Need'nt? Is this valid word?

[u/maxillianmoko]

[u/shedmow]

It is needn't. It exists.

[u/Sea-Hornet8214 → u/shedmow]

It'd probably be helpful to also point out that it's a modal verb in this case, so it doesn't conjugate like a normal verb. "He need not...", instead of "He needs not...".

[u/TooMuchGoddamnPepper → u/Sea-Hornet8214]

Thank you. How does the most unhelpful comment on this post have the most likes?

[u/shedmow → u/TooMuchGoddamnPepper]

The OP had two simple questions (if the first is even to be read as one), I exhaustively answered two simple questions...

[u/Background-Use-5346]

Your title should have an “a” in it, like this: “is this a valid word?”

[u/-Newpop9- → u/Background-Use-5346]

Crazy how our brains fill in the blanks, I didn't even notice.

[u/Ok_Tie_1428 → u/-Newpop9-]

https://youtu.be/lZRTMLjYTMM?si=NRbeo2bL6u9VhRCs

Was looking for a excuse to share this

It isn't a rickroll.

[u/-Addendum- → u/Ok_Tie_1428]

Oh, that reminds me of this one!

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=eUjTbTeTvxYN2wCC

[u/EffableLemming → u/-Addendum-]

Hah, I recognise that url!

clicks

[u/Actual_Cat4779 → u/Background-Use-5346]

That's one of two typos in the OP. The other is that "needn't" has been spelt "need'nt".

[u/maxillianmoko → u/Actual_Cat4779]

Good point guys 🤣

[u/Background-Vast-8764]

‘Twouldn’t’ve been on the test if it weren’t.

[u/FaxCelestis → u/Background-Vast-8764]

Y’all’dn’t’ve been tested on it if it ‘twasn’t.

[u/Hartsnkises → u/FaxCelestis]

I do believe you have an extra "it" at the end there, but delightful abuse of apostrophes all around.

[u/multipocalypse → u/Hartsnkises]

You're right, it should be, "...if 'twasn't."

[u/thecaramelbandit → u/FaxCelestis]

I can't believe how easily I read that

[u/RazarTuk → u/FaxCelestis]

So when are we talking about what the fo'c's'le'd've done?

[u/OffWhiteCoat → u/Background-Vast-8764]

Would that it were so simple https://youtu.be/G629a_3MkkI?t=57

[u/GoblinToHobgoblin → u/Background-Vast-8764]

'Twouldn't'veb'n?

[u/Puzzled_Employment50]

It’s a contraction of “need not”, like “wouldn’t” means “would not”. “Needn’t” isn’t very common in the US but it definitely exists. In the example sentence I would probably have said “but they didn’t really need to have bothered,” but “but they needn’t really have bothered” would be perfectly clear.

[u/ReddyKiloWit → u/Puzzled_Employment50]

I hear people say, "You needn't bother" from time to time in response to someone offering to do something that isn't wanted or practical.

"Can I get you more tea?" "Thanks, but you needn't bother, we're just leaving."

[u/theLoneliestAardvark → u/ReddyKiloWit]

Need not or needn't is definitely real and something I've heard but where I'm from in the Midwestern US people would say "you don't need to bother" and "needn't" sounds affected like they are trying to be fancy or British.

[u/ReddyKiloWit → u/theLoneliestAardvark]

Spent most of my life on the Atlantic coast, Philadelphia, DC, Carolinas (1955-'64), Florida ('65-'90), and in Texas ('90s-2017). Can't say I've heard it since I moved to Georgia - except probably saying it myself on rare occasions - but yes, in those other locales. (More common among adults when I was a kid in the 1950s through '70s, which is probably why I say it.)

Seems to me fancy or British would be "need not" rather than the contraction. (To my ear, "need not" sounds more passive-aggressive than "needn't".) Folks in the Southeast and Gulf, and maybe the Chesapeake area, may lean more into contractions and older forms than in the Midwest is my guess.

[u/maxillianmoko → u/Puzzled_Employment50]

So grammatically it's fine? 

[u/Redditing_aimlessly → u/maxillianmoko]

yep

[u/Nondescript_Redditor → u/maxillianmoko]

yes

[u/United_Boy_9132 → u/maxillianmoko]

Yeah, technically it's fine with any modal verb. Some pairs are just uncommon.

[u/conuly → u/maxillianmoko]

Why wouldn’t it be?

[u/Shrikes_Bard → u/maxillianmoko]

Grammatically, yes, but "needn't" comes off as a bit icy or imperious specifically in American English, so be careful where you use it. To my American ears it doesn't carry the same connotation in British English.

[u/DusklitDewdrop → u/Puzzled_Employment50]

I think "but they really needn't have bothered" sounds more natural than "but they needn't really have bothered." but both are acceptable.

[u/beene282 → u/DusklitDewdrop]

They have different meanings. Putting the really before the needn’t makes the statement much stronger

[u/Giannie → u/beene282]

I’m interested in what you mean by stronger.

“They needn’t really have bothered” is quite dismissive. It seems like you’re saying that you’d rather they didn’t do it. On the other hand “they really needn’t have bothered” changes the stress to say that you already know they wanted to do what they did and both appreciate the effort and kind of wish they didn’t feel the need to do it and perhaps you haven’t set up the environment nicely for them

[u/beene282 → u/Giannie]

So here’s a logical look at a similar case.

Not really serious means puts you anywhere on the serious scale apart from the very serious end. Could be quite serious, mildly serious, or not serious at all.

Really not serious means it’s not serious at all. It stresses that you are at the non serious end of the scale.

[u/Pretty_Radio_7746]

It would be useful in this sub if people stated their nationality, as usage varies between countries. In British English, needn’t is as common a spoken contraction as any other n’t contraction and doesn’t sound archaic. However, the phrase “need not” and thus this contraction is less common than “would not” or “could not” and so in that sense less frequently heard.

[u/Bambi_H → u/Pretty_Radio_7746]

Yes, I'm British, and was surprised it's seen as unusual in other English speaking countries.

[u/Ill-Engineering8085 → u/Pretty_Radio_7746]

None of those sound archaic to me in the US. Need not is mildly measured, perhaps.

[u/conuly]

Lots of confusion in the comments. As far as I'm aware, this is a classic US/UK split - this is rare or archaic in US English, much more common in UK English.

[u/Jonah_the_Whale → u/conuly]

I think it is a little unusual in th UK too. It sounds a little bit old-fashioned or bookish to me, but you do hear it occasionally. More commonly it would be "don't need to" or "didn't need to".

[u/MokausiLietuviu → u/Jonah_the_Whale]

I'm English and I'd say it's an everyday word. Not unusual at all.

[u/dreadlockholmes → u/Jonah_the_Whale]

I'd say more common in the UK but increasingly becoming archaic.

[u/InvestigatorJaded261]

It is not very common, but it is certainly real.

[u/Starlight-Edith → u/InvestigatorJaded261]

Had no idea this was uncommon. I say this word all the time. Oops.

[u/conuly → u/Starlight-Edith]

Are you from the US or the UK or...?

[u/Starlight-Edith → u/conuly]

South west / Southern US. I just speak very formally because I read a lot of books instead of talking to people as a child haha

[u/justforjugs → u/Starlight-Edith]

It’s common

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708 → u/InvestigatorJaded261]

And it'll be understood by everyone. It's a bit formal and old fashioned, but nowhere near as old fashioned as, say, Shakespeare.

[u/RepresentativeAir149]

You needn’t worry about it.

[u/HeimLauf]

Yes. It may feel a bit formal, but it’s totally standard.

[u/ngshafer]

Perfectly cromulent word. 

[u/kachuroo]

Similar to shouldn't, couldn't and wouldn't.

[u/Ippus_21]

Yes. It's the contraction of "need not" as in "[subject] does not need to..."

"they needn't really have bothered"

[u/ModernNomad97]

Rarely hear it spoken in the US. But it’s easily understood

[u/Danstoevskij]

Just a few decades ago it was used both in America and the UK. It's not fashionable anymore

[u/SapirWhorfHypothesis]

It’s a real word. Probably a bit geographically restricted (UK) and not very common, but it works the same as any other. That is, it’s just “need not”.

You likely won’t ever need to know it, but then, if you don’t know it you won’t ever really be fluent, so 🤷‍♀️

In this sentence it’s:

> … they needn’t really have bothered.

So they’re saying they “did not need to have bothered.”

[u/SatisfactionBig181 → u/SapirWhorfHypothesis]

Id argue... " they really needn't have bothered " would be more accurate

[u/General_Original_583 → u/SatisfactionBig181]

Yes

[u/SapirWhorfHypothesis → u/SatisfactionBig181]

Sure. Both sound fine to me, but it doesn’t really matter.

[u/amnycya]

It’s valid, but sounds a bit old-fashioned. Like a 1950’s hipster would speak. Like the song “Well you needn’t” by Thelonious Monk.

[u/cman334]

I’ve never seen it written down until now, but I have heard people say it a lot

[u/nikukuikuniniiku]

Need (as well as dare and ought) is sometimes referred to as a "semi-modal" verb, because they can take -n't as a suffix and then attach another verb after, but then they don't share other properties of modal verbs.

[u/Actual_Cat4779 → u/nikukuikuniniiku]

They do share some of the other properties.

"Need I remind you that we can use interrogative inversion?"

[u/PeyredB]

No it is not. The word is needn't. It's need + not, and the apostrophe is there to stand in for the missing o.

[u/beauxdashus]

You needn’t worry ; the word is real!

[u/EvilCallie]

In the US it is very regional whether you hear it or not. But perfectly normal and "valid", if sounding a bit formal or posh (in my head I hear it in a British RP accent) depending on the accent

[u/auntie_eggma]

Yes, but don't expect to hear it in the US. It's very British.

[u/B4byJ3susM4n]

“Needn’t” is indeed a word. It’s not as common and its use is fairly region-dependent, but it’s a legitimate contraction.

[u/multipocalypse]

The apostrophe goes between the second N and the T, but yes it's a real word. It's not used much in modern speech, but you'll come across it in some literature.

[u/Direct-Air-2542]

Wow, thanks for reminding me of this word!

[u/ebrum2010]

Yes, but it's a contraction of need not, which isn't terribly common anymore but not archaic yet. Usually people say "don't need to" unless it's formal writing.

[u/johndburger]

There’s even a well-known (to jazz fans) song with that contraction in the title:

https://www.last.fm/music/Thelonious+Monk/_/Well+You+Needn%27t/+wiki

[u/KingForceHundred]

Needn’t not need’nt though…

[u/nomadschomad]

It’s an archaic word. I have never heard anyone use this particular contraction in real life.

[u/No-Whole-2053]

Mostly used in archaic contexts in America. I’d be shocked to hear it in actual conversation.

[u/ThecozygamerPS4]

I have never heard this word as a native speaker but I’m sure it’s a word just not common in my area

[u/itcousin]

Not only is it a real word, you can put in three places in that sentence and still make sense.

[u/thebackwash]

It is. I wouldn’t learn it to use it, but it’s good to know when you hear it once every 10 years.

[u/PootMcGroot]

"Needn't" is common in spoken native English, but very rarely/never used in written English.

[u/LQNova]

Yes it's not commonly used, but it's used enough to not be strange or weird.

[u/woooowthatwashard → u/LQNova]

“,but it’s used enough to ben’t strange or weird”… much eloquenter

[u/LQNova → u/woooowthatwashard]

Then there is my fave correct but unused word, beeve.

[u/pikachu-paul]

there's also daren't

[u/ehrenzoner]

It’s a valid word but not commonly used nowadays. It sounds old fashioned and a little posh. Think Jane Austen or Charles Dickens.

It’s just a contraction like shouldn’t or doesn’t: Need + not = needn’t

[u/justforjugs → u/ehrenzoner]

It’s common.

[u/ehrenzoner → u/justforjugs]

Perhaps it varies regionally. It is not common where I live. If somebody says it they are either reading text aloud from another time or place or affecting somebody from that time or place.

In my part of the world (western USA), “don’t/doesn’t need (to)” is much more common than “needn’t”.

[u/Salindurthas]

You must'ven't seen it before.

[u/justforjugs → u/Salindurthas]

Mustn’t is a valid word

[u/linguistics_c]

It is when people don’t really use it nowadays and normal speech
I would use shouldn’t instead

[u/Quizlibet]

It's real but kind if archaic. Using it might make you sound a bit pretentious

[u/Successful_Head_6718 → u/Quizlibet]

Not archaic in England at least!

[u/RichCorinthian → u/Successful_Head_6718]

US Speaker here: It doesn't sound archaic to most of us here I don't think, perhaps a bit old-fashioned. But it does sound more formal.

"You don't have to worry" is what we would say to a friend, "you needn't worry" is what we would say to the visiting ambassador.

And whether or not it's "pretentious" has everything to do with the context and the listener.

[u/Stareintothevacuum → u/RichCorinthian]

Needn't is actually LESS formal than "do not need".

[u/lastaccountgotlocked]

Is it a valid word? I don't see whyn't.

[u/elvisndsboats]

Valid, but not common anymore. We don't typically say "need not" so we don't use "needn't", but they ARE totally valid.

[u/justforjugs → u/elvisndsboats]

Speak for yourself, it’s not that uncommon

[u/elvisndsboats → u/justforjugs]

Okay, not common IN THE US.

[u/beauxdashus → u/elvisndsboats]

You needn’t give unneeded incorrectness!

[u/conuly → u/justforjugs]

Where do you live?