Hey! I understand that “ne” is usually used with “pas” in order to negate something.
I also understand that it CAN be used without “pas”, both to negate something and also to well… not negate something.
this phrase for example:
“Il ne sert á rien d’etre “pour” ou “contre” quelque chose qui est inevitable”
I don’t understand here why “pas” has not been used assuming the sentence means “It’s no good at all being “for” or “against” something that’s inevitable”
After looking on the internet I discovered that “ne” is used without “pas” to negate things with only a select number of verbs, but none of the verbs mentioned were “servir”
… maybe someone can explain this particular example, and also how you are supposed to derive meaning when it can sometimes be used to negate and other times not to.
You can think it this way:
Formal French uses in most cases (ti seems you’ve found a list containing possible exceptions, notice that those are super-formal) a two-word system for negating:
The “default” pair, used in most cases where you would use a “don’t, doesn’t” in English (which by the way also uses a weird, two-step negation system) would be to use “ne …pas”
Je ne sais pas
However, the second word can be replaced by other negative words, “rien” is one of those.
Je ne sais rien (rien replaces pas)
“Je ne sais pas rien” would be a double negation, similar to “I don’t know nothing”
Other negative words that replace “pas” are “personne” (nobody) , “ni” (nor), “aucun” (none), … In general, all negative words
Another example is “point” which can be used as a kind of emphatic “pas” in formal contexts
Il ne parle point
The words replacing “pas” may appear in different parts of the sentence, not necessarily directly after the verb and it would still replace “pas”, there can be a preposition or other words between the verb and the negative word, as in your example, or the replacing word can even appear before “ne” if the grammar demands it:
Personne ne vient chez nous
As for the “how to derive meaning if “ne” sometimes doesn’t negate”
I’d say that in the minds of native speakers, “ne” doesn’t particularly negate. It almost only does so when a second negative word “confirms” that the sentence is negated, as in the examples above.
In everyday language, in fact, most of the time the “ne” is simply left out and only the second “really” negative word is used
Je sais pas
Je sais rien
That explains why the use of non-negative (“explétif”) “ne” doesn’t cause ambiguity:
Préparons le dîner, avant qu’il ne vienne [No “pas” or negative word, so “ne” is not really negative]
It’s true that there are a couple of exceptions, in which you can use just a simple “ne” to negate, you seem to have found a list with those:
Je ne puis expliquer…
Je ne saurais vous dire…
However, these are super-formal, rather old-fashioned expressions, from a time when “ne” kept more of its “negative power” so to speak. It’s never compulsory to omit “pas” in true negations
Notice also that the context of these “only-ne” negations and that of the “ne explétif” are easy to tell apart. In the first case, “ne” appears in (a few very specific) main clauses, in the second only in a handful of also very specific subordinate clauses
Anyway, both uses remain formal and rare (the former more so than the latter). The overwhelming majority of “ne” occurrences you’ll find will be accompanied by a second negative word.
Oh! I forgot the most usual case of “ne” without a second negative word:
“ne…que” meaning “only”
Il n’a que de l’argent
Consider that as a set expression, exactly as English “nothing… but”
It’s not considered a negation. In fact it can be in turn negated:
Il n’a pas que de l’argent (meaning “he not only has money”, he has something else)
thanks again!