Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.lang > #308499 > unrolled thread

Re: Double negation

Back to article view | Back to sci.lang

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Double negation "HenHanna" <HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh> - 2026-05-30 19:27 +0000
    Re: Double negation The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:41 -0400
      Re: Double negation Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-05-31 11:49 +1000
        Re: Double negation Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-31 05:21 +0200
      Re: Double negation Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-31 11:31 +0300
    Re: Double negation  -- (Conrad's  Triple negative) "HenHanna" <HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh> - 2026-05-31 00:13 +0000

#308499 — Re: Double negation

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>   The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
>   often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
>   be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
> 
>   Seemingly from a transcript:
> 
> |. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
> |It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
> |So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
> 
>   .
> 


      [not not]  (used that way)  is  not usu. considered...  a
double-negative (iirc)





____________________________________________________________
From	"Peter T. Daniels"  (10 years ago)


A snippet of dialog  from this evening's *Chicago Fire*:

^^^^^^^
Firefighter A: It isn't your job.

Firefighter B [feeling guilty about not telling a woman that he knew 
that her husband had been killed in the tornado]: The hell it isn't.
^^^^^^^

I think "the hell" is more usually used to negate a positive?



------------ B is saying that he should have mentioned it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#308500

Verily, in article <6a1b3a19.d57bf00d65e9d83a@csiph.com>, did 
HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh deliver unto us this message:
> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> >   The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
> >   often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
> >   be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
> > 
> >   Seemingly from a transcript:
> > 
> > |. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
> > |It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
> > |So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
> > 
> >   .
> > 
> 
> 
>       [not not]  (used that way)  is  not usu. considered...  a
> double-negative (iirc)

It's definitely a double negative. It's opposing "not allowed" and "not 
not allowed." 


-- 
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#308503

On 31/05/26 06:41, The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <6a1b3a19.d57bf00d65e9d83a@csiph.com>, did
> HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh deliver unto us this message:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

>>>    The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
>>>    often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
>>>    be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
>>>
>>>    Seemingly from a transcript:
>>>
>>> |. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
>>> |It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
>>> |So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
>>
>>        [not not]  (used that way)  is  not usu. considered...  a
>> double-negative (iirc)
>
> It's definitely a double negative. It's opposing "not allowed" and "not
> not allowed."

For once HH is right. We use the label "double negative" for the
examples that teachers disapprove of, where
             negative + negative --> even more negative
The example that Stefan cites, where the negatives follow the rules of
Boolean logic, might contain two negatives, but by convention that's not
called a "double negative".

1. I haven't never done that.
2. I haven't left it undone.
My example 1 falls into the category of "double negative". Example 2 is
acceptable to a pedant, so we don't call it a double negative

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#308505

On Sun, 31 May 2026 11:49:35 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

>For once HH is right. We use the label "double negative" for the
>examples that teachers disapprove of, where
>             negative + negative --> even more negative
>The example that Stefan cites, where the negatives follow the rules of
>Boolean logic, might contain two negatives, but by convention that's not
>called a "double negative".

I've always called it a double negative, one that follows the English
rule that a double negative is a positive.

But perhaps that's because in South Africa English is contrasted with
Afrikaans, in which a double negative is a negative, as in the sign
that used to be diplayed in public transport vehicles:

Moenie spoeg nie.
Spitting is prohibited. 

"Moenie spoeg nie" is literally "Must not spit not."





>
>1. I haven't never done that.
>2. I haven't left it undone.
>My example 1 falls into the category of "double negative". Example 2 is
>acceptable to a pedant, so we don't call it a double negative

-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#308507

On 30/05/2026 23:41, The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <6a1b3a19.d57bf00d65e9d83a@csiph.com>, did
> HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>>>    The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
>>>    often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
>>>    be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
>>>
>>>    Seemingly from a transcript:
>>>
>>> |. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
>>> |It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
>>> |So you're allowed to do that?

Maybe. The queoted sentence doesn't say whether something else prohibits
the automation of the kill chain.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#308501 — Re: Double negation -- (Conrad's Triple negative)

"HenHanna" <HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh> wrote:
> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> >   The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
> >   often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
> >   be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
> > 
> >   Seemingly from a transcript:
> > 
> > |. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
> > |It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
> > |So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
> > 
> >   .
> > 
> 
> 
>       [not not]  (used that way)  is  not usu. considered...  a
> double-negative (iirc)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> From	"Peter T. Daniels"  (10 years ago)
>  
> A snippet of dialog  from this evening's *Chicago Fire*:
> 
> ^^^^^^^
> Firefighter A: It isn't your job.
> 
> Firefighter B [feeling guilty about not telling a woman that he knew 
> that her husband had been killed in the tornado]: The hell it isn't.
> ^^^^^^^
> 
> I think "the hell" is more usually used to negate a positive?
> 
>  
> ------------ B is saying that he should have mentioned it.


       Did PTD  have a point?

____________


Ross Clark says>>>    The two "not"s in your second example are in
different clauses, so it is not an case of the "double negation"
famously disapproved of by school  grammar.


 [not not]  (used that way)  is  not usu. considered...  a
double-negative (iirc)  in  school  English class...


       ---------  Teachers will differentiate between bad slang ("I
didn't see nobody") and intentional, sophisticated literary devices
called litotes. Litotes use a double negative to express an ironic
understatement:

          Example: "The test results were not ungenerous."


__________


(iirc... Conard uses this a lot)



(Conrad's  Triple negative) 

         Conrad frequently wrote sentences where a negative verb, a
negative adverb, and an inherently negative adjective or noun all
collided in a single thought. You have to actively untangle the math to
understand what he means.

         Conrad's prose:

(fake Examle) "It was not impossible to believe he was not a savage.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.lang

csiph-web