tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 13:09:12 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 13:07:46 -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=Hs8Ld9/zjSt9sH8gIa49yyQAERmMq+Cf9FkrJOnQ8KM=; b=r9XYYB8gizxeLSh8qCOR5Sf288EeDu3dtXlgfQnIUbRy/OnI0obQZBDTbxKDK+BxOG F+3ykhzGyJFXtsXJaptdEFwOrIK3CeUAH5jUSgyhkp/h7cr/C6neP9ClVjEha0nfoUHl 5NqnEyG6dXi7W2xbCmfdHIuPTON6puIkOAkJg=
- 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=PlMzqrR9Sza8p2Tvu73Hv5kE1o+dxPUyAf6qh5Ybd+9Tos3J1AhNyI4dEMuQpssTUG TPGbNFBdKKKmF9fz6rT8M3TDdX1jtyZ8hCRldpus4CGr09nJHfEBYT4bdhCd7QtD6lkq ealfor2rEPG3M8Zq6+dGeQuNoAE8P0klHHxuo=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
'ach chab Sop Chris neH!
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was trying to be accurate without getting too detailed, and do a lot
> of handwaving about "this context". "Any" behaves differently
> depending on the context, and I didn't want to get into whether there
> was more than one "any". As the determiner in a subject NP, "Any kind
> of pie" is clearly different from "No kind of pie", and that shouldn't
> vary by variety of English. The interchangeability really kicks in
> when the NP is the object - "There isn't any/no pie", "Chris can't
> have any/no pie," etc. chab Sop Chris 'e' chaw'be'lu'.
>
> 2009/11/30 Christopher Doty <[email protected]>:
>> Certainly in some places, but any can also have a non-negative
>> meaning: "Any kind of pie is fine."
>>
>> (Also, how did we get on pie? I want some now...)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:43, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 2009/11/30 ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <[email protected]>:
>>>> Did I err in using the name "Standard English" to refer to the strict
>>>> grammatical rules taught in school? Or did my English teachers err in
>>>> telling me that double negatives essentially cancel?
>>>
>>> Your English teachers erred, and they erred in two different ways.
>>>
>>> One is the "double negatives cancel", which others have gotten into,
>>> so I won't rehash.
>>>
>>> The other is the idea that the negative only occurs once in an English
>>> sentence. Something more subtle seems to be going on here. Compare
>>>
>>> SE: I don't want any pie.
>>> Other Englishes: I don't want no pie.
>>>
>>> An English teacher might say that the first sentence contains one
>>> negative element, and the second contains two. But consider this
>>> disallowed SE sentence:
>>>
>>> SE: *I want any pie.
>>> SE: I want some pie.
>>>
>>> (the * is a standard linguistic shorthand for a sentence that native
>>> speakers would consider impermissible)
>>>
>>> The rule doesn't seem to be "Some varieties use double negatives, and
>>> some don't." The rule is more along the lines of "SE uses 'some' with
>>> non-negative constructions of this sort, and 'any' with negative
>>> constructions; some other spoken varieties use 'some' with
>>> non-negative constructions and 'no' with negative constructions." I
>>> don't have _The Language Instinct_ nearby, but Pinker argues (citing
>>> someone else, I think) that when you compare the distribution of "any"
>>> and "no" in these sorts of construction, they have the same rules. In
>>> other words, if "no" is a negative above, "any" is too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>