4

I like to use not to have but it sounds strange here:

Comming from Brazil, a country lucky enough not to have hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis, perhaps necessity for such a center was not clear.

Is it correct?

Michael Rybkin
  • 37,600
  • 29
  • 167
  • 310
KcFnMi
  • 185
  • 5
  • 2
    No, it isn't. The part after the comma is wrong. Also, try need rather than necessity. Comming takes one m only. – Lambie Mar 29 '18 at 13:24
  • 3
    You use 'not to have' correctly. As Lambie points out, however, the end of your sentence is not constructed correctly. – EllieK Mar 29 '18 at 15:02

2 Answers2

2

The Cambridge Dictionary website says it's fine.

Non-finite clauses are clauses without a subject, where the main verb is in the to-infinitive form, the -ing form or the -ed form. To make the negative of a non-finite clause, we can use not.

Not to have invited James to our little party would have been impolite.

However, to me personally, to not have sounds better.

Omegastick
  • 1,132
  • 6
  • 15
0

I would rewrite not to have in the sentence as to have not experienced, meaning it would read like so:

Comming from Brazil, a country lucky enough to have not experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis, perhaps the necessity for such a center was not clear.

lyxal
  • 101
  • 3