ u > owed < u > nothing </ u > to < u > no one </ u >" in negative-concord dialects of English, and "< u > Nunca </ u > devi < u > nada </ u > a < u > ninguém </ u >" in Portuguese, lit.

At least one study has sought to analyze the category of negative informal contractions as the attachment of an inflectional suffix, for example, due to the existence of irregular forms and the fact that " n't " moves with the verb during inversion for questions rather than staying in the same place as the full word " not " would.

However, he could n't deliver hits in 1990 with Kadathanadan Ambadi and Akkareyakkareyakkare.

Most of the modals have contracted negated forms in n't which are commmonly used in informal English: can't, mustn't, won't ( from will ), etc.

When there is negation, the contraction with n't may undergo inversion as an auxiliary in its own right: Why can't I come in?

daprt ' e ' n't ' e ' r ' ' d ' a't ' acr

Zwicky and Pullum have shown that n't is an inflectional suffix, not a clitic or a derivational suffix.

in natural language processing, contractions such as "' s ", " n't ", and the like are considered

* Grammatical person: e. g. < u > Is </ u > n't < u > he </ u > the king?

versus < u > Are </ u > n't < u > you </ u > the king?

* Grammatical number: e. g. < u > Is </ u > n't < u > he </ u >?

versus < u > Are </ u > n't < u > they </ u >?