12255
I'm not even certain that ないでいます is used, but if it is, what is it's
difference from ていません? They are both negation, but one is saying they are
negating, and the other one is saying they aren't doing. Any help?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-28T06:35:08.633
12250
2013-06-28T20:28:04.853
question
て-form
ないでいますｖｓていません-Verb Continuity and Negation
ないでいます conveys that not only one is not doing something, but also one has been
in that state for a while (as in, one hasn't been doing it.) In comparison,
ていません just says one is not doing something right now.

Therefore ないでいます carries a bit of feeling that one is procrastinating, as in
近いうちに田舎に帰ろうと決めたのですが、できないでいます。(I decided to visit my home town but I haven't
managed.)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-28T15:11:51.943
12254
2013-06-28T15:11:51.943
3059
12250
answer
(@yadokari)

Suppose that "I have been not eating" were correct English. Then it would
suggest that I were in the prolonged state of "not eating", e.g. trying not to
eat.

"I haven't been eating" suggests that I happened not to be in the state of
"eating" for some period of time. This may be coincidental.

Although it takes some work to see the difference in English, the above
example translates readily into Japanese as

> 食べないでいます  
>  I have been not eating
>
> 食べていません  
>  I haven't been eating

For example

> 断食をしてる間は、寒いと食べないでいるのが特にきつい。  
>  During fasting, when it's cold, then it is particularly difficult **to not
> be eating**.

Coming to think of it, I think that the difference in English can be related
to the "no split infinitives" rule (which, if I remember correctly, was
introduced in the 19th century as an act of arbitrariness to define "proper
speech" through grammars, which would distinguish the well-read upper class
from simple folk).

The "no split infinitives" rule corrects the above to

> ... it's particularly difficult **not to be eating**.

Another rule says that negation should be done on the auxiliary verb (any
inflection, in fact). So "to be not eating" negates "eating" directly, but
that should be done on the auxiliary verb "to be", whence "to not be eating".
But then, the "no split infinitives" pulls the negation out to the front: "not
to be eating".

Out of the following, I think only the first is formally correct

> ○ not to be eating  
>  × to not be eating  
>  × to be not eating

Japanese has no analogous rules; you can negate either part of the ～ている
construction.

The nuances that can be conveyed with this construction are described in
Kohsuke Kawaguchi's answer.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-06-28T20:23:02.930
12255
2013-06-28T20:28:04.853
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
1628
12250
answer