isn't why you came here...

[navi tasan]

Are all of these sentences correct:

1) Wasn't why you came here to see me?
2) Wasn't why you came here so that you could see me?
3) Wasn't why you came here so you could see me?

Gratefully,
Navi

 

[jutfrank]

What kind of correct are you talking about? I think they can all three be considered as grammatical, but honestly, I had to read the first one several times over in order to understand what you mean. The latter two are not half as bad. Of course, you'd have a much greater chance that a listener would understand you if you were to speak them rather than write them.

Is that the kind of answer you're looking for? It's sometimes hard to know how to answer your questions, Navi.

 

[Tarheel]

None of them seem natural to me. Perhaps:

Didn't you come here to see me?

( i can't imagine why I would say that, but if I did that's the way I would say it.)

 

[Tdol]

How about using Was it not?

 

[emsr2d2]

#1 would be correct with "that" after "Wasn't".
#2 and #3 are awkward at best.

I'd use either "Didn't you come here to see me?" or, at a push, "Wasn't it to see me that you came?"

 

[jutfrank]

#1 would be correct with "that" after "Wasn't".

That would change the syntax considerably, and the meaning too. The subject is the wh-clause why you came here. You can see that more clearly if the sentence is written in declarative order:

Why you came here was (not) to see me.

It's grammatical (and very awkward and unnatural) as is it, with subject and verb inverted.

Wasn't why you came here to see me?

 

[emsr2d2]

For me "Wasn't why you came here to see me?" is ungrammatical and means nothing. If "why" were replaced with "the reason [that]", I could be persuaded to accept it and make sense of it.