tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 11:33:25 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Double negatives
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Double negatives
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:31:49 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5vCqix1FiK4OmnpFuYN737jqFj3JipjTJMnBuaLbBUI=; b=rBmkdpRB/QemXoQBQKksFt1VmmiaFwq1qDCZBrLyGSw+dmDl9tc1kIjNil8L/yFT3y BfTe4mdlBug+Xq6NK4YWiuyBmMr/zJXlL2kLnjQbds0X9yWV9Kk7jyFOjd+HI/ogeha6 XHoToboPbUmQHy6A0DLNnpr5qJfuNVsIB20iE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aTCD+y50YngM8NgqZ3k6cpDooUxRUXCflENeHVzwpQGxRDREsuIW6lXcCYEkCeD5RC 8GMX+3U34p2qdEsbrPJdPV2LnUaXF4DOfby3cS6So51KHqBceBryfdWW5BExDz3nkx8r 5M8ziL4aUka3evW0xnbqEXmFP585Cwaiav4Xk=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:19, Mark J. Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
> ghunchu'wI' was explicitly referring to "Standard English", which I
> take to mean the admittedly artificial formal written standard. Of
> course many, perhaps most, natural varieties of English have examples
> of negative concord, but most also have examples of two negatives
> making a positive, e.g:
>
> "Did you tell him?"
> "I didn't not tell him..."
This is a rather exceptional case, though, and carries pronounced
intonation ("I didn't NOT tell him"). What's more, this is used in a
specific pragmatic context, and doesn't mean the same thing as "I did
tell him."
> True, language isn't math - or, more appropriately, logic - but
> applying logic to it's analysis is not "stupid"; I would instead call
> it "linguistics".
I certainly wouldn't call it linguistics. If we're using (I assume
you mean formal logic), then two negatives equal a positive, and lots
of languages do it wrong. I don't think this is the right way to go
about things.
> Yes, silly prescriptivists have used the analogy
> to justify an otherwise baseless prohibition, but their error lies
> only in overgeneralization. The fact is that the analogy holds in some
> cases.
In some, perhaps, but lots of analogies hold in some cases; that
doesn't mean we should use them as the lens through which we view
language.
> And using loaded terms like "stupid" isn't going to win you any
> hearts and minds in your ongoing battle with ghunchu'wI'. I know he's
> not innocent of arguing ad hominem either, but continuing in that vein
> will at best grow merely tiresome.
It might not win me hearts or minds, but the argument is stupid
nonetheless. I seriously considered using another word, but the
argument IS stupid. This doesn't have much to do with any ongoing
battle, though. ghunchu'wI' didn't originate this argument; it's used
by English teachers and casual observers of language all the time.
But it *is* stupid.