For me it refers not to the store and not to the one clerk you spoke to but collectively to the not-further-specified people who work there.
Is the structure of that sentence, in reference to how 'not' is used, an excellent way to circumvent the use of the modal 'do'?
I ask because, as a non-native speaker and not a linguist, I would have written the above sentence as follows:
1. For me it doesn't refer to the store and doesn't refer to the one clerk you spoke to but collectively to the not-further-specified people who work there.
or perhaps:
2. For me it doesn't refer to the store and to the one clerk you spoke to but collectively to the not-further-specified people who work there.
If the original version is grammatical, can I generalize that use of 'not' to other cases, for example "I'm going not to answer, but to waiting an answer"?
Best Answer
I would write it this way:
1a) For me, it refers not/neither to the store or to the one clerk you spoke to but collectively to the not-further-specified people who work there.
or
1b) For me, it doesn't refer to the store or to the one clerk you spoke to but refers/does collectively to the not-further-specified people who work there.
However, when you write the sentence following independently, it may be a little awkward. It is possible under some circumstances, though.
Let's get back to the sentence 1a. You can rephrase it to:
You use "not" to make a comparison of the phrases "to the store/the clerk" and "to the not-further-specified people". This is the reason why the sentence 1a sounds OK.