# I shouldn't be surprised if it did or didn't rain - more on 'redundant' negatives.



## Thomas Tompion

A current thread has been considering possibly redundant negatives in phrases like I want to see if I can't find something, as opposed to I want to see if I can find something. During the thread a similar question was posed about the difference between:

1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.

Understandably this second issue was not considered immediately germane to the primary issue in that thread, but it seems to me of sufficient interest to warrant further discussion.

Is there an important difference between 1. and 2.?


----------



## silver.pony

The difference, as far as I understand it to be, is that they are opposites.

"I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain"
This expresses that you should not be surprised if it DOESN'T rain.
"I shouldn't be surprised if it rains"
This expresses that you should not be surprised if it DOES rain.

Of course, the question in my mind is whether or not you can assume that (from the first sentence) the person is saying they *will* be surprised if it *does* rain.

It's an interesting question.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Interesting, Silver Poney. I think in BE people use both expressions to indicate that they think it probable that it's going to rain.


----------



## silver.pony

Hmm... that's a very interesting cultural difference.  Although I wouldn't be surprised if many Americans used the two interchangeably, also.  Some (more southern Americans) tend to use double negatives often.


----------



## panjandrum

I don't think either of these sentences comes naturally in my version of English, but hearing them, both tell me that rain is expected.

(Thanks for opening this thread Thomas )


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
> 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.
> 
> 
> Is there an important difference between 1. and 2.?



For my particular variant of AE, number one is almost, but not quite, unidiomatic.  Let's say it's a very uncommon construction.  I would understand it instantly as an expectation of rain.

Number two, by contrast, is not at risk of being labelled unidiomatic, but it too is far from common usage.  I would understand it instantly as an expectation of rain.

In other words, what panj said.


----------



## Loob

Hi TT

Some googling tonight has revealed that the equivalence between "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" and "I shouldn't be surprised if it rained" is actually quite a well-known and well-studied linguistic phenomenon. 

Frustratingly, though, I kept finding references to academic papers not on the web, or statements that I have to subscribe to journal X if I want to read further. This is probably the most coherent link I found (the beginning is also quite funny). I did, though, come across several grand-sounding names for the phenomenon, including "incorporated negation". 

I deduce from all this that I should no longer think of my usage of "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" as (in Fowler's terms) a sturdy indefensible. If people in Yale are studying it, I'm going to think of it as "edgy" and "interesting"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Loob,

Well done finding that link. Very interesting. They seem to feel that after two negatives most people's cognition stops being automatic, and the example of no head injury is too trivial to be ignored is very persuasive; does it contain three negatives? - both trivial (not important) and ignored (not responded to) acquire negative force almost mysteriously to fox us.

I was interested that they made the point I was struggling to make in the other thread about there not being a problem with the positive statement:

I should be surprised if it doesn't rain tomorrow - I think it's going to rain
I should be surprised if it rains tomorrow - I think it's not going to rain

It might be worth asking again if the double-negative version, I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain to mean I shouldn't be surprised if it rained couldn't be the sort of incorrect negative of emphasis that you find in a lot of uneducated speech - He's not going to no football match with no one this afternoon - and if, for this reason we ought (not (?)) to regard I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain as just plain wrong. Someone gave that idea the mild bird last time, and it probably deserved it.


----------



## Loob

But Thomas

I is educated and I uses it!

L

(PS to all learners of English as a second language: I am using incorrect English here quite deliberately)


----------



## Packard

1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.


For me these mean exactly the same thing.

It is not that the first sentence sounds unidiomatic to me, but it does not roll off the tongue; it does not have a pleasing cadence. This is after all most likely dialog and it would have to sound natural as spoken. The second version sounds more like the spoken language (in Poughkeepsie, NY).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:
			
		

> But Thomas
> 
> I is educated and I uses it!


 
I'm not surprised that you use it, but are you surprised that I wondered if it came from that? I cut it out when I had a little think about it, probably being inappropriately scrupulous.


----------



## ewie

Loob said:


> I is educated and I uses it!


 
I too am, TT, and do.
ewie (Mild Bird)

Almost forgot to say: great link, Loob


----------



## Packard

In English we (at least I do) use negatives to express degree, a nuanced comparative, if you prefer.

If I were to list the following according from the sharpest to the dullest it would be as follows:

*The knife is dull.*  (dullest, #4)

*The knife is sharp.*  (sharpest, #1)

*It isn't the sharpest of all knives.*  (#2)

*It isn't the dullest of all knives.*  (#3)

You can add more distinctions with negatives:

*It isn't that it's not the sharpest of all knives, but it isn't as sharp as I'd like it.*

(As sharp or maybe slightly sharper than #1; but not as sharp as some--perhaps mythological--knife.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ewie said:


> I too am, TT, and do.
> ewie (Mild Bird)
> 
> Almost forgot to say: great link, Loob


I think it merited the mild bird, Ewie, largely for the point I made then, that He's not going to no football match with no one seems born of a determination to impose one's negative will on the world.  I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain on the contrary suggests a suspicion that it is (positively) going to rain (it's innocent of any spur to negation).


----------



## cuchuflete

Mild bird to educated Thomas in his positively negative attempt at imitating uneducated
speech with He's not going to no football match with no one.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear He ain't going to no damned football match with no one! as a positively redundant affirmation that one isn't going to the football match with company.  In AE it would be ambiguous, allowing for the possibility that he is going to the match unaccompanied, or simply not going at all. Three negatives and we still don't know his plans!  Is that cognitive dissonance or just plain confusion?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I've been wondering about the triple negative in Matthew 13.57, a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. (Link) I remember experiencing cognitive breakdown when I first heard it, aged 13. Does it still trouble people, and, if not, why not? - if 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains. mean the same to so many of us.


----------



## Ynez

As a foreigner, I see two different meanings in the first two sentences.

I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain --> On TV they are saying it's going to rain, but I don't believe it.

I shouldn't be surprised if it rains --> I think it's going to rain.



This other sentence I understand like this:

a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country --> Only on foreign lands has a prophet honor/A prophet has always honor except in his own country.


What's the meaning of this last sentence?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ynez said:


> What's the meaning of this last sentence?


 
Hi Ynez,

If you click the link in my post (16) and then go to the column on the left, you'll see buttons to translate into many languages. There are several different sorts of Spanish to choose from. You need to scroll down to verse 57.


----------



## LV4-26

You might be interested to know that this non native immediately understood the sample sentences as having opposite meanings.
1 = rain is not expected
2  = it is.

It's interesting for me to see that all the natives here (except silver.pony) seem to understand #1 as they do #2.

The way I saw it before reading the answers, if #1 is supposed to mean it's going to rain, then, this would be a case of the speaker failing to convey the meaning intended.


Speaking like a native requires to master all the possible formulations, the logical ones as well as the illogical ones. 
One shouldn't fail to be unaware of that.


----------



## Ynez

The Spanish sentence is a bit involved as well, but it is the same idea I understood in English.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LV4-26 said:


> [...]
> 
> Speaking like a native requires to master all the possible formulations, the logical ones as well as the illogical ones.
> One shouldn't fail to be unaware of that.


Good point, LV4.  What I find interesting is that they should both mean the same to most of us, though neither contains more than two negatives, and cognitive breakdown is said to occur in most people only when three negatives are used.


----------



## juandiego

LV4-26 said:


> You might be interested to know that this non native immediately understood the sample sentences as having opposite meanings.
> 1 = rain is not expected
> 2  = it is.


Agree. I have no problem interpreting both sentences the way you and others have already pointed out.


----------



## LV4-26

Thomas Tompion said:


> Good point, LV4.  What I find interesting is that they should both mean the same to most of us, though *neither contains more than two negatives*, and cognitive breakdown is said to occur in most people only when three negatives are used.


(emphasis added)

According to the site linked by Loob, there are 3 "negatives" in sentence #1

_ I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.
_ 
The two '_not_'s are obvious but the word _surprised_ is also a negative, as it were. The writer of the web page does include it in what he calls the "negative polarity items".
When you're _surprised_ by something it means that you get the *opposite* of what you expected.


----------



## panjandrum

I wonder if the form of the negatives makes a difference to how they are processed?

I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.
The topic sentence has two very distinct _not _negatives

A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.
The quote from Matthew has one _not _negative and _without _in its first clause.  _Without _has a negative sense, but I don't think I process it in the same way as a _not _negative.  _Without _conveys its own meaning rather than being a negated _with_.
Similarly with save.  Save has a negative sense, but I process it in its own right, not as a negated version of something else.

Which gets me to the suggestion that the apparently illogical processing of multiple negatives happens with _not _negatives, or _no, _rather than with words that have an intrinsically negative sense.


----------



## LV4-26

I'd say the test is a little bit flawed here, as we can see the sentences written, which makes it easier for us not to be confused by the conflicting negatives.
I guess it would be different if we heard them spoken.
(at least, I'm sure it would make a difference for *me*).


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> A current thread has been considering possibly redundant negatives in phrases like I want to see if I can't find something, as opposed to I want to see if I can find something. During the thread a similar question was posed about the difference between:
> 
> 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
> 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.
> 
> Understandably this second issue was not considered immediately germane to the primary issue in that thread, but it seems to me of sufficient interest to warrant further discussion.
> 
> Is there an important difference between 1. and 2.?


 

I'm a little surprised that you felt it necessary to ask this question. Sentence 1 is a horrible confusing mess, and the thought of someone actually using it, except as a demonstration of why one should avoid using double negatives, frankly, gives me the willies. However, after wading through the morass of negatives, the logical interpretation is that the two sentences mean exactly opposite things:
1. I'll be surprised if it rains/I don't think it's going to rain
2. I won't be surprised if it rains/I think it's going to rain.



> I've been wondering about the triple negative in Matthew 13.57, a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. (Link) I remember experiencing cognitive breakdown when I first heard it, aged 13. Does it still trouble people, and, if not, why not? - if 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains. mean the same to so many of us.


 
I have no problem with the quote from Matthew. Saying that a prophet is "not without honour, save in his own country" indicates that he has some honour outside the country even if it's only a small amount. I believe that this structure provides important emphasis - I would interpret "A prophet only has honour outside his own country" in a slightly different way - i.e. he has quite a lot of honour outside his own country.
I concur with Panjandrum - words with negative connotations are not the same as negative words. There is a difference between negative (not positive) and negative (not affirmative). Words like "without" and "surprised" may have negative connotations but they can still be considered affirmatives.


----------



## Loob

LV4-26 said:


> I'd say the test is a little bit flawed here, as we can see the sentences written, which makes it easier for us not to be confused by the conflicting negatives.
> I guess it would be different if we heard them spoken.
> (at least, I'm sure it would make a difference for *me*).


 
The speech vs writing point is relevant in a different way, too. In informal speech (though not in careful speech), I happily use the idiomatic I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain; and I very much doubt anyone notices its logical inconsistency. In writing, I would always put I shouldn't be surprised if it rained, because writing allows people, in lilput's phrase, to "wade through the morass of negatives".

PS.  Apologies for giving liliput the willies


----------



## PMS-CC

I stand by my assessment that this is an example of a logical inconsistency very similar to the "couldn't care less / could care less" distinction sometimes (not) made in AE. Finding the underlying logic or reason WHY one perceives the same meaning in two logically contradictory statements seems to be a futile exercise, and this thread is quite analogous (if not homologous) to a previous thread:  

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=266677



			
				Panjundrum said:
			
		

> This is an endless discussion, with no prospect of resolution.  To quote a very wise comment from the previous thread: ".. rather like other extremely common sayings, this one is not susceptible to logical argument either way. We absorbed whichever of these we favour at a very early age. It's genetic "


----------



## juandiego

If not A then B
If A then B 
A = rain
B = not suprised

To me, both propositions seem very different, actually, the opposite.

I shouldn't be suprised if it didn't rain, in Spain.
I shouldn't be suprised if it rained, in Britain.


----------



## TheFury

Hi 



Thomas Tompion said:


> 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
> 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.
> 
> Is there an important difference between 1. and 2.?


 
I think the first sentence means that the person doesn't expect the rain , the second sentence is the opposite , the person expects the rain!

It happens in many situations in our life , as when someone says to his friend - when he expects a betrayal from his another friend - : I shouldn't be surprised if he betrays me!

Outside the meanings, I think "didn't rain" should be "doesn't rain" , to be suitable with the second sentence in structures.


----------



## JazzByChas

> 1. I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain and
> 2. I shouldn't be surprised if it rains.


 
Well, I am a native speaker of English (of many dialects) and I am not normally in the habit of speaking in multiple negatives, but in my opinion:

1 infers the speaker is NOT expecting rain
2 infers the speaker IS expecting rain.

Now, I would probably state #2 (in keeping with the structure of #1) as:
I wouldn't/shouldn't be surprised if if DID rain 

And although "could not care less" and "could care less" seem logically contradictory, bad usage (like in many other cases) has made something illogical/grammatically incorrect...correct (so to speak)

(as a note...English is a rather odd beast!  )


----------



## LadyDungeness

Oh for heaven's sake -- stop picking apart the grammar and inferring meanings that aren't there.  Look at the function and semantics instead -- there's more to a language than just grammar.  

In both sentences, the speaker thinks it might rain.  

Lady Dungeness


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LadyDungeness said:


> Oh for heaven's sake -- stop picking apart the grammar and inferring meanings that aren't there. Look at the function and semantics instead -- there's more to a language than just grammar.
> 
> In both sentences, the speaker thinks it might rain.
> 
> Lady Dungeness


That's very interesting, Lady Dungeness, not least because we've not had many AE speaker saying this. I'd been wondering if it was a BE habit to talk loosely, as in 1.


----------



## LadyDungeness

Thomas, 

I rather think the issue is one of over-emphasis on dissecting the grammar of the sentence and in the process becoming so caught up it in that we lose our perspective.  Sociolinguistics has taught us that grammar alone does not control meaning.  We must also consider semantics, function, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. 

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "talking loosely."  Perhaps you mean that language changes, and that dictionary definitions are not proscriptive, but rather a descriptive attempt to describe meaning at a certain point in time.  By definition, then, a dictionary will always be behind the times and less than accurate.  "Talking loosely" gives us the fodder for learning about the changes the language is making -- it is the forefront of language vitality.  

Lady Dungeness

A further note -- An AE speaker would not use the word "shouldn't" in either of these examples -- we would use "wouldn't" instead.  

1. I *wouldn't* be surprised if it didn't rain and
2. *I wouldn't* be surprised if it rains.

Being in Oregon, famous for its rain, I've had plenty of opportunity to hear and say both of these phrases.  They are equivalent.  

Cheers!

Lady Dungeness


----------



## Ynez

LadyDungeness said:


> Being in Oregon, famous for its rain, I've had plenty of opportunity to hear and say both of these phrases.  They are equivalent.



And that's the only thing that makes those sentences have the same meaning, the fact that you say you use them that way...but not grammar, semantics or function. 

Maybe sociolinguistics deals with cases like this one. 

As for psycholinguistics, I think it couldn't agree on the meaning: it should state a meaning for your mind and another for mine.


----------



## liliput

Language is about communication. In order to communicate an idea well, one should aim to phrase it as clearly and unambiguously as possible. In using a double negative in this way you are actually saying the opposite to what you mean (or meaning the opposite to what you say). Many of my cousins across the pond appear to have no problem with this - which is fine if you're talking to your neighbours, who apparently will "know what you mean" but frankly it makes my head spin -it must cause real problems for people who are not native speakers.
If someone actually said to me "I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" I would have to spend time and effort puzzling out what the sentence means logically, trying to guess whether the speaker means that or the opposite and wondering why on Earth they hadn't phrased it more simply.


----------



## panjandrum

liliput said:


> Language is about communication.
> [...]
> If someone actually said to me "I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" I would have to spend time and effort puzzling out what the sentence means logically, trying to guess whether the speaker means that or the opposite and wondering why on Earth they hadn't phrased it more simply.


You're absolutely right about language.
The thing is, the message conveyed by a particular set of words is not the same everywhere.  Sometimes it is the definitions of the words, sometimes it is how they are put together.
In parts of the world where "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" means "I'm expecting some rain", that is precisely and unambiguously what it conveys to others in that part of the world.

I also dare to suggest that in the real world the surrounding context and body language will make this sentence unambiguous to most listeners (who are only half listening half the time anyway).  For example:
_I think you should take your umbrella with you - I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain._
The problem only arises when those unfamiliar with the expression try to analyse it like a mathematical formula.


----------



## Ynez

_I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come._

Do you also understand that sentence means the same as
_
I wouldn't be surprised if he comes_

?

Or is it only with *rain* in particular?


----------



## liliput

Ynez said:


> _I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come._
> 
> Do you also understand that sentence means the same as
> 
> _I wouldn't be surprised if he comes_
> 
> ?
> 
> Or is it only with *rain* in particular?


 
This is not only a double negative but also an incorrect tense. I would understand it to mean:

I *would* be surprised if he *came.*

If the speaker means "I wouldn't be surprised if he came" or "I would be surprised if he didn't come" then they should say so.


----------



## liliput

panjandrum said:


> You're absolutely right about language.
> The thing is, the message conveyed by a particular set of words is not the same everywhere. Sometimes it is the definitions of the words, sometimes it is how they are put together.
> In parts of the world where "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" means "I'm expecting some rain", that is precisely and unambiguously what it conveys to others in that part of the world.
> 
> I also dare to suggest that in the real world the surrounding context and body language will make this sentence unambiguous to most listeners (who are only half listening half the time anyway). For example:
> _I think you should take your umbrella with you - I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain._
> The problem only arises when those unfamiliar with the expression try to analyse it like a mathematical formula.


 
So esssentially we're agreed that it's only useful for communicating with those whom the speaker is certain are familiar enough with this particular phrase to understand what the speaker is babbling about. 
Analysing the sentence like a mathematical formula is precisely what someone unfamiliar with the expression or the language as a whole would normally do, only to find themselves defeated by the utter lack of logic.

Looking at your example, you're right, the context makes it clear. I would probably simply ignore the self-contradictory second part, assume that the speaker suspected it was going to rain and be thankful that they were at least capable of forming half an intelligible sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ynez said:


> _I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come._
> 
> Do you also understand that sentence means the same as
> 
> _I wouldn't be surprised if he comes_
> 
> ?
> 
> Or is it only with *rain* in particular?


 
It's an interesting point, Ynez, because I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come, with its three negatives (enough for cognitive collapse), could be taken by many BE speakers in both senses, I think. A lot would depend on the circumstances and intonation.

Tidy up the tenses:

I won't be surprised if he doesn't come - I don't think he's coming (I find it odd that this should contain the three negatives and yet be unambiguous)

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't come - could go either way (these are the tenses used in the original post).

I don't think it's got anything to do with raining; it's got all to do with the tenses and the number of negatives.


----------



## Ynez

I see...I didn't know anything about all this confusion with negatives. I'll be careful when I hear people speaking like this, knowing now they may mean just the opposite of what I understand


----------



## panjandrum

liliput said:


> So esssentially we're agreed that it's only useful for communicating with those whom the speaker is certain are familiar enough with this particular phrase to understand what the speaker is babbling about.


I'm sorry to go on about this, but you keep assuming that users of this expression are in some way sub-normal.  That is not the case.  You might as well declare AE-speakers as babblers because they call trousers pants, or BE-speakers babblers because they call erasers rubbers.  OK, so I'm overstating to make the point - which is that this is a standard expression for some varieties of English.  Those who use it do as a matter of course and without thought for whether or not their listeners are familiar with it.


> Looking at your example, you're right, the context makes it clear. I would probably simply ignore the self-contradictory second part, assume that the speaker suspected it was going to rain and be thankful that they were *at least capable of forming half an intelligible sentence*.


As before. The sentence is perfectly intelligible to those willing to understand rather than poke holes in it.


----------



## Ynez

panjandrum said:


> As before. The sentence is perfectly intelligible to those willing to understand rather than poke holes in it.




Can you explain why you think the sentence is intelligible? I can only understand it now that I know some people may use it that way, but the sentence itself is impossible to understand with the meaning implied. All of us who didn't know this use would understand the sentence the other way round, which is what the sentence actually says.

Maybe the problem is that of double negatives and all that...I personally think the two clauses in the sentence keep the negatives far enough from each other as to be considered as a whole group.

But then, again, now that I know how it may be used...I could understand it.


----------



## LV4-26

OK, it is now clearly established that...
I shouldn't be surprised if it did *not* rain
I shouldn't be surprised if it rained

mean exactly the same in spite of the "not" that is added in the former, and that the people who say and understand them as synonyms are in no way sub-normal or less educated, or less logical-minded than those who don't.

But, please, is it however still true that when you add a "_not_", you alter the meaning of a sentence? (it is going to rain / it is *not* going to rain). 
Because I've been living with that assumption for so many years, and I'm not prepared to see that change so suddenly.

It's just that I'm starting to feel abnormal just because I (immediately, that is, without "picking apart the grammar") understand them to mean what they actually say.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LV4-26 said:


> OK, it is now clearly established that...
> I shouldn't be surprised if it did *not* rain
> I shouldn't be surprised if it rained
> 
> mean exactly the same in spite of the "not" that is added in the former, and that the people who say and understand them as synonyms are in no way sub-normal or less educated, or less logical-minded than those who don't.
> 
> But, please, is it however still true that when you add a "_not_", you alter the meaning of a sentence? (it is going to rain / it is *not* going to rain).
> Because I've been living with that assumption for so many years, and I'm not prepared to see that change so suddenly.


Me too. I'm just prepared to accept that when you hit a certain number of negatives you lose intellectual track of them, and rely more on what the person will probably mean and intonation and facial expression than the words themselves. The same thing happened to Shakespeare in Hamlet Act 4, scene 4. The soliloquy How all occasions do inform against me.

Rightly to be great 
Is not to stir without great argument, 
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw 
When honor's at the stake.

He says that great men don't stir without good reason, but he clearly means that great men stir for no reason at all: they stir without good reason - he's just seen Fortinbras take an army to retake 'a little piece of Poland'. The metaphor which follows makes his meaning so clear than many English people have never noticed that Shakespeare has inserted one negative too few in the previous part of the sentence.


----------



## ewie

panjandrum said:


> I'm sorry to go on about this, but you keep assuming that users of this expression are in some way sub-normal.


_On behalf of 'babblers' everywhere, I would like to say thankyou for this post, Panjandrum.  (I was part way through framing my own reply when I ran out of expletives.  As usual you were firm and tactful.)_



Ynez said:


> Can you explain why you think the sentence is intelligible?


_Ynez, I'm afraid all I can do is explain why I, a babbling native, think it intelligible.  And the reason is: because I understand it.  I know it doesn't make any sense to have a positive sentence mean one thing and for the negative version of the same sentence to mean the same thing; but my neural circuitry [or whatever], which has been so trained presumably by hearing those around me using the construction, doesn't compute any real difference in meaning between the two._
_One of the questions I posed in a previous thread on the subject (and which is effectively the subject of this one too) was: _Why should this be?_  I fear we'll never know._



LV4-26 said:


> But, please, is it however still true that when you add a "_not_", you alter the meaning of a sentence? (it is going to rain / it is *not* going to rain).
> _Yes, of course it's true, LV4, don't panic ~ we haven't suddenly rewritten one of the most basic rules of English without telling you!_ ...
> 
> It's just that I'm starting to feel abnormal just because I (immediately, that is, without "picking apart the grammar") understand them to mean what they actually say.
> _... but it's also true that with this particular type of construction, some 'babblers' among the English-speaking population (self included), immediately understand the two versions to be all but identical in meaning._


 
_I'd like also to second what Lady Dungeness said a few posts ago: no matter to what degree whatever number of 'experts' might analyze and dissect the 'grammar' of it, no matter how 'idiotic' it might sound to those who don't use it, it_ exists_.  And for those us of who _do _use it, it functions admirably._

_So, Thomas, Liliput, everyone, I'm afraid that's just the way it is.  I can't come near to explaining it._


----------



## cuchuflete

Ynez said:


> Can you explain why you think the sentence is intelligible? I can only understand it now that I know some people may use it that way, but the sentence itself is impossible to understand with the meaning implied. All of us who didn't know this use would understand the sentence the other way round, which is what the sentence actually says.



By parts-

1._"Can you explain why you think the sentence is intelligible?"_  Because I understood it.
Sorry for the circular logic, but the question calls for it.  I'm not a BE speaker, don't use this construction, may never have heard it before this thread, yet, as stated early in the thread, I could quickly and easily grasp the intent.  Perhaps I think the sentence is intelligible with the intended meaning simply because no other meaning struck me as more apt to be what the speaker meant.

2._ "...but the sentence itself is impossible to understand with the meaning implied."
_That is untrue.  See my reply to #1, directly above.

3._"All of us who didn't know this use would understand the sentence the other way round,..."

_Again, I disagree.   I didn't know this use, and still had no difficulty understanding it.  

Having found no grounds for agreement, let me try to explain why I had no trouble with it.  My brain processes English, whether written or spoken, within context, including tone of voice, body language, and the logical flow of whatever else I'm hearing or reading.  Add to all that the imposed context of my expectations of meaning based on the style and accent of the speaker or writer.  That's how I understand a very common Brazilian negative expression (literally translated as "Well, no.")  to mean "Yes".


----------



## Ynez

I should have spoken of myself and not say "all of us who didn't know...".

But how can you be so sure you'd understand it that way without a context? The person may indeed be using it differently...or so I think.

Example:

You're watching TV with a friend. The weatherman says "It's going to rain in the whole country". Then your friend says "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain at all".

What meaning would you understand?


It's clear my mind doesn't work with English mechanisms


----------



## PMS-CC

Ynez said:


> You're watching TV with a friend. The weatherman says "It's going to rain in the whole country". Then your friend says "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain at all".
> 
> What meaning would you understand?



You added "at all" to the end of the phrase, which changes (for me, at least) the meaning significantly from the original. 

Try this on for size (although it may be hard for you to see it):

What if my friend said: _I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain a little bit today.

_Can you see the difference?


----------



## Ynez

Ok, removing "at all".


The weatherman says: It's going to rain in the whole country
My friend says: I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.


PMS-CC: I can only believe what you are saying and try to understand if the moment arrives...maybe I wouldn't even notice the _n't_ part


----------



## LV4-26

I'm willing to accept anything you people say about sentence #1
_I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain_
provided you just acknowledge that it doesn't mean what it says.
I was under the impression that some of you refused to admit just that.

Actually, I'm not even saying we're dealing with a communication flaw. As a matter of fact this sentence "objectively" says non-X and almost everyone (except for my unfortunate self and a few others) understands it as X. So as (almost) everyone agrees, there's no communication problem whatsoever.

Having said that, I just wonder whether the communication problem is _in the thread._ , rather than in its subject.
I'm saying that it sometimes happens (as here) that a sentence's objective meaning is different from its subjective meaning. But I wonder whether some of you disagree that there is such a thing as an "objective" meaning....which would be something I'd be able to understand


----------



## Loob

LV4-26 said:


> But, please, is it however still true that when you add a "_not_", you alter the meaning of a sentence? (it is going to rain / it is *not* going to rain). Because I've been living with that assumption for so many years, and I'm not prepared to see that change so suddenly.


 
Fret not, LV4-26 - this idiomatic redundant _not_ is used in only a tiny number of constructions.

I use it only after _"I shouldn't be surprised if_..."/_"I wouldn't be surprised if_...". 

Fowler's _Modern English Usage (2nd edition)_ also says it's common with _"I shouldn't wonder if", _as in_ "I shouldn't wonder if it didn't turn to snow_" (_I shouldn't wonder_ has, here, an almost identical meaning to _I shouldn't be surprised_). I don't use it in that construction myself, but here's _The Independent_ newspaper doing so about a year ago.

Apart from in those two constructions (unless anyone else can think of any more!), you're quite safe in assuming "not" is a negative


----------



## Ynez

Loob said:


> Fowler's _Modern English Usage (2nd edition)_ also says it's common with _"I shouldn't wonder if", _as in_ "I shouldn't wonder if it didn't turn to snow_" (_I shouldn't wonder_ has, here, an almost identical meaning to _I shouldn't be surprised_).




Could you please write the whole quote? I'd be really interested in reading it.


----------



## LadyDungeness

*NOT *= not (99.99% most of the time).  But in the phrases:  
I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't VERB
I wouldn't be surprised if it VERB​*NOT *has no meaning.  These are set phrases.  

Lady Dungeness

If you want to sound like a grammarian, or make a grammarian happy, DO follow the rules they publish.  

If you want to sound like a native speaker of English, use whichever phrase you happen to like, and don't worry about the NOT.  

Lady Dungeness


----------



## Loob

Ynez said:


> Could you please write the whole quote? I'd be really interested in reading it.


Not without breaking the 4-sentence limit, Ynez But I'll do my best to part-summarise, part-quote...

In the _Modern English Usage_ (2nd edition) article on *not,* Fowler says, effectively:

that people often make the mistake of introducing a _not_ in a subordinate clause as an "echo" of an actual or virtual negative in the main part of the sentence;
with _wonder_ and _surprise_ this mistake is so common as to rank as a *sturdy indefensible*.
*Sturdy indefensible* is Fowler's term for an illogical, or to use his adjective "foolish", idiom. Here's the start of his article on them (it's a good example of what panj called in another thread "the twinkling, mischievous stuffiness that characterises the first & second editions"):

Many idioms are seen, if they are tested by grammar or logic, not to say what they are nevertheless well understood to mean. Fastidious people point out the sin, and easy-going people, who are more numerous, take little notice and go on committing it. Then the fastidious people, if they are foolish, get excited and talk about ignorance and solecisms, and are laughed at as pedants; or if they are wise, say no more about it and wait. The indefensibles, however sturdy, may prove to be not immortal...

The first edition of Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ came out in 1926, and some of the idioms he calls *sturdy indefensibles* are now so entrenched as to be unremarkable (_has he got a temperature?_ for example).

I honestly don't know whether _I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't X_ is surviving, on the wane, or on the increase. It's clearly alive and well in the usage of several contributors to this thread


----------



## panjandrum

For Jean-Michel's peace of mind:
Yes, I agree that the actual meaning of this sentence to those who use it is exactly opposite to the calculated meaning based on the number of negatives.
But language doesn't _always _compute like maths computes.

For those of us very familiar with this usage there is no problem at all in understanding the actual meaning.  As has been suggested already, there are many cues, not least that no one who meant the literal meaning of the sentence would say it like that.  They wouldn't stack the negatives.


----------



## juandiego

But, if the sentence were the answer of a directed question as in the following context:
- What should not suprised you about the rain odds, Peter?
- Peter: I shouldn't be suprised if it rained/didn't rain.
In this case, would it matter whether one or the other second clause? Would you interprete them the same way?

I am of the opinion that the sentence doesn't have two negatives but one in the first clause and another in the second.
I can see two negatives in:
_I can't see nobody_ (what we contradictorily say in Spanish)
But I can not see two negatives here:
_I can not see people where there's noone_ (Two clauses, each one with its negative)


----------



## LadyDungeness

My post was deleted.  So sad.  

Fowler, grammarians, and prescriptivists are of little use in helping to understand the MEANING of sentences.  

The use of multiple negatives is not, as these would-be tyrants espouse, akin to multiplication.  Multiple negatives are akin to addition.  The more, the more negative.  

This is on topic as it discusses the nature of multiple negatives.

Lady Dungeness


----------



## LadyDungeness

juandiego said:


> But, if the sentence were the answer of a directed question as in the following context:
> - What should not suprised you about the rain odds, Peter?



Juan, 

The set phrase/idiom "I wouldn't be surprised if ..." is not used in a question form.  

Lady Dungeness


----------



## Forero

I really _am_ surprised that sentence #1 can mean the same as #2.  To me #1 says something close to "I suspect it didn't rain" and #2 says something more like to "I suspect it is going to rain".   I would use "would" rather than "should", but I accept "should" too.


----------



## LV4-26

panjandrum said:


> For Jean-Michel's peace of mind:
> Yes, I agree that the actual meaning of this sentence to those who use it is exactly opposite to the calculated meaning based on the number of negatives.


Hehe....Thanks, Panj. I'm still a bit unhappy with your "_calculated_", though. 
(again, to me, a sentence means or, rather, says something per se, independently of anyone's "calculation" or intervention of any kind. But, well....)

Just one more question and I'll be finished with the matter.
I had the same idea as Ynez in post #49 and I'd like to elaborate on it, if (s)he doesn't mind.

A: How come you're not taking your umbrella? The weather report said it's going to rain in a few hours.
B: Trust me. I've never been wrong in my predictions. _*I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.*_

Do you think I should not write that because it means (?) I'm expecting rain?
Or, maybe, there is enough context to show I'm using the sentence at face value?


----------



## Loob

LV4-26 said:


> A: How come you're not taking your umbrella? The weather report said it's going to rain in a few hours.
> B: Trust me. I've never been wrong in my predictions. _*I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.*_
> 
> Do you think I should not write that because it means (?) I'm expecting rain?
> Or, maybe, there is enough context to show I'm using the sentence at face value?


 
The context would help, Jean-Michel, but you'd also need to use the right intonation. If you emphasised "didn't" in a particular way, it *could* mean "I think it won't rain". If you emphasised "rain", or if you emphasised "didn't" with a slightly different intonation pattern, it would mean "I think it will rain".

Another reason why you wouldn't (or at least I wouldn't) use this construction in writing


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LV4-26 said:


> [...]A: How come you're not taking your umbrella? The weather report said it's going to rain in a few hours.
> B: Trust me. I've never been wrong in my predictions. _*I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.*_
> 
> Do you think I should not write that because it means (?) I'm expecting rain?
> Or, maybe, there is enough context to show I'm using the sentence at face value?


Putting myself in B's position, LV4, I couldn't give that reply, because it suggests I'm expecting rain. It's used so often in that sense that I'd have to follow Loob's suggestion; I'd say, probably, I don't think it'll rain.


----------



## Ynez

Thank you Loob 

This has been a very interesting topic for me, as I had no clue about this typical idiom. Then I have a new question in relation: If the order of the clauses is changed, the idiom is still understood as positive or does it have the "normal" meaning?


If it didn't rain, I shouldn't be surprised.


Or is this sentence again one that people would never use?


----------



## Packard

panjandrum said:


> ...
> *But language doesn't always compute like maths computes...*


 

Absolutely correct. We are victims of our 3rd grade teachers (mine, Miss Pingrey) who drummed into our heads that there should be no double negatives.

The fact remains, *we can always use English to describe math; but you cannot safely use math principles to describe English.*


----------



## liliput

Let's say, for arguments sake, that everyone in my village calls steak "burnt chicken" due to some misunderstanding or humourous incident in the past. The waiters in the various eating establishments in my village understand and bring me a steak when I order the burnt chicken. However, if I use it in the rest of the English-speaking world I'll receive a piece of burnt chicken.
My point is that we are all free to insist on using words or phrases that don't actually correspond to the intended meaning, but if we do so we shouldn't be surprised if we are misinterpreted (or perhaps I should say we shouldn't not be surprised when we aren't not misinterpreted?).


----------



## JazzByChas

I must agree...between my grammar school teachers and my mother, who is an absolute stickler for "correct English" I was almost forbidden to speak in double negatives. 

In fact being a computer programmer, I find it much easier to express logic in positives, rather than (double) negatives.
Ex.: 

_If the color is NOT blue_
_then act as if it is pink_
_otherwise_
_act as if it were green_

When it is easier to say:
If the color is blue
act as if it were blue
if the color is green
act as if it were green
otherwise
act as if it were pink





Packard said:


> Absolutely correct. We are victims of our 3rd grade teachers (mine, Miss Pingrey) who drummed into our heads that there should be no double negatives.
> 
> The fact remains, *we can always use English to describe math; but you cannot safely use math principles to describe English.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> Let's say, for arguments sake, that everyone in my village calls steak "burnt chicken" due to some misunderstanding or humourous incident in the past. The waiters in the various eating establishments in my village understand and bring me a steak when I order the burnt chicken. However, if I use it in the rest of the English-speaking world I'll receive a piece of burnt chicken.
> My point is that we are all free to insist on using words or phrases that don't actually correspond to the intended meaning, but if we do so we shouldn't be surprised if we are misinterpreted (or perhaps I should say we shouldn't not be surprised when we aren't not misinterpreted?).


 
But I think this is to miss the point, Liliput.  We aren't concerned here with a local use at all -I shouldn't be surprised if it did or didn't rain is understood all over the English-speaking world, as this thread amongst other things has made clear, to express a worry that it's going to rain.  Do you have similar reservations about other, "illogical", expressions which have passed into everyday use, like Has he got a temperature? to mean Is he running a fever?  You talk as though the proper answer to this question should be Of course he's got a temperature, even dead people's blood has a temperature.


----------



## Ynez

Thomas, I think it would be difficult to find an English example as illogical as the one we've been discussing...But that's my opinion


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks Loob and Thomas. It's all clear now.
I'll try to remember that when I have a similar sentence to translate from English to French. 

- without a context, I would have no hesitation and.....would give the wrong translation. 
- with a context, I'd be totally confused and would .....well...ask here. 

But that was true only before this thread.

EDIT: Ynez quoted me before I slightly edited my post. I altered it because I wanted to emphasize the fact that I *immediately*, spontaneously, understood that sentence "wrongly" (?), wihtout any calculation or parsing of any kind.


----------



## Ynez

LV4-26 said:


> Thanks Loob and Thomas. It's all clear now.
> I'll try to remember that when I have a similar sentence to translate from English to French.
> 
> - without a context, I would sure have given the wrong translation
> - with a context, I'd have been totally confused and would have.......well...asked here.
> 
> But that was before this thread.



Yes, confused and shocked 

Yesterday night I was checking some grammar books, and I found a comment on this in Michael Swan's _Practical English Usage_ and an example in another book. But I guess that if I ever read that, I just crossed eyes, was shocked and forgot about it...It looks like something one can only believe if hearing it often or being shown it's understood like that, as we were now shown.


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> But I think this is to miss the point, Liliput. We aren't concerned here with a local use at all -I shouldn't be surprised if it did or didn't rain is understood all over the English-speaking world, as this thread amongst other things has made clear, to express a worry that it's going to rain. Do you have similar reservations about other, "illogical", expressions which have passed into everyday use, like Has he got a temperature? to mean Is he running a fever? You talk as though the proper answer to this question should be Of course he's got a temperature, even dead people's blood has a temperature.


 
I think you miss my point, whether it's a village or a whole region doesn't matter, the phrase is counter-intuitive, means something different to its intended meaning, has arisen from an error and has a very good chance of being completely misunderstood. 
I don't believe that it's understood all over the English-speaking world - I understood the opposite meaning, as would many other native and non-native speakers. Before reading this thread I would not have expected to hear the phrase from a native English speaker. My impression is that it's restricted to a few areas or individuals in the US and UK, but its distribution is not clear from this thread.

"Has he got a temperature?" is certainly more widely understood, and has the advantage of being concise and not meaning the exact opposite of what is intended - it simply lacks the qualification "high" (has he got a high temperature?). This is not totally counter-intuitive, as asking if someone has a normal or low temperature is less common.


----------



## Packard

Language is not about logic. For instance:

It is not uncommon (which is not exactly the same as "it is common") to hear, "Man, that car is totally bad!", which in my day would be expressed as, "Man, that car is totally cool!" So "bad" = "Cool" = "good".

or

In a conversation you hear, "Oh, shut up!", which means in that situation, "You don't say! Do tell me more." So "shut up" = "you don't say" (which is not exactly the same as "so you say").

English is not about math or logic, or science, or physics or any other discipline. It is about English. The rules of other disciplines do not apply and it is an error to attempt to apply them.


----------



## liliput

Packard said:


> Language is not about logic. For instance:
> 
> It is not uncommon (which is not exactly the same as "it is common") to hear, "Man, that car is totally bad!", which in my day would be expressed as, "Man, that car is totally cool!" So "bad" = "Cool" = "good".
> 
> or
> 
> In a conversation you hear, "Oh, shut up!", which means in that situation, "You don't say! Do tell me more." So "shut up" = "you don't say" (which is not exactly the same as "so you say").
> 
> English is not about math or logic, or science, or physics or any other discipline. It is about English. The rules of other disciplines do not apply and it is an error to attempt to apply them.


 
I think even with apparently illogical expressions in English, there is usually some logic to their origins. I can remember the use of "bad" and "wicked" to mean "good" becoming fashionable, and I almost certainly used them. It's true that they mean the opposite of what they say, but I think there may be some logic to this usage. "Wicked" and "bad" could come from the idea of sin in indulging in something that feels good. I wonder if this use of "bad" arose from an expression like "It's so good that it's bad" as if the thing was so good that it had passed right through goodness and come out on the other side, or as if something so good must be sinful. The logical interpretation of the suggested use of the double negative in this thread is that someone, or many people, made a mistake and a lot of other people copied it without stopping to think what they were actually saying.


----------



## Loob

Ynez said:


> This has been a very interesting topic for me, as I had no clue about this typical idiom. Then I have a new question in relation: If the order of the clauses is changed, the idiom is still understood as positive or does it have the "normal" meaning?
> 
> 
> If it didn't rain, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> 
> Or is this sentence again one that people would never use?


 
Hi Ynez

The answer is that these redundant negatives only occur *after* the main clause _I shouldn't (wouldn't) be suprised/ I shouldn't wonder_. As Fowler says, they're a sort of "echo" of the negative in the main clause.

In your sentence, the negative _didn't rain_ comes before, not after, the main clause, so it would have the 'normal' or 'logical' meaning.

I can imagine using your sentence in a dialogue like this:

_- Are you going to take your umbrella?_
_- Yes, just in case.  But if it didn't rain, I wouldn't be surprised.  It never rains when I take my umbrella._

I'd be more likely, though, to say_ But if it doesn't rain, I won't be surprised._


----------



## Ynez

Loob said:


> Hi Ynez
> 
> The answer is that these redundant negatives only occur *after* the main clause _I shouldn't (wouldn't) be suprised/ I shouldn't wonder_. As Fowler says, they're a sort of "echo" of the negative in the main clause.
> 
> In your sentence, the negative _didn't rain_ comes before, not after, the main clause, so it would have the 'normal' or 'logical' meaning.
> 
> I can imagine using your sentence in a dialogue like this:
> 
> _- Are you going to take your umbrella?_
> _- Yes, just in case.  But if it didn't rain, I wouldn't be surprised.  It never rains when I take my umbrella._
> 
> I'd be more likely, though, to say_ But if it doesn't rain, I won't be surprised._



Interesting. That's the meaning I'd always have understood.

Thank you very much again


----------



## juandiego

LadyDungeness said:


> Juan,
> 
> The set phrase/idiom "I wouldn't be surprised if ..." is not used in a question form.
> 
> Lady Dungeness


Ok, many thanks for your reply LadyDungeness.

So, the _should_ of the original sentence is not about other thing that the conditional form of first person and not about something similar as _to have to_, _must_, probability or advice. This is what I have been taught but I thought wrongly that its use as conditional particle was obsolete.

Anyway, I think that my previous question is still possible, if I am able to put it syntactically correct: _What would *not* surprise you about the rain odds, Peter?_, or any other correct sentence that forces to begin the answer with _I should*n't* be suprised if..._. In this context, would you interprete the answer the same way either with it didn't rain or it rained in the second clause?


----------



## Loob

Hi juandiego
The form of any preceding question doesn't make any difference


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> I think you miss my point, whether it's a village or a whole region doesn't matter, [...].


 Hi Liliput, 

I may have missed your point for a good reason; when you said the special meaning in your example evolved as a result of an incident in the village and became a private, local, meaning, I thought you were drawing a parallel with the phrase in the title thread - suggesting it has a private, local meaning.

I was surprised that you'd never come across this meaning before, and that you think it is unusual in everyday speech in BE - enough people have posted from all over the US to suggest it is common there too.  If it's got a special section in Fowler, it can't be the wild aberration you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## LadyDungeness

> I am able to put it syntactically correct: _What would *not* surprise you about the rain odds, Peter?_



Your syntax/grammar may be correct, but the sentence doesn't make much sense.  _Why do green theories eat rabid plungers?_   <== good syntax.  

Lady Dungeness


----------



## juandiego

Thanks Lady Dungeness.
Context
 Peter is the weatherman that have just failed to guess correctly the rain forecast all week long. To top it off, saying at the end of his reports something like _I should be surprised if it ... today_. So, on Sunday the Anchorman asks ironically to the weatherman: _Well, Peter, what would NOT suprise you about the rain odds?_. Peter doesn't have any other chance and feels forced to answer: _I should NOT be surprised if it rained/didn't rain_.
So that, I guess we always could find a specific context by which to force that first negative clause but knowing that the key of the answer will be in the second one, obviously, also knowing that the first negative will reverse the meaning of the second clause.


----------



## LadyDungeness

You've created a nice scenario, Juan.  However, my best guess is that you would never find a conversation like that.  Anywhere.  Ever.  It's a hypothetical.  A hypothetical conversation that would not occur in English.  

Sorry.  

Lady Dungeness


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Liliput,
> 
> I may have missed your point for a good reason; when you said the special meaning in your example evolved as a result of an incident in the village and became a private, local, meaning, I thought you were drawing a parallel with the phrase in the title thread - suggesting it has a private, local meaning.
> 
> I was surprised that you'd never come across this meaning before, and that you think it is unusual in everyday speech in BE - enough people have posted from all over the US to suggest it is common there too. If it's got a special section in Fowler, it can't be the wild aberration you seem to be suggesting.


 
Hello TT,

Perhaps my example wasn't explained well enough then, but non-standard usages don't just suddenly appear everywhere at the same time, they must spread from some origin. As far as I can see, the use of this expression to mean its opposite can only have come about from an error or from multiple errors. Perhaps my villages burnt chicken expression could eventually achieve an equally wide distribution.

I'm horrified to think of it as being accepted as standard usage - I think of it more of as an abomination than an aberration . What would you say if you actually wanted to express the idea "I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" in its proper meaning? (bearing in mind that you might want to specifically express your lack of surprise at it not raining over your surprise at it raining). I might want to use my language in a logical and correct way and find that a whole bunch of people misunderstand me because of they've been conditioned to an illogical, opposite meaning.

This usage of the expression _is_ localized to those familiar with it and I view it as an unnecessary barrier to clear communication. In the interests of global understanding, I recommend that those who find themselves using it make a concerted effort not to do so.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Lilliput,

I agree that it's horrible, but it's out of our hands, surely.  It's too well established for anyone to retrieve.  But I regard it in a different light to hopefully and begging questions: partly, perhaps, because I'm interested in the effect on cognition of multiple negatives.  At what stage do things break down?  I shouldn't be surprised if we don't fail to find an answer to that question, because I suspect that some people follow them better than do others.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> I shouldn't be surprised if we don't fail to find an answer to that question, because I suspect that some people follow them better than do others.


 I shouldn't be surprised if we weren't beseiged by requests for clarification of your intentions with _better_, which, if we don't get rain, could mean different things in deserts and in rain forests.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> I shouldn't be surprised if we weren't beseiged by requests for clarification of your intentions with _better_, which, if we don't get rain, could mean different things in deserts and in rain forests.


I read this as a request for clarification. I was saying that most people drop out at some stage:

It did rain
It didn't rain
I'm surprised it didn't rain
I'm not surprised it didn't rain
I should be surprised if it didn't rain
I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain
I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't fail to rain
I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't fail not to rain

As the number of negatives increases, I believe that some people drop out - experience cognitive blackout - before others, for some reason or other, probably to do with a certain sort of intelligence. I think that some people are _better_ at following interacting negatives than others.


----------



## trevorb

Ynez said:


> Ok, removing "at all".
> 
> 
> The weatherman says: It's going to rain in the whole country
> My friend says: I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.
> 
> 
> PMS-CC: I can only believe what you are saying and try to understand if the moment arrives...maybe I wouldn't even notice the _n't_ part


 
Forgive me if this has already been picked up on, but it's taking me a _long_ time to get to the end of this thread!

Ynez, in your example, the sentence stress would fall on "didn't", whereas in the original the stress would be on "rain" and the intonation would be quite different. As a native Brit speaker who, as far as I know, doesn't use this expression, in most circumstances I would take it to mean the same as "I wouldn't be surprised if it rained". But context and intonation could change that.

It's my impression that this is a slightly old fashioned and maybe a slightly 'posh' way of speaking. I feel that I've come across in the pages of Jane Austen or somewhere similar.

Incidentally, isn't there a similarly unintelligible use of (a single) negative in Spanish? Something along the lines of: "until I don't see my daughter in the flesh, I won't rest" (meaning, "until I do see her ..." (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/12/29/elmundo/i-03802.htm)

Trevor.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't think this is a pleonastic negative, such as you find also in French.  Those are similar, in that they don't have a negative effect on meaning, but they are grammatically necessary - the sentence is wrong without them.  Here the second negative may or may not be there without altering the meaning.


----------



## juandiego

trevorb said:


> Incidentally, isn't there a similarly unintelligible use of (a single) negative in Spanish? Something along the lines of: "until I don't see my daughter in the flesh, I won't rest" (meaning, "until I do see her ..." (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/12/29/elmundo/i-03802.htm)


Hello Trevor.
You are completely right here and I have never thought of similar issue in Spanish before. It seems exactly the same problem. Both sentences are interpreted the same either with the negative or the positive in the first clause.
_Until I don't see my daughter, I won't rest_ trying to mean _Until I do see..._.


----------



## Packard

My sister got a gift of a pressure cooker when she got married.  She had never used one and could not imagine the need for one.

My Mom said, "Don't think it isn't a pot that you won't have a use for someday."

We all had a good laugh, but we all understood what she meant.  Which is what language is about--communicating.


----------



## PMS-CC

Thomas Tompion said:


> As the number of negatives increases, I believe that some people drop out - experience cognitive blackout - before others, for some reason or other, probably to do with a certain sort of intelligence.



That may certainly be the case, but in my beaten horse homologue ("could care less vs. couldn't care less") the dropping out takes place at either 1 or -1 negatives.


----------



## Loob

trevorb said:


> Incidentally, isn't there a similarly unintelligible use of (a single) negative in Spanish? Something along the lines of: "until I don't see my daughter in the flesh, I won't rest" (meaning, "until I do see her ..." (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/12/29/elmundo/i-03802.htm)
> 
> Trevor.


 
Excellent point, trevorb. 



> It's my impression that this is a slightly old fashioned and maybe a slightly 'posh' way of speaking. I feel that I've come across in the pages of Jane Austen or somewhere similar.


 
Because I use the construction, I'd be delighted to think that it was 'posh' or Jane-Austen-ish

If you can provide some examples, I'll be ecstatic!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Brace yourself, Loob. I had a quick look through my Jane Austen novels and she doesn't use the doubled negative. Here are the only uses of the first part of the construction.

I should not be surprised if he were to change his mind at last (Lady Susan, Chapter 23)

Upon this conviction, she would not be surprised if even in Henry and Eleanor Tilney, some slight imperfection might hereafter appear; (Northanger Abbey, Chapter 25)


I should not have been at all surprised by her ladyship's asking us on Sunday (Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 29)
I should not be surprised,'' said Darcy, "if he were to give it up (Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 32)

Notice she likes to use it with the subjunctive.


----------



## trevorb

Loob said:


> Excellent point, trevorb.
> 
> Because I use the construction, I'd be delighted to think that it was 'posh' or Jane-Austen-ish
> 
> If you can provide some examples, I'll be ecstatic!


 
Sadly, my searches have proved fruitless! I've tried Austen, Dickens and Wilde to no avail. I can't find any searchable Waugh (still in copyright?) and after that I think we'd be looking at a different category of 'period' piece altogether. I'm starting to hear the voices of servant characters in TV adaptations of Agatha Christie in my head ...

Sorry, Loob, but it looks rather like I was mistaken.

Another wild observation though: is there a connection between the fact that the rain is, as yet, an unrealized event and the fact that we understand the negation as an affirmation?

e.g.

I shouldn't be surprised if it were to rain tomorrow. Subjunctive for an unrealized event.

I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain tomorrow. Negation replaces the subjunctive.

The Spanish example also involves the subjunctive.

Trevor.


----------



## liliput

I'm not sure how useful comparisons with other languages are. In Spanish negative sentences, negatives are applied throughout and there is no problem with double, triple or even quadruple negatives. A sentence along the lines of "I never have to do nothing for no-one" is correct in Spanish.
In English grammar, on the other hand, the fact that two negatives cancel each other out is not even Grammar 101, it's primary school stuff, one of the earliest things you learn. We've seen examples of how double negatives like "not uncommon" and "not without" can be used to provide particular emphasis, but in these examples the negatives _do _cancel each other. I'm still at a loss to understand how enough people can have ignored the rule to allow the peculiar "shouldn't/didn't" idiom to arise.

I'm interested in TT's idea about the cognitive effect of multiple negatives. It's true that it costs more time and effort to discern the meaning the more negatives that you add. I suspect that patience runs out before cognitive ability. Generally when faced with unnecessary multiple negatives my thinking is "if this person can't be bothered or isn't able to form a concise, intelligible sentence in a normal way is it really worth my while attempting to decipher it?"


----------



## Loob

Hi liliput

I'm going to use my "vehemently disagree" button here too.

The construction "I shouldn't be surprised" + negative = positive has nothing to do with double negatives.

Nor does the construction Trevorb drew attention to in Spanish, where the addition or omission of "no" makes no difference to the sense.

Idioms and logic are different beasts...


----------



## RoseLilly

Loob said:


> *Idioms and logic are different beasts...*



I'm with Loob.


----------



## LV4-26

Strangely enough (well, in fact, this is rethoric as I'm going to explain why it is so), I found another sentence of the same kind, to which I reacted exactly as many natives seem to do. 
Here goes
I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.
Source

Unlike TT's sample sentence, I immediately understood this one for what it was intended to mean, i.e. for the opposite of what it actually says.
The meaning intended here is _I expect him to be a strong candidate.

_Why so? Because, in "the" rain situation (let's say there isn't any context), both interpretations are equally possible _a priori_. 

This time, conversely, the opposite interpretation -- which is also the correct one, as far as the internal logic of the sentence goes -- is extremely unlikely. If the writer did mean that the defeat in question was going to weaken Mr "T.R."'s chances for 1912, he wouldn't say it in such weird and contorted terms.

Addressee's perspective
As we've already seen, the addressee always goes to the most likely interpretation (whatever the internal/objective, logical meaning of the sentence) . Most generally, the context will help him/her in that.

Speaker's perspective
Some of you will probably not agree but I do think the speaker starts building the sentence in his head as.....
_I should *not* be surprised...if it *made* him a strong candidate)_

Then half-way through the sentence, he sort of forgets the beginning and goes on as if he'd started with "I should *[Ø]* be surprised..(if it did *not *......)"

Same with TT's sentence
Such a sentence as
_I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain_
is generated through the "collision" of (or confusion bewteen) two synonym sentences that "pop up" silmutaneously in the speaker's mind.
a) I should be surprised if it didn't rain
b) I shouldn't be surprised if it rained


----------



## RoseLilly

You mean that grammar alone and a bazillion mental contortions resulting in the creation of a heretofore unknown metalanguage of compounding negatives do not control the meaning of the sentence?  

You mean context plays a role?  But that sounds like common sense!  

Seriously -- I'm really interested to see that sentence; I very much like examples from real life.  

Rosie


----------



## RoseLilly

A thought:  




> I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.




Past tense is used to convey distance in time.  It is also used to convey distance in reality or expectations.  In your T.R. sentence, the speaker is hazarding a guess, one that seems contrary to what might immediately be presumed.  

Is it possible that the use of negatives also conveys distance from what might on the surface be presumed?  

It looks like a defeat.  
The easy presumption is that the defeat will hurt T.R.'s chances of being a candidate in 1912.  

But wait ... 
Maybe it only seems like a defeat
It could actually help him to become a candidate in 1912.  

With the negative serving to emphasize the contrary-to-presumption sense of the sentence.  

??? Anything to this?


----------



## LV4-26

RoseLilly said:


> ??? Anything to this?


Everything . That's exactly how I understand it too.

Actually, this sentence has been crystal clear from the start to me, and that's precisely what surprised me. But it seems I was less clear myself. 

Its structure is strictly identical to TT's sample sentence..
_I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain_
Both sentences also have in common that they do not mean "what their words say".

-- I didn't insist on that but you probably agree that what the writer actually means is  "I shoud not be surprised if the seeming present defeat *made* him a strong candidate for 1912"  ---

Yet, the "T.R." sentence works for me exactly as it should, i.e. as the writer intended it,  whereas the "rain" sentence does not.

I was trying to explain why. And, from there, I tried to put myself in the writer's shoes - which was easier this time, there being no miscomprehension whatsoever - and understand why he used this "redundant" negative. From there again, I tried to generalize to similar kinds of sentences.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post.
But this kind of issue necessarily gets complicated as we'd have to explain each time wether we're talking of
- what the sentence intrinsically says  
- or what it means and how it is understood (those two go together as they seem to coincide for most speakers).


----------



## RoseLilly

> Yet, the "T.R." sentence works for me exactly as it should, i.e. as the writer intended it, whereas the "rain" sentence does not.



#1:  I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.  
#2:  I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.

So you find #2 comprehensible, but #1 confusing?  (Not your words -- I'm trying to summarize)

I find both equally comprehensible.  

How about this complication:  

#1:  I do declare--but if it doesn't look like rain!
#2:  I do declare--but if it doesn't look like T.R. will be a strong candidate!


----------



## LV4-26

RoseLilly said:


> #1:  I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain.
> #2:  I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.
> 
> So you find #2 comprehensible, but #1 confusing?  (Not your words -- I'm trying to summarize)


Almost. As a matter of fact, I find both perfectly and immediately comprehensible. 
Only, in the case of #2, I go directly to the "correct" (i.e., the one intended by the writer) meaning.
whereas, with #1, - when there's no context - I go directly to the "wrong" one. 

But that is not what matters most. The point I wanted to make is at the end of my post #99 and was as follows.
A sentence like #1 or #2 probably results from some sort of undesired coalescence (for lack of a better term) between 2 synonym sentences ==>
1a. I should be surprised if it did *not* rain
and
1b. I should *not* be surprised if it rained



Just a theory that I wanted to submit to the forer@s' scrutiny 
And it isn't in my intention to defend it too fiercely and stubbornly, either.


----------



## Ynez

trevorb said:


> Forgive me if this has already been picked up on, but it's taking me a _long_ time to get to the end of this thread!
> 
> Ynez, in your example, the sentence stress would fall on "didn't", whereas in the original the stress would be on "rain" and the intonation would be quite different. As a native Brit speaker who, as far as I know, doesn't use this expression, in most circumstances I would take it to mean the same as "I wouldn't be surprised if it rained". But context and intonation could change that.



Thank you trevorb. No, it hasn't been explained. In the end, I may even be able to understand the difference if I ever happen to hear it 



> Incidentally, isn't there a similarly unintelligible use of (a single) negative in Spanish? Something along the lines of: "until I don't see my daughter in the flesh, I won't rest" (meaning, "until I do see her ..." (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/12/29/elmundo/i-03802.htm)
> 
> Trevor.



The difference is that in Spanish it is very easy! *joking* 

You're right, that Spanish idiom is not expressed the way it should be according to logic. Fortunately, there is no other possible meaning so I hope it's not as confusing as the one in this thread.

English verbs can be regarded as truly logical, so this "_didn't rain_" is an exception.


----------



## liliput

> I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> I find this sentence from LV4-26's post (No 99 in this thread) genuinely confusing. I really don't know what the person is trying to say. It's an excellent example of the kind of sentence that would cause me to lose interest in the writer's opinions.
> 
> I'm curious about the repeated idea that context should be enough for us to interpret these sentences as they are intended. In one example someone added context to the sentence:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain"
> Fair enough, someone's reason for taking an umbrella are usually clear enough. Given that fact, and the fact that the logical interpretation of this sentence is at best self-contradictory and at worst nonsensical, presumably I could tag any old nonsense onto the end of "I'm going to take an umbrella" and people would understand the intended meaning:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - my giraffe is on fire"
> or why bother with a sentence at all:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - wiffle bilberry horseradish."


----------



## panjandrum

liliput said:


> I should not be surprised if the seeming present defeat did not make him a strong candidate for 1912.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this sentence from LV4-26's post (No 99 in this thread) genuinely confusing. I really don't know what the person is trying to say. It's an excellent example of the kind of sentence that would cause me to lose interest in the writer's opinions.
> 
> I'm curious about the repeated idea that context should be enough for us to interpret these sentences as they are intended. In one example someone added context to the sentence:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain"
> Fair enough, someone's reason for taking an umbrella are usually clear enough. Given that fact, and the fact that the logical interpretation of this sentence is at best self-contradictory and at worst nonsensical, presumably I could tag any old nonsense onto the end of "I'm going to take an umbrella" and people would understand the intended meaning:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - my giraffe is on fire"
> or why bother with a sentence at all:
> "I'm going to take an umbrella - wiffle bilberry horseradish."
Click to expand...

You are missing the point that I thought had been made long since (perhaps not).  
This expression does not allow for logical analysis.  
Trying to understand it based on logical analysis will only bring you heartache.
It is not going to be possible to persuade those who use it that they shouldn't.

There are areas of the English-speaking world where the expression is used as a matter of course, with the meaning that has been explained.  Amongst the community of users, there is no ambiguity, no problem, no confusion.

For outsiders with some wit and the intent to understand rather than analyse, there may be mild puzzlement on first hearing, but people learn such things very quickly, context helps, and experience very soon gets rid of the puzzled reaction.

You may as well try to persuade someone to switch camps in the great controversies over "I could/couldn't care less" or the "other thing/think coming".  It just isn't going to happen and further discussion, while perhaps interesting in an obscure kind of way, is not going to lead anywhere productive.

Good luck


----------



## liliput

For those sick of my inflexible views on the subject of this peculiar idiom - a quick joke before I try again:
Doctor, doctor! I'm into flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality. Am I flogging a dead horse?

An extract from "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond:

"...I would be surprised if wild chimp and gorilla vocabularies did _not_ eclipse those reported for vervets..."

I'm curious to know if those who habitually use the idiom would understand the same meaning if he had written:

"...I would not be surprised if wild chimp and gorilla vocabularies did _not_ eclipse those reported for vervets..."

Personally, I would understand the second sentence to have a clearly opposite meaning although I would wonder about his use of the double negative, and in its full context it would be hard to follow his reasoning. 
Would others consider it an acceptable use of the idiom or as an unnecessarily complicated way of expressing a simple idea?


----------



## Packard

I'm of the opinion that the writer (or speaker) should do most of the work in communicating and demand only that the reader (or listener) pay attention.

Any communication that demands significantly more than that means that the communication is less effective than it should be and stands in the way of getting your point across.

That is not to say that what you are writing about should not require thinking, but the actual writing should be fairly transparent and should communicate smoothly, clearly with little or no ambiguity.

So, in the interest of clear communications I would ordinarily steer clear of these "non-negative, negatives" except where they offer a nuanced meaning that would not be easily expressed otherwise.

Note:  Poetry and music should be considered apart from this discussion.


----------



## Phil-Olly

I'm sorry I can't resist joining in this extremely long thread.

It seems that there is some confusion as to what this forum is about.  If the participants are interested in exploring the rich varieties of spoken English and wondering at the fact that people can make themselves understood despite what they say being apparent nonsense, then that's one of kind of past-time.  Kind of like a cross between entomology and etymology.

On the other hand, if members are primarily interested in the best use of English in order to communicate clearly and unambiguously (and there seem to me many posts here from non-native speakers seeking clarity on just that issue), then that is a rather different purpose.

These 2 groups seem to me to be mutually exclusive, and possibly the cause of this extended debate!

('Entomologists' please note: I heard someone today say 'you'd do that for me, wouldn't you not?' and realised that this usage is actually quite common in my neck of the woods - but not one that I'd personally use or recommend!)


----------



## Nunty

>>merged with an earlier thread on same topic<<

This is a construction I sometimes use when I am trying to make a tactful suggestion: *I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to say...*

This morning it struck me as very strange indeed: *I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to say...* means exactly the same thing as *I wonder if it would be more effective to say...*

My sense is that it is related to these two question forms:

*Would it be more effective to say...?* This one sounds to me like a simple request for an opinion.

*Wouldn't it (or "would it not") be more effective to say...?* This one sounds to me like the statement of an opinion.

Do you agree with me? Then, what happens when we put "I wonder if..." at the beginning?

Thanks.


----------



## Dimcl

Hi N-T. I think the context is missing from your examples. I would agree with you on your theories if _you_ approach someone else about _your_ speech (for example). If you had written a speech and were looking for advice, you would say to the other person, "I wonder if it would be more effective to say..."

If, on the other hand, the _other person_ had written the speech, I think with the "I wonder" at the beginning, and the "wouldn't", instead of "would", you are being *very* subtle about expressing your opinion. The "I wonder" throws the ball back in the other person's court - in other words - "I'm just thinking that it might be more effective to say XYZ, but this is just a hypothesis that I'm throwing out for you to retain or not." As well, the "wouldn't" also conveys a "maybe/maybe not" connotation.

"Would it be more effective to say" sounds _almost_ argumentative to my ear if the other person had written the speech (with or without the "I wonder").


----------



## Nunty

Hi Dimcl. The context is faulty because I sterilized it out of all recognition in my desire to protect someone else's privacy. In the process, I violated a cardinal rule of WR and shall take myself off to the timeout corner for 30 minutes.
...           ...           ...

Now then. Let's say I am making a suggestion to someone about changing his behavior. He is not obliged to do what I suggest, but I think it would be to his advantage to do so. I would probably say *"I wonder if it wouldn't be better if you..."* as a gentle hint. If I still wanted my opinion to be clear, while still being gentle I would say *"Wouldn't it be better if you..."*. 

How are these different from *"I wonder if it would be better if you..." *or *"Would it be better if you..."*?

I am having trouble conceptualizing the idea that "not" seems to make the sentence tentative, rather than negating it.


----------



## Loob

You might like to check out this thread, Nunty

EDIT: Ooops, sorry, I meant this one!


----------



## Nunty

Excellent. Thank you Loob.


----------



## Dimcl

Even after having read through the previous thread supplied by Loob, I can't shake the feeling that the negative simply gives the recipient of the information an "out".

"Wouldn't it be better if you..." _sounds_ more *optional* to the receiver's ear.  It then gives the recipient the _opportunity_ to respond in kind - "No, it would not".

"Would it be better if you..." _sounds_ more demanding.  Then, the recipient must use the dreaded "no/not" words at the risk of being the one who must sully the discussion.


----------



## panjandrum

Reading today's posts I suspect different people hear different meanings, and context changes the meaning too.

Would it be more effective to say ...
A suggestion or question.

I wonder if it would be more effective to say ...
A speculative suggestion.

Wouldn't it be more effective to say ...
A somewhat "loaded" suggestion or question inviting the listener to agree.
OR (depending on context)
A speculative suggestion.

I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to say ...
This is not so familiar, but I don't think the negation changes the meaning this time so it is another case of:
A speculative suggestion.


----------



## LV4-26

Just a thought, NT.

I wonder if you are influenced by the French equivalent structure.

It took me some time to master the English "I wonder if..." construction, because, in French, it works precisely the other way round. 
For instance, if I mean to suggest that you miay be influenced by French, I'd say something that would translate literally to "I wonder if you are *not *influenced...."

As I know you're (or at least have been) frequently in contact with French speakers, I'm wondering if it may have "rubbed off" on you.


----------



## Nunty

LV4-26 said:


> Just a thought, NT.
> 
> I wonder if you are influenced by the French equivalent structure.
> 
> It took me some time to master the English "I wonder if..." construction, because, in French, it works precisely the other way round.
> For instance, if I mean to suggest that you miay be influenced by French, I'd say something that would translate literally to "I wonder if you are *not *influenced...."
> 
> As I know you're (or at least have been) frequently in contact with French speakers, I'm wondering if it may have "rubbed off" on you.


Oh my very goodness J-M! I think you've put the tail on the donkey! In recent years French has been the language of daily discourse for me (to the point where even when I speak Hebrew it comes out with a trace of a French accent )

Yes, I am sure you are right in my case. Thank you. 

That said, would "I wonder if you are influenced by the French equivalent structure" mean the same as "I wonder if you aren't influenced by..." or does the second not make any sense at all?


----------



## LV4-26

I think both are possible. The difference in meaning is not totally clear to me, as evidenced by these two threads .

But there's one thing I'm sure of. Your original sentence
*I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to say...
*
...if directly translated into French would mean....==>
_You seem to think the current version is the best possible but I have a doubt. I think there's a possibility that the following might me more effective...
_

which idea would, I think, be better expressed in English as
_I wonder if it would be more effective to say...._

but I may be mistaken on this latter point.


----------



## Nunty

LV4-26 said:


> I think both are possible. The difference in meaning is not totally clear to me, as evidenced by these two threads .
> 
> But there's one thing I'm sure of. Your original sentence
> *I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to say...
> *
> ...if directly translated into French would mean....==>
> _You seem to think the current version is the best possible but I have a doubt. I think there's a possibility that the following might me more effective...
> _
> 
> which idea would, I think, be better expressed in English as
> _I wonder if it would be more effective to say...._
> 
> but I may be mistaken on this latter point.


How wonderful to have a francophone around! Yes, your gloss expresses exactly what I wanted to say.

I have probably been around the French too long  because the English version as you give it here doesn't seem to me to express all that I wanted to say.

Many thanks from a semi-lingual Nun-T


----------



## Loob

I think this thread offers some useful insights (not from me!) on the use of the negative in your construction, Nunty.


----------



## Phil-Olly

Yes, but I think the reason this thread ran to six pages was that we were discussing redundant negatives, and whether or not a double negative would be interpreted as a positive - a fascinating subject.

Whereas it seems to me that whether you say "I wonder it would be more effective ...." or "I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective ...." is a simple matter of choice and nuance.


----------



## Forero

To me "I wonder if ..." means "I wonder whether ...".  I just posted my interpretation of "whether" in the thread for which Loob has provided the link.

I don't feel that "I wonder if ..." is quite the same thing as "I shouldn't be surprised if ...", where _if_ to me means "in the event that":

_I shouldn't be surprised if it did/didn't rain.

_To my American ear, it's two very different choices:

_I wouldn't be surprised were it to rain.
__I wouldn't be surprised were it not to rain.

_(In French, it takes two negatives to make one in English, which leaves the choice of a single (half) negative for these "iffy" situations.  )


----------



## ADCS

It's just a regional colloquialism. It isn't supposed to make sense, everyone just kinda knows what it means.  No reason to look too much further into it.


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Hi TT
> 
> Some googling tonight has revealed that the equivalence between "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" and "I shouldn't be surprised if it rained" is actually quite a well-known and well-studied linguistic phenomenon.
> 
> Frustratingly, though, I kept finding references to academic papers not on the web, or statements that I have to subscribe to journal X if I want to read further. This is probably the most coherent link I found (the beginning is also quite funny). I did, though, come across several grand-sounding names for the phenomenon, including "incorporated negation".
> 
> I deduce from all this that I should no longer think of my usage of "I shouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain" as (in Fowler's terms) a sturdy indefensible. If people in Yale are studying it, I'm going to think of it as "edgy" and "interesting"



Joseph H. Greenberg, in his _Universals of Human Language,_ Vol. 1 (available in preview via Google Books) calls this phenomenon "paratactic negation" and says,



> Yet the good fight [that is, the desire of prescriptivists to expunge the usage] seems to be a losing battle. Fowler admits "we all know people who habitually say _I shouldn't wonder if it didn't turn to snow_ when they mean _if it turned._ Equally "illogical," and equally frequent, are weather forecasts warning "Don't be surprised if it doesn't rain" and friends assuring us that they miss _not_ seeing us around anymore.



The Oxford English Dictionary defines "parataxis" (related adjective, _paratactic_) as a grammatical term meaning "The placing of propositions or clauses one after another, without indicating by connecting words the relation (of coordination or subordination) between them, as in _Tell me, how are you?._" (Yes, that final period appears in the OED entry.)


----------



## velisarius

My apologies for reviving this long thread, but I'd like to add my two penny worth here since I don't think anyone else has suggested this.

My feeling is that in speech it is a very frequent phenomenon for two common words or expressions to fight for priority and what comes out is a horrible mixture of the two. As we listen to this kind of speech we automatically edit out inconsistencies and it usually makes sense to us.

There are two ways of expressing the idea that maybe it will rain today, and one of them is stronger than the other:
1. I wouldn't be surprised if it rains/rained today. (It will rain,possibly)
2. I'd be surprised if it didn't rain today.  (It's very likely that it will rain)

During speech it's possible for the two expressions to be mentally superimposed, especially if we begin with the tentative "I wouldn't be surprised..." and continue with the equally tentative "...if it didn't rain". Hence what is in fact uttered may be "I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't rain today", which to my mind is more tentative than either of the "correct" versions.

As for how to understand such expressions; it's usually possible where there's a context and inflections of voice (see post 48). It's when the spoken is written down that the problems begin.


----------



## velisarius

I'm delighted to have found a name for this linguistic phenomenon: _overnegation  _(see _Language Log_ link)_.

The transcripts in The Kennedy Tapes (Ernest R. May & Philip Zelikow, 2002) show JFK using this construction (p. 219), in discussing reactions to the anticipated confrontation at the Cuban blockade line:

*Robert Kennedy:* [...] I mean, you would have been, you would have been impeached.
*President Kennedy:* [...] I would have been impeached. I think they would have moved to impeach. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't move to impeach right after this election, on the grounds that I said … and didn't do it … and let … I mean, I'd be …_
Source: Language Logs I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't


----------



## Loob

velisarius said:


> I'm delighted to have found a name for this linguistic phenomenon: _overnegation  _(see _Language Log_ link)_._


Actually, several names are suggested for it in your (excellent!) link, veli. I much prefer prefer 'paratactic' or 'expletive' negation: they sound so much more respectable!

I especially liked Mark Liberman's comment that "Expletive negation" is well documented in Romance languages, and is obviously relevant here and his reference to an article by Wim van der Wurff entitled "On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English", pp. 295-328 in Indrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade et al., Eds., _Negation in the History of English_, 1999:
[Wim van der Wuff] discusses examples from Late Middle English like
_þan I haue no doute þat it ne schal wel kun telle þee of hem_
then I have no doubt that it Neg will fully be-able tell you of them
'Then I have no doubt that it will be able to tell you all about them'​He explains that this construction "is an instance of what is usually called 'paratactic negation' (after Jespersen 1917: 75, 1924: 334) or "expletive negation" (a term that has its origins in French language studies …). It involves a verb or noun with the meaning 'fear', 'forbid', 'prohibit', 'hinder', 'prevent', 'avoid', 'deny', refuse', 'doubt' or another predicate with some kind of negative meaning, which triggers the use of a negative marker in a subordinate clause. What makes the construction interesting is the fact that the negative marker is semantically redundant, or expletive."​


----------

