# Double negative with a positive meaning



## Artrella

I have been asked this question ... but I'm not sure.  In logic a double negative has a positive meaning.  Does this happen with language as well?..


----------



## Jana337

Artrella said:
			
		

> I have been asked this question ... but I'm not sure. In logic a double negative has a positive meaning. Does this happen with language as well?..



Not necessarily.

In languages where multiple negatives are gramatically correct they team up to stress the negative meaning rather than cancelling each other.

For instance, you translate the English sentence "I have never seen him" like this: "I have *not never *seen him."

In the language of mathematics, however, (A')'=A, unequivocally.

Jana


----------



## Philippa

Artrella said:
			
		

> I have been asked this question ... but I'm not sure.  In logic a double negative has a positive meaning.  Does this happen with language as well?..


Hellooo!
It does in English, but not in Spanish.
*No* hay* nadie * que pueda contestar a esta pregunta.
Literally: There's *not no-one * _ie there is someone_ who can answer this question.
But really it means: There *isn't anyone * who can can answer this question.
Or is there?!
Saluditos
Philippa


----------



## Jana337

I think you may have meant it like this:

*It's not true that something isn't.
*
E.g.

*It's not that I don't like him.*

Which does not automatically mean *I like him*, does it? I may be indifferent or undecided or ambivalent.

Jana


----------



## Artrella

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hellooo!
> It does in English, but not in Spanish.
> *No* hay* nadie * que pueda contestar a esta pregunta.
> Literally: There's *not no-one * _ie there is someone_ who can answer this question.
> But really it means: There *isn't anyone * who can can answer this question.
> Or is there?!
> Saluditos
> Philippa




Yes *Phil*!! I was thinking of "There isn't nothing we can do!"  We can say that in Spanish "No hay nada que podamos hacer!".  

*Jana* Thank you very much for your help! Your explanations are crystal clear!

Thank you girls!


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> I was thinking of "There isn't nothing we can do!" We can say that in Spanish "No hay nada que podamos hacer!".


But that doesn't mean the same thing. The Spanish sentence you quoted means "There isn't anything that we can do". The English sentence means "It is not the case that there is nothing we can do". In other words, it is saying that there *is* something we can do. So you might translate it by saying "No es el caso [o no es verdad] que no hay nada que podamos hacer".

In English, double negatives *always* logically indicate a positive. What some Spanish grammar books (written in English) say is that Spanish uses the double negative to indicate the positive, as in "No hay nada que podamos hacer". But it's equally as true to say that "nada" at the beginning of a sentence means "nothing", but that after a "no" it means "anything".


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> But that doesn't mean the same thing. The Spanish sentence you quoted means "There isn't anything that we can do". The English sentence means "It is not the case that there is nothing we can do". In other words, it is saying that there *is* something we can do. So you might translate it by saying "No es el caso [o no es verdad] que no hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> In English, double negatives *always* logically indicate a positive. What some Spanish grammar books (written in English) say is that Spanish uses the double negative to indicate the positive, as in "No hay nada que podamos hacer". But it's equally as true to say that "nada" at the beginning of a sentence means "nothing", but that after a "no" it means "anything".




Ayyy mi queridísimo Sir GarryKnight!! 

A ver... no entiendo!!  

*There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que * *podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?

*There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_

*There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)

No way!! This is far beyond my neurone...


----------



## garryknight

*There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que * *podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?

Although it is ungrammatical, "There isn't nothing we can do" logically implies that there *is* something that we can do, because of the double negative. But this is speaking logically. The way this kind of phrase is used in everyday life, the speaker usually intends to mean "No hay nada que podamos hacer".

*There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_

No, "There is nothing we can do" means the same as "There isn't anything we can do" or "No hay nada que podamos hacer".

*There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)

Yes. This last example is correct.

It's only when there is a double negative that it logically implies a positive. For example, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". But, as I said, in colloquial, ungrammatical, uneducated use, the intention is to imply a negative, not a positive.

If you're still not sure, I can try translating this into Spanish, but not tonight - es muy tarde y estoy muy cansado.


----------



## Maeron

A linguistics professor was lecturing to her class one day. "In English," she said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian or Spanish, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative."

A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah . . .right."


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> *There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que * *podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?
> 
> Although it is ungrammatical, "There isn't nothing we can do" logically implies that there *is* something that we can do, because of the double negative. But this is speaking logically. The way this kind of phrase is used in everyday life, the speaker usually intends to mean "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_
> 
> No, "There is nothing we can do" means the same as "There isn't anything we can do" or "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)
> 
> Yes. This last example is correct.
> 
> It's only when there is a double negative that it logically implies a positive. For example, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". But, as I said, in colloquial, ungrammatical, uneducated use, the intention is to imply a negative, not a positive.
> 
> If you're still not sure, I can try translating this into Spanish, but not tonight - es muy tarde y estoy muy cansado.




Graciaaasss Garry!! Hasta mañana y que sueñes con los angelitos!!


----------



## Nocciolina

Has anyone mentionned that in English a double negative is a big NO. Grammar 101


----------



## Nocciolina

Maeron, are you Chris's brother?


----------



## Phryne

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentionned that in English a double negative is a big NO. Grammar 101



Yeah, it might be a big NO in grammar but that doesn't matter when we encounter speakers who do use double negatives! Like the Rolling Stones, "I can't get no satisfaction!" 

To make things more complicated, as Garry mentioned, in African American Vernacular English, aka Ebonics, it is correct to say "I didn't hear nothing", which means that the speaker didn't hear anything. In which case a double negative does not make the sentence positive!


----------



## duder

Maeron said:
			
		

> A linguistics professor was lecturing to her class one day. "In English," she said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian or Spanish, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative."
> 
> A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah . . .right."



Ha! Excellent.

Phryne, I understand what you are saying about AAVE but in my experience, that usage of double negatives is pretty widespread in many circles, especially in casual conversation and/or among people with less formal education. I wouldn't necessarily single out one group or the other.


----------



## ScotsLoon

Phryne,

"To make things more complicated, as Garry mentioned, in African American Vernacular English, aka Ebonics, it is correct to say "I didn't hear nothing", which means that the speaker didn't hear anything. In which case a double negative does not make the sentence positive!"

This doesn't make the sentence positive, if it did it would mean "I heard something" which it doesn't.

Can I also add that speaking as someone from Scotland the use of double negatives is very much associated with the South of England and is rarely if ever used North of the English border. (This isn't meant in a judgmental way)


----------



## Nocciolina

Thanks, ScotsLoon. Interesting to know that the Scots associate double negatives with the south of England. Being from the south of England, and not wishing to appear rude, I have found that people in the south of England using double negatives are very much associated with illiteracy. Good for the Scots though!


----------



## Phryne

duder said:
			
		

> Phryne, I understand what you are saying about AAVE but in my experience, that usage of double negatives is pretty widespread in many circles, especially in casual conversation and/or among people with less formal education. I wouldn't necessarily single out one group or the other.



My point is there are speakers who use double negatives and the outcome is not positive. AAVE was just an example.


----------



## Phryne

I said 





> "To make things more complicated, as Garry mentioned, in African American Vernacular English, aka Ebonics, it is correct to say "I didn't hear nothing", which means that the speaker didn't hear anything, in which case a double negative does not make the sentence positive!"


You said 





> This doesn't make the sentence positive, if it did it would mean "I heard something" which it doesn't.



You got me wrong. I said that when somebody says "I didn't hear nothing" they are trying to say: "I didn't hear anything", in which "did not" and "nothing" do not negate each other, so it does not become positive as people were arguing at the begining of the thread.

So, ScotsLoon, you and I are saying the same thing!


----------



## shoestring

I can't think of a single instance in the English language in which a double negative is actually intended to be positive.  I would go so far as to say it doesn't exist.  Period.  It is always merely use of "incorrect" grammar, and it still carries a negative meaning.  You could use four negatives in a sentence and it would still be negative, though it would sound absolutely awful.  Take Sonny and Cher for example,

"There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb"

Logically, three negatives would equal a negative anyway, but I still think it's a good example of the way some English speakers will pile them up, one on top of another.  Plus, I always thought this phrase was a good exercise in situations in which avoiding the use of a double negative is particularly difficult.  What are the alternatives?... "There isn't a hill or mountain we can't climb (best alternative, but double negative, of course)," "We can climb any hill or mountain," "There isn't a hill or mountain we find insurmountable," "There is a hill or mountain we can climb"?  None of the alternatives fit quite right.  

My two cents.


----------



## ScotsLoon

Nocciollina,

"Good for the Scots though!"  

I've maybe taken this comment the wrong way but I didn't mean to cause offence.  When I said double negatives are rarely if ever used in Scotland I was trying to highlight a cultural/linguistic difference.  We scots are not short of grammatical rule bending/breaking, also a large percentage of the words we use wouldn't even appear in an English dictionary.


----------



## Nocciolina

ScotsLoon, no offence taken. I often get on my high horse about such things, usually not too long before I fall off though.


----------



## garryknight

For those of you that said that a double negative doesn't make a positive, I'd just like to point out that in my post #6 in this thread, I said:


			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> In English, double negatives *always* logically indicate a positive.


By 'logically', I meant that the 2nd negative logically cancels out the 1st. However, pragmatically (as opposed to logically) the speaker's intention is, in most cases, to express a positive. And there are occasions when a double negative is intended to convey a positive, as I'll show further down this post.



			
				Nocciolina said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentionned that in English a double negative is a big NO. Grammar 101


Oh, but it can be useful, though.



			
				shoestring said:
			
		

> I can't think of a single instance in the English language in which a double negative is actually intended to be positive.


I'll tell you about a couple of useful instances then.

In therapy and counselling clients will often say (on the subject of tackling their 'problem'), "but I *can't* do it". And the therapist will usually point out to them, "yes, it's true, you can *not* do it. And you *can* do it. Both are true, but it's up to you to choose which. And once you get started on it, you might surprise yourself and find that you *can't not* do it".

I should point out that this kind of language is used very much in hypnotherapy and is preframed in such a way that the client becomes more sensitive to both the therapist's language and his or her own, and therefore processes the double negative as a positive.

The second is far more prosaic and relates to parent-child relations:
P: Where were you today?
C: Out.
P: What were you doing?
C: Nothing.
P: You weren't doing nothing.
Now, I do believe that this last example is a double negative, and one that parents everywhere use far more than they want to, and it logically, pragmatically, semantically, and intentionally adds up to a positive. Of course, the child is probably wise to the ways of the parent and will probably answer:
C: That's what I *said*!


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Graciaaasss Garry!! Hasta mañana y que sueñes con los angelitos!!


Thanks. Does this mean that you would like a Spanish translation?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Thanks. Does this mean that you would like a Spanish translation?




y.... mal no me vendría.... es que quiero ver si aprendiste bien el español....    (qué mentirosa esta Artrella...mmmm....)


----------



## Outsider

By the way: 



> [...] multiple negatives have been used to convey negative meaning in English since the tenth century, and throughout most of this history, this form of the double negative was wholly acceptable. Thus Chaucer in _The Canterbury Tales_ could say of the Friar, _“Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous,”_ meaning _“There was no man so virtuous anywhere,”_ and Shakespeare could allow Viola in _Twelfth Night_ to say of her heart, _“Nor never none/Shall mistress of it be, save I alone,”_ by which she meant that no one except herself would ever be mistress of her heart.
> 
> source


The condemnation of double negatives in English is apparently the work of wicked prescriptive grammarians.


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> es que quiero ver si aprendiste bien el español....


No, Art, no lo he aprendido en absoluto.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> No, Art, no lo he aprendido en absoluto.




Tomá!! Ha ha ha !! me hiciste de goma!! uuhhh!!


----------



## charmedboi82

garryknight said:
			
		

> *There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que * *podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?
> 
> Although it is ungrammatical, "There isn't nothing we can do" logically implies that there *is* something that we can do, because of the double negative. But this is speaking logically. The way this kind of phrase is used in everyday life, the speaker usually intends to mean "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_
> 
> No, "There is nothing we can do" means the same as "There isn't anything we can do" or "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)
> 
> Yes. This last example is correct.
> 
> It's only when there is a double negative that it logically implies a positive. For example, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". But, as I said, in colloquial, ungrammatical, uneducated use, the intention is to imply a negative, not a positive.
> 
> If you're still not sure, I can try translating this into Spanish, but not tonight - es muy tarde y estoy muy cansado.



Gary,
     I'm not really following your logic here.  I agree that most times what you're saying is the case, but I don't think it's always that way.  Maybe I'm just confused by what you're saying.


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi, 

Here's are a few more double negatives with positive meaning in English:
I don't want you to not do well. (granmmatically correct) = I want you to do well 
You are not unattractive = you are attractive 

At the end of the movie Moonstruck, the dad says something like 
 ...my life is nothing. His wife says...
Your life is *not* nothing! = Your life is meaningful 

Here is a fun example of a double negative that is grammatically incorrect, but makes its point! Said to Humphrey Bogart in the treasure of the Sierra Madre:

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges."

Susan


----------



## Nocciolina

From Wikipedia:
In today's standard English, double negatives are not used; for example the standard English equivalent of "I don't want nothing!" is "I don't want anything". It should, however, be noted that in standard English one cannot say "I don't want nothing!" to express the meaning "I want something!" unless there is very heavy stress on the "don't".

Although they are not used in standard English, double negatives are used in African American Vernacular English, and the London Cockney and East Anglian dialects and less frequently, but still commonly, in colloquial English. In the film Mary Poppins, Dick Van Dyke uses a double negative when he says

If you don't want to go nowhere. 
Other examples of double negatives include:

Don't nobody go to the store. 
or

I can't hardly wait. 
Double negative also refers to even more than two negatives, like:

And don't nobody buy nothing. 
Today, the double negative is often considered the mark of an uneducated speaker, but it used to be quite common in English, even in literature. Chaucer made extensive use of double negatives in his poetry, sometimes even using triple negatives. For example, he described the Friar in the Canterbury Tales: Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous (i.e. "there wasn't no man nowhere so virtuous"), and he even used a fourfold negative when describing the Knight: He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight. Chaucer used these multiple negatives for emphasis and for metrical purposes.


----------



## Artrella

Nocciolina said:
			
		

> From Wikipedia:
> In today's standard English, double negatives are not used; for example the standard English equivalent of "I don't want nothing!" is "I don't want anything". It should, however, be noted that in standard English one cannot say "I don't want nothing!" to express the meaning "I want something!" unless there is very heavy stress on the "don't".
> 
> Although they are not used in standard English, double negatives are used in African American Vernacular English, and the London Cockney and East Anglian dialects and less frequently, but still commonly, in colloquial English. In the film Mary Poppins, Dick Van Dyke uses a double negative when he says
> 
> If you don't want to go nowhere.
> Other examples of double negatives include:
> 
> Don't nobody go to the store.
> or
> 
> I can't hardly wait.
> Double negative also refers to even more than two negatives, like:
> 
> And don't nobody buy nothing.
> Today, the double negative is often considered the mark of an uneducated speaker, but it used to be quite common in English, even in literature. Chaucer made extensive use of double negatives in his poetry, sometimes even using triple negatives. For example, he described the Friar in the Canterbury Tales: Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous (i.e. "there wasn't no man nowhere so virtuous"), and he even used a fourfold negative when describing the Knight: He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight. Chaucer used these multiple negatives for emphasis and for metrical purposes.



Yes, when I read the Canterbury Tales I noticed that negative+negative... but as it is said in this article , it is substandard English, and the pilgrim telling those tales is in fact an uneducated person...so it makes sense...


----------



## garryknight

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Here's are a few more double negatives with positive meaning in English:
> ...
> I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges.


Thanks, Susan. You've showed that there are times when double negatives are used meaningfully. You've also showed the correct film quote; it's usually misquoted as "We don't need no stinkin' badges".


----------



## garryknight

OK, Art. He traducido mi post #8 en este hilo en mi mejor "español malo". Si todavía no entiendes, dímelo y trataré explicar en otra manera. En lo que sigue, verás tus comentarios (en azul), luego mis comentarios originales sobre tus comentarios (también en azul), luego mis traducciones de lo que dije. Mira debajo de mi traducción y verás que he tratado de explicar en otras palabras allá.

*There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que **podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?

 Although it is ungrammatical, "There isn't nothing we can do" logically implies that there *is* something that we can do, because of the double negative. But this is speaking logically. The way this kind of phrase is used in everyday life, the speaker usually intends to mean "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
 
Aunque no sea gramaticamente correcto, "There isn't nothing we can do" implica, logicamente, que sí hay algo que podemos hacer, por razón del doble negativo. Pero esto es para hablar logicamente. En la manera en la que este tipo de frase se usa en la vida cotidiana, el que habla suele querer decir "No hay nada que podamos hacer".

*There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_

 No, "There is nothing we can do" means the same as "There isn't anything we can do" or "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
 
No, "There is nothing we can do" significa la misma cosa que "There isn't anything we can do" o "No hay nada que podamos hacer".

*There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)

 Yes. This last example is correct.

It's only when there is a double negative that it logically implies a positive. For example, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". But, as I said, in colloquial, ungrammatical, uneducated use, the intention is to imply a negative, not a positive.
 
Si este ejemplo es correcto.

Es sólo cuando hay un doble negativo que logicamente implica el positivo. Por ejemplo, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". Pero, como dije, en el uso coloquial, no gramatical, y inculto, la intención es para implicar el negativo, no el positivo.

====================================================
Ahora trato de explicar en otras palabras.

En inglés, cuando uno dice "There is rice", este significa que hay arroz, que existe el arroz. Cuando uno dice "There is no rice", este significa que no hay arroz, que no existe el arroz en el lugar en el que uno habla. Y cuando uno dice "There isn't no rice", o "There is not no rice", hablando logicamente el "no" anula el "not" así que el último efecto es que la frase significa, otra vez, que sí hay arroz, que sí existe el arroz.

Pero poca gente usa el doble negativo para realizar este efecto, en lo que el último negativo anula el primero, para alcanzar el positivo. La mayoría desean expresar el positivo.

Pues, ¿he aclarado las cosas, o no?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> OK, Art. He traducido mi post #8 en este hilo en mi mejor "español malo". Si todavía no entiendes, dímelo y trataré explicar en otra manera. En lo que sigue, verás tus comentarios (en azul), luego mis comentarios originales sobre tus comentarios (también en azul), luego mis traducciones de lo que dije. Mira debajo de mi traducción y verás que he tratado de explicar en otras palabras allá.
> 
> *There isn't nothing we can do* (ungrammatical) >> (grammatical)* No hay nada que **podamos hacer *  (the harm is done and we cannot fix it)...right?
> 
> Although it is ungrammatical, "There isn't nothing we can do" logically implies that there *is* something that we can do, because of the double negative. But this is speaking logically. The way this kind of phrase is used in everyday life, the speaker usually intends to mean "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> Aunque no sea gramaticamente correcto, "There isn't nothing we can do" implica, logicamente, que sí hay algo que podemos hacer, por razón del doble negativo. Pero esto es para hablar logicamente. En la manera en la que este tipo de frase se usa en la vida cotidiana, el que habla suele querer decir "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There is nothing we can do * (grammatical) >>> (ungrammatical) _Hay nada que podamos hacer_
> 
> No, "There is nothing we can do" means the same as "There isn't anything we can do" or "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> No, "There is nothing we can do" significa la misma cosa que "There isn't anything we can do" o "No hay nada que podamos hacer".
> 
> *There isn't anything we can do * (grammatical) >>  _No hay nada que podamos hacer_(grammatical)
> 
> Yes. This last example is correct.
> 
> It's only when there is a double negative that it logically implies a positive. For example, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". But, as I said, in colloquial, ungrammatical, uneducated use, the intention is to imply a negative, not a positive.
> 
> Si este ejemplo es correcto.
> 
> Es sólo cuando hay un doble negativo que logicamente implica el positivo. Por ejemplo, "there isn't nothing", "I ain't going nowhere", "I wasn't talking to nobody". Pero, como dije, en el uso coloquial, no gramatical, y inculto, la intención es para implicar el negativo, no el positivo.
> 
> ====================================================
> Ahora trato de explicar en otras palabras.
> y inculto
> En inglés, cuando uno dice "There is rice", este significa que hay arroz, que existe el arroz. Cuando uno dice "There is no rice", este significa que no hay arroz, que no existe el arroz en el lugar en el que uno habla. Y cuando uno dice "There isn't no rice", o "There is not no rice", hablando logicamente el "no" anula el "not" así que el último efecto es que la frase significa, otra vez, que sí hay arroz, que sí existe el arroz.
> 
> Pero poca gente usa el doble negativo para realizar este efecto, en lo que el último negativo anula el primero, para alcanzar el positivo. La mayoría desean expresar el positivo.
> 
> Pues, ¿he aclarado las cosas, o no?




Garry un millón de gracias por haberte molestado tanto en traducir todo.. en un MUY BUEN ESPAÑOL.  Entiendo perfectamente lo que me explicás, mis traducciones si bien no son exactas, eran solamente traducciones literales, para comparar estructuras. Realmente he entendido todo lo que me has explicado.
Ahora te hago unas correcciones para tu español. Te parece bien? Son muy pequeñas porque tu nivel de español es excelente!
Ahí van:

1) 





> Si todavía no entiendes, dímelo y trataré explicar *en* otra manera.


"de" otra manera 
2) 





> gramaticamente


 >> gramaticalmente
3)





> *por* razón del doble


 >> por causa/motivo de la doble negación >>> no estoy segura de si se puede decir "en razón de">>> puede alguien ayudar ??
4)





> Es sólo cuando hay un doble negativo que logicamente implica el positivo


 >> NO positivo sino "afirmativo"
Esta oración no está mal, pero quedaría mejor esto: _Solamente desde el punto de vista lógico podemos decir que una doble negación implica una afirmación_
5)





> y inculto


>>  e inculto >> no se puede poner "y" delante de otra "i" o "sonido i" (por ejemplo "hielo")
6) 





> este significa


 >> esto significa
7)





> realizar este efecto


>> lograr este efecto
8)





> La mayoría desean expresar el positivo.


>> La mayoría desea expresar una afirmación


Garry, thank you very much!!


----------



## timpeac

garryknight said:
			
		

> In English, double negatives *always* logically indicate a positive.


 
I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Logically a double negative just negates a negative, it doesn't assert a positive.

For example, someone else quoted "you're not unattractive" as "you are attractive" and "your life is not nothing" as meaning "your life is something". I agree that this is what the speaker probably means but grammatically it does not logically indicate a positive, it just informs you that out of being attractive, unattractive and ordinary looking you are certainly not unattractive. This are rarely a choice between one thing or the other, black or white.

If I try a new food and someone says "do you like it?" and I am unsure and answer "I don't not like it" then all I am saying is that it is not repulsive to me. I am quite deliberately not saying the positive of this - ie I do like it - since I am really not sure yet. Anyway this is an example of a (grammatically correct) double negative that does not indicate a positive.


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> For example, someone else quoted "you're not unattractive" as "you are attractive" and "your life is not nothing" as meaning "your life is something".



I think that if someone told me "you are not unattractive" I'd think "I am unattractive" actually...

Same in Spanish "No sos tan fea"... in fact this person is saying "Sos fea"...put politely...


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> I think that if someone told me "you are not unattractive" I'd think "I am unattractive" actually...
> 
> Same in Spanish "No sos tan fea"... in fact this person is saying "Sos fea"...put politely...


 
Yes, I agree! Simply by chosing not to use a simple positive and using a complicated double negative implies that you don't think the positive interpretation. (I think we're getting tied up in some double knots now!)


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> I think that if someone told me "you are not unattractive" I'd think "I am unattractive" actually...





			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Same in Spanish "No sos tan fea"... in fact this person is saying "Sos fea"...put politely...




Hello artis, timpeac!

Be careful, though!! Because "tan" adds the idea of "so" or "that", so if some one tells me "you are not that ugly" of course it means that I am ugly.  

But, if they tell me "you are not ugly" it means that I'm not ugly, but not necessarily pretty either.  

We shouldn't use "tan" in this case, but anyhow, both of you are quite right.  

However, what if we do talk about something that is black or white, such as, _to exist vs not to exist_. If somebody says "You aren't non-existent." basically means that I do exist, right?? 

saluditos


----------



## Artrella

Phryne said:
			
		

> Hello artis, timpeac!
> 
> Be careful, though!! Because "tan" adds the idea of "so" or "that", so if some one tells me "you are not that ugly" of course it means that I am ugly.
> 
> But, if they tell me "you are not ugly" it means that I'm not ugly, but necessarily pretty either.
> 
> We shouldn't use "tan" in this case, but anyhow, both of you are quite right.
> 
> However, what if we do talk about something that is black or white, such as, _to exist vs not to exist_. If somebody says "You aren't non-existent." basically means that I do exist, right??
> 
> saluditos



Hi Phyrnita, pero cómo decís en castellano "unattractive"?  Yes you are right in that "tan" thing...  But it we could say "inatractiva" and someone said "No sos inatractiva" do you think it would mean that in fact I am attractive? 

Wow!


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi Phyrnita, pero cómo decís en castellano "unattractive"?





			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes you are right in that "tan" thing... But it we could say "inatractiva" and someone said "No sos inatractiva" do you think it would mean that in fact I am attractive?
> 
> Wow!





Gooddddd Morrrninggggg Artiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis!  

Unattractive sería fea? = = = > you can say "No sos fea" (all I'm saying is that you don't need the "tan" since it slightly changes the meaning) “No sos fea” vs “no sos tan fea”

Anyway, I don't want to hear any of those!!!


----------



## timpeac

It's irrelevant because we're all georgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeous!


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> It's irrelevant because we're all georgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeous!




We are not all not gorgeous ????  >>> We are a bunch of gorgeous, intelligent, brilliant forists!


----------



## Phryne

timpeac, Artis, you hit the nail on the head !!  

besos, diosas


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> timpeac, Artis, you hit the nail on the head !!
> 
> besos, diosas


 
A few of us are dios*es* I'll have you know...


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> A few of us are dios*es* I'll have you know...



Oops, sorry! 

Are you one of those *dioses *I've heard of?


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> Oops, sorry!
> 
> Are you one of those *dioses *I've heard of?


 
Absoluta bloody mente! I've got muscles coming out of my ears. OOOps I mean mussels, I fell asleep by the sea....


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> Absoluta bloody mente! I've got muscles coming out of my ears. OOOps I mean mussels, I fell asleep by the sea....



 Then I apologize!

 Sorry, but I’ve never heard of a guy saying "I'm gorgeous". That threw me off!!!!!


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> Then I apologize!
> 
> Sorry, but I’ve never heard of a guy saying "I'm gorgeous". That threw me off!!!!!


 
Obviously you're not used to meeting guys as gorgeous as me then.


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> Obviously you're not used to meeting guys as gorgeous as me then.


 
 I guess not. You should post your pic as your avatar. Please, don't conceal your beauty from us!!!! 

saludos

PS, does the last sentence sound awkward to you??  thanx


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> I guess not. You should post your pic as your avatar. Please, don't conceal your beauty from us!!!!
> 
> saludos
> 
> PS, does the last sentence sound awkward to you??  thanx


 
No it sounds fine to my gorgeous ears.

I won't post an avatar as I don't want to invoke jealousy


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> No it sounds fine to my gorgeous ears.
> 
> I won't post an avatar as I don't want to invoke jealousy




Andáaaaaa!!!


----------



## garryknight

Art, gracias por tus correcicones. Qerría comentar unas cosas.

2)  >> gramaticalmente

Puesto que dices "lógicamente", ¿no te parece que "gramatica*l*mente" no es lógico? O ¿es que "lógicamente", sea gramatical, no es lógico? De todas formas, recordaré el "l" la proxima vez... o algún día...

3) >> por causa/motivo de la doble negación >>> no estoy segura de si se puede decir "en razón de">>> puede alguien ayudar ??

Lo que escribí era "*por* razón del doble negativo" y no "*en* razón de". Trataba de traducir "by reason of". Me parece que "por causa de" significa la misma cosa, pero ¿no puedo decir "por razón de"?

7)>> lograr este efecto

Lo escribí como "realizar" porque quería decir "achieve" o "make real". ¿Es que "realizar" no significa esto o es que "lograr" es mejor dando el contexto?

Gracias otra vez. 

P.D. ¿Te gusta el arroz? ¿Era sabroso?


----------



## cristóbal

garryknight said:
			
		

> Art, gracias por tus correcicones. Qerría comentar unas cosas.
> 
> 2)  >> gramaticalmente
> 
> Puesto que dices "lógicamente", ¿no te parece que "gramatica*l*mente" no es lógico? O ¿es que "lógicamente", sea gramatical, no es lógico? De todas formas, recordaré el "l" la proxima vez... o algún día...



Garry, "gramática" es un sustantivo mientras "gramatical" es el adjetivo.  Entonces, para hacer el adverbio, la regla es coger el adjetivo en su forma femenina y añadir "mente"... Para "lógica" pues, "lógica" es el sustantivo.  "lógico" es el adjetivo, lo haces femenino y tienes "lógicamente".  Entonces, es gramaticalmente en lugar de gramáticamente.

También, las letras siempre son femeninas.  "recordaré *la* L la próxima vez."


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Art, gracias por tus correcicones [correcciones]. Qerría [Querría ]comentar unas cosas.
> 
> 2)  >> gramaticalmente
> 
> Puesto que dices "lógicamente", ¿no te parece que "gramatica*l*mente" no es lógico? O ¿es que "lógicamente", sea gramatical, no es lógico? De todas formas, recordaré el "l" la proxima vez... o algún día...
> 
> *Lógicamente Garry!! Si la palabra original es "gramática" lo lógico sería decir "gramáticamente"... pero son las locuras de nuestro idioma... querés que lo reforme??? hee hee
> 
> gramaticalmente.
> 
> 1. adv. m. Conforme a las reglas de la gramática.
> 2. adv. m. Desde una perspectiva gramatical.
> Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 3) >> por causa/motivo de la doble negación >>> no estoy segura de si se puede decir "en razón de">>> puede alguien ayudar ??
> 
> Lo que escribí era "*por* razón del doble negativo" y no "*en* razón de". Trataba de traducir "by reason of". Me parece que "por causa de" significa la misma cosa, pero ¿no puedo decir "por razón de"?
> 
> *No se dice "por razón de"... se puede decir "por esta causa" "por este motivo", pero en este caso es conveniente reformular la oración.*
> 
> 7)>> lograr este efecto
> 
> Lo escribí como "realizar" porque quería decir "achieve" o "make real". ¿Es que "realizar" no significa esto o es que "lograr" es mejor da[s]n[/]do el contexto?
> 
> *lograr/alcanzar/conseguir/llevar a cabo (NOT "realizar") = achieve*
> 
> 
> Gracias otra vez.
> 
> P.D. ¿Te gusta el arroz? ¿Era sabroso?




Me encanta el arroz, y sí *estaba * delicioso!! mmm!!! rico rico rico!!!


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> *lograr/alcanzar/conseguir/llevar a cabo (NOT "realizar") = achieve*


Necesito un detector de mentiras para probar mi diccionario. Según Collins Spanish Dictionary 21st Century Edition:

*achieve* VT (_= reach_) conseguir, alcanzar; (_= complete_) llevar a cabo; (_= accomplish_) realizar;

Sólo menciona "lograr" de paso en un ejemplo:
*what do you hope to achieve by that?* ¿Qué esperas lograr con eso?

Por suerte, aprendí "lograr" hace mucho tiempo. Ahora que lo pienso, ¿por qué no puse "lograr" en vez de "realizar"? Porque mi cerebrito está roto.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Necesito un detector de mentiras para probar mi diccionario. Según Collins Spanish Dictionary 21st Century Edition:
> 
> *achieve* VT (_= reach_) conseguir, alcanzar; (_= complete_) llevar a cabo; (_= accomplish_) realizar;
> 
> Sólo menciona "lograr" de paso en un ejemplo:
> *what do you hope to achieve by that?* ¿Qué esperas lograr con eso?
> 
> Por suerte, aprendí "lograr" hace mucho tiempo. Ahora que lo pienso, ¿por qué no puse "lograr" en vez de "realizar"? Porque mi cerebrito está roto.




Su cerebro está perfecto Sir GarryKnight!!

Aquí le mando lo que dice Cambridge...
Definition
*achieve * vt (aim, objective) *lograr*; (task) llevar a cabo; (victory) conseguir; (success) alcanzar 


Definition
*accomplish* vt 1. (achieve) efectuar 2. (finish) concluir; to ~ a task realizar una tarea 

_(from Diccionario Cambridge Klett Compact)_

Ahora me entró la duda... accomplish vs achieve?? ...


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> *accomplish* vt 1. (achieve) efectuar 2. (finish) concluir; to ~ a task realizar una tarea


Según lo que me dice Collins Dictionary:

*accomplish* VT *1* (_= achieve_) efectuar, lograr; [_+ task, mission_] llevar a cabo; [_+ purpose, one's design_] realizar *2* (_= finish_) terminar, concluir

Y lo siguiente del Times English Dictionary:

*accomplish* _vb_ *1* to manage to do; achieve. *2* to conclude successfully; complete.
*achieve* _vb_ *1* to bring to a successful conclusion; accomplish; attain. *2* to gain as by hard work or effort: _to achieve success_.

En mi parecer, son de la misma caraña. ¿Qué crees tú?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> En mi parecer, son de la misma *caraña*. ¿Qué crees tú?



Garry, puede ser que a simple vista _parezcan_ de la misma *calaña*, pero hay diferencia entre un accomplishment y un achievement... dejame ver si encuentro mis notas de Semántica...pero ahora... este cuerpito pide CA-MI-TAAA!!!  

Regalito para vos   

*
calaña. * 
 (Del ant. calaño, semejante, este de *cualaño, y este der. del lat. qualis, cual, por analogía con tamaño). 
 1. f. Muestra, modelo, patrón, forma. 
 2. f. *Índole, calidad, naturaleza de alguien o algo*. Ser de buena, o mala, calaña. U. m. en sent. despect. 
 3. f. Abanico muy ordinario con varillaje de caña. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* calaño*, ña. 
 (De calaña). 
 1. adj. ant. Compañero, igual, semejante. 
Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados


----------



## charmedboi82

timpeac said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Logically a double negative just negates a negative, it doesn't assert a positive.
> 
> For example, someone else quoted "you're not unattractive" as "you are attractive" and "your life is not nothing" as meaning "your life is something". I agree that this is what the speaker probably means but grammatically it does not logically indicate a positive, it just informs you that out of being attractive, unattractive and ordinary looking you are certainly not unattractive. This are rarely a choice between one thing or the other, black or white.
> 
> If I try a new food and someone says "do you like it?" and I am unsure and answer "I don't not like it" then all I am saying is that it is not repulsive to me. I am quite deliberately not saying the positive of this - ie I do like it - since I am really not sure yet. Anyway this is an example of a (grammatically correct) double negative that does not indicate a positive.



Thanks, that's what I was getting at without any elaboration.


----------



## shoestring

Hi Garry, 

Thanks for pointing this out.   I guess I was thinking strictly of instances when poor grammar is applied and the double negative is used incorrectly and unconsciously, in which case I still can't think of an instance in which a double negative becomes positive.

However, as you pointed out, there are times when a double negative can equal a positive when used consciously to stress an idea or make a point.  Also, as has been highlighted by others, there is what is known in some circles as the "diplomatic double negative" (ex. I _don't_ think you're _unattractive_).    

Still, I think it's important to make a distinction between these types of usage, if, for no other reason, because one just sounds "uneducated" and the others sound just fine.  But also because, as I already mentioned, when poor grammar is applied unconsciously, I believe the double negative is always intended as a negative and never as a positive, in contrast to the other examples.   



			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> For those of you that said that a double negative doesn't make a positive, I'd just like to point out that in my post #6 in this thread, I said:
> 
> By 'logically', I meant that the 2nd negative logically cancels out the 1st. However, pragmatically (as opposed to logically) the speaker's intention is, in most cases, to express a positive. And there are occasions when a double negative is intended to convey a positive, as I'll show further down this post.
> 
> 
> Oh, but it can be useful, though.
> 
> 
> I'll tell you about a couple of useful instances then.
> 
> In therapy and counselling clients will often say (on the subject of tackling their 'problem'), "but I *can't* do it". And the therapist will usually point out to them, "yes, it's true, you can *not* do it. And you *can* do it. Both are true, but it's up to you to choose which. And once you get started on it, you might surprise yourself and find that you *can't not* do it".
> 
> I should point out that this kind of language is used very much in hypnotherapy and is preframed in such a way that the client becomes more sensitive to both the therapist's language and his or her own, and therefore processes the double negative as a positive.
> 
> The second is far more prosaic and relates to parent-child relations:
> P: Where were you today?
> C: Out.
> P: What were you doing?
> C: Nothing.
> P: You weren't doing nothing.
> Now, I do believe that this last example is a double negative, and one that parents everywhere use far more than they want to, and it logically, pragmatically, semantically, and intentionally adds up to a positive. Of course, the child is probably wise to the ways of the parent and will probably answer:
> C: That's what I *said*!


----------



## garryknight

shoestring said:
			
		

> when poor grammar is applied unconsciously, I believe the double negative is always intended as a negative and never as a positive, in contrast to the other examples.


I couldn't not agree with that!


----------

