1. She didn't need to leave early.
2. She didn't have to leave early.
3. She needed not leave early.
------------------------------
Are they all the same in meaning? What is the difference in meaning if any?
1. She didn't need to leave early.
2. She didn't have to leave early.
3. She needed not leave early.
4. He need not have done it.
5. He didn't need to do it.
6. He needed not to do it.
------------------------------
Are they all the same in meaning? What is the difference in meaning if any?
Sentence 3 in each set is not normal idiomatic phrasing. Sentences 1 and 2 in each set are correct and normal idiomatic phrasing.
Yes, all three sentences have essentially the same meaning. They all convey that someone had the option or choice to leave early, but that it was not necessary or required for them to do so. The difference lies in the linguistic construction used to express this idea.
1. "She didn't need to leave early." This is the most commonly used form and is considered more natural in everyday conversation. It employs the negation of "need to," implying that leaving early is not obligatory or mandatory.
2. "She didn't have to leave early." This sentence also conveys the same meaning, but it uses the negation of "have to" instead of "need to." Both "need to" and "have to" indicate an obligation or necessity, so the negation implies that there was no such obligation to leave early.
3. "She needed not leave early." This construction is less common and considered more formal or archaic. It directly negates the verb "leave" by using "not" after "needed," thereby indicating the absence of necessity or obligation to leave early.
In summary, while there may be slight differences in style or formality, the overall meaning of these sentences remains consistent — that leaving early was not required.