»
Main Forums
»
English Workshop
»
Negative + Negative = Positive
| English Workshop |
|
Negative + Negative = Positive |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Does anyone know exactly whence the notion of "negative + negative = positive" came in respect to language? Isn't this a mathematical concept somewhat forced onto the language world. In other words, demanding words to act like math? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting question. I didn't know that it WAS a set rule of language. If I say, I CAN'T NOT EAT FOR A WEEK, i'm using two negatives but it doesn't mean I CAN eat for a week. It means I can't go a week without eating, therefore the CAN'T NOT does not equate to CAN. In other cases it's simply a question of applied logic. YOU SHOULDN'T NOT EAT means you should for the simple logical reason that the second negative reverses the first. I don't see it as a demand but rather as an appilcation of natural reasoning. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Not only does it not work, as pointed out by Balladeer, but my recollection from school is that double negatives are to be avoided, universally. Oh, BTW, the world of logical mathematics would never attempt to impose any kind of logic on the totally illogical world of language, especially English.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Unless you're Mick Jagger, Pete....but, even then, you can't get no satisfaction.  |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
RE: "Oh, BTW, the world of logical mathematics would never attempt to impose any kind of logic on the totally illogical world of language, especially English." Isn't this one of the major elements of AI research, creating algorithms that allow a machine to respond to language with language? Considering the following little tautology, I can see why this might take some time: "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas. Just a little example of why ESL students go bonkers about the middle of the second semester. And no, I'm not a fan of double negatives. They are often clunky. Best, Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But originally and for the majority of English's evolution, in Old English and Middle English, and somewhat into Modern English, it was not at all thought that another negative reverses the first in a saying such as "can't get no satisfaction" but rather that the other further emphasized the negativeness, and that is how such multiple negatives were used in those kind of sayings. There was no basis in the former stages and tradition of the language itself to suggest otherwise for the English language, for the language widely accepted double negatives as normal and logical, as another negative further emphasizing negativeness, just as many, perhaps even most other languages do. So what became different in our stages of the language to make them no longer seem "emphatic" but instead seem "reversing", and now in "reversing" make the "emphatic" ones seem "illogical"? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here is a saying about Arthur from La  amon's BrutNe isæh næver na man selere cniht nenne þene him wes Arður "Not saw never no man better knight none than was Arthur" |
||
|
ilsm Member
since 2008-04-13
Posts 61UK |
I believe double negatives were in frequent use in Mediaeval English as a result of the influnce of the Normans - see new thread entitled "Negatives". I also think double negatives are frequently used (in British English at least) for emphasis: "I ain't never going back!" No-one would ever expect Arnie to say that, would they? And I thak Baladeer for his explanation of why double negatives can convey an entirely different meaning from the simple opposite of what is stated. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
