Nein, nein, stimmt schon (das "does not" ist impliziert).

Und diese "implizierte" (weggelassene) Verneinung ist auch Schriftsprache oder kann man das nur umgangssprachlich machen?

Das ist sogar förmlich, man würde es in der Umgangssprache weniger sagen.

What her ladyship says :)

[modal] British English used in negative sentences when saying that something is not necessary or not always true [↪ have to]
need not/needn't You needn't stay long.
Going to the dentist need not necessarily be a painful experience.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/need_1

(Note that "need not be sth. and "does not need to be sth." don't actually mean exactly the same thing.)

Super, danke!

@ CM2DD

I used to teach people this, but then I was assailed by doubts. Can you provide a convincing example of the difference?

"Note that "need not be sth. and "does not need to be sth." don't actually mean exactly the same thing."

Hast du da vielleicht ein Beispiel für mich, CM2DD?

CM2DDs Beispiele sind ja völlig aus dem Alltag gegriffen. Würden die Muttersprachler trotzdem zustimmen, dass "need not be" ein höheres Register ist als "does not need to be"?

I would actually claim that "need not be" is very rare in AE; you might come across it in either something trying to appear/sound BE or else very, very formal/literary text.

#10 LDOCE does say that it's BE.
Not sure if it's only formal; maybe the informal use is more common among slightly older people?

Escoville - I don't think they're used the same when "need not" means "isn't always/necessarily X". I'd say "Going to the dentist need not be a painful experience" but not "Going to the dentist does not need to be a painful experience", as no-one claims that it needs to be painful.

If someone started smoking, then looked at me and went to open a window, I'd also prefer "There's no need to open the window!" or "You needn't open the window!" rather than "You don't need to open the window", but in that example I don't think the meaning would be different.

I'm not saying it's BE, CM2DD, I'm merely saying it's rara avis in AE. :-)

#9.
>>CM2DDs Beispiele sind ja völlig aus dem Alltag gegriffen. Würden die Muttersprachler trotzdem zustimmen, dass "need not be" ein höheres Register ist als "does not need to be"?

Yes, "need not be" is more formal.

"need not be" is used in AE, and not just used to be pretentious.

Need I be or need I not be? That is the question.

Maybe you read more supercilious stuff than I do, but I never run across it; or extremely rarely.

Also note the phrase "Previous applicants need not apply". (Some people seem to use "do not need" for this instead - see Google - but they're in a clear minority.)

OT @ #13:
Hi opine! :-D

Hi opine! :-D

Funny, KA, that's been my suspicion, too. :-)

There should be several threads in the archive on 'need' in this sense. As I understand it, it's really not an implied 'does not,' it's using 'need' more like a true modal verb, without inflected endings in the present tense. I can't recall if anyone ever came up with a more precise linguistic explanation; learners probably can (and should) learn it just as a fixed form.

To me 'needn't' is BE, but 'need not' just sounds very formal.

I am not convinced by CM2DD's examples. For me, "need" can be a modal (if it's negative or interrogative), but needn't be (I must say at this point that I find "...but doesn't need to be" slightly odd, so perhaps I'm wrong.)

Of course if it's affirmative, it's never a modal. And it only works in the present. The past tense of "needn't do X" is "didn't need to do X".

@15: I had been wondering about that too. Registering twice is no longer a banishable offense then?