# won't leave you indifferent



## expectnomercy

Hi,

I was just wondering if this phrase sounds natural to native speakers of English. I have a strong suspicion that it doesn't but I need to be absolutely sure  

Thanks


----------



## elroy

What is the context?  What is the complete sentence?  What is the intended meaning?


----------



## expectnomercy

It's a short text about a location in Europe. And here's the sentence where the phrase is used:

"And the stunning architecture of the place won't leave anyone indifferent". 

Actually, it can be anything - architecture, food, climate


----------



## elroy

expectnomercy said:


> "And the stunning architecture of the place won't leave anyone indifferent".


 Hmmm... personally, I didn't get the meaning right away, but after thinking about it a bit, I think it's supposed to mean something like "it will have some sort of impact on everyone" -- right?

If that's the case, I might say something like "The stunning architecture will leave its mark on every visitor."


----------



## expectnomercy

Exactly. I'd say the impact is supposed to be pretty strong  

So, it does sound a bit awkward to you, doesn't it?


----------



## elroy

It's not the _most_ idiomatic, but it's not horrendous.  I mean, I think it's figure-out-able.  

But personally I would probably reword it.


----------



## expectnomercy

If you have to guess its meaning then it IS something that should be avoided at all costs  Just so you know, the expression is pretty popular where I come from. It sounds perfectly OK in my language but the trouble begins when it should be translated into English. Basically, it's a word-for-word translation of it. And since we come from two completely different backgrounds, what sounds OK to us is complete gibberish to English speakers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> If you have to guess its meaning then it IS something that should be avoided at all costs  Just so you know, the expression is pretty popular where I come from. It sounds perfectly OK in my language but the trouble begins when it should be translated into English. Basically, it's a word-for-word translation of it. And since we come from two completely different backgrounds, what sounds OK to us is complete gibberish to English speakers.


It's extremely common in British English.  It's the sort of double negative which seems affected to some people.


----------



## elroy

The _structure_ is common in American English as well, but it's the specific use of "indifferent" in this structure that wasn't immediately processable to me.  "won't leave you *uninspired/unaffected/unchanged*," on the other hand, all sound perfectly/unquestionably idiomatic to me.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Thomas Tompion, elroy*

So, would you recommend using it this context? And for that matter, in any other context as well?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> *Thomas Tompion, elroy*
> 
> So, would you recommend using it this context? And for that matter, in any other context as well?


If you wish to sound coy, don't hesitate.  I prefer more direct ways of expression.


----------



## expectnomercy

So, it's perfectly grammatical to you? And you find absolutely nothing wrong with it, right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> So, it's perfectly grammatical to you? And you find absolutely nothing wrong with it, right?


There's no error of grammar that I can see.  If it makes you sound insufferably coy, I couldn't say it had 'absolutely nothing wrong with it'.


----------



## expectnomercy

I'm still unconvinced  It seems to me that it's something totally alien to the English language. See, non-native speakers have a way of inventing their own expressions when they can't find the exact equivalent in English.


----------



## boozer

The place will not leave you indifferent.

No, nothing wrong with it, as far as I am concerned. It is not a well-known cliche but it is a normal, grammatical English utterance. Sounds a bit enigmatic, as if the person saying it is advertising the place and keeping you in suspense or has no idea how the place will affect you, but knows that you are bound to feel something.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> I'm still unconvinced  It seems to me that it's something totally alien to the English language. See, non-native speakers have a way of inventing their own expressions when they can't find the exact equivalent in English.


Boozer makes a good point; it's a cliché.  I don't think clichés can be 'totally alien to the language'.


----------



## expectnomercy

elroy said:


> The _structure_ is common in American English as well, but it's the specific use of "indifferent" in this structure that wasn't immediately processable to me. "won't leave you *uninspired/unaffected/unchanged*," on the other hand, all sound perfectly/unquestionably idiomatic to me.



I think that pretty much answers my question.


----------



## expectnomercy

Thomas Tompion said:


> Boozer makes a good point; it's a cliché.  I don't think clichés can be 'totally alien to the language'.



I don't think there's a cliché like this in the English language. I tried googling it and ended up getting a bunch of totally irrelevant results. Unfortunately, there are no credible sources backing up your claim about it being a cliché.


----------



## elroy

Boozer actually said it was 





boozer said:


> *not* a well-known cliche


----------



## velisarius

"And the stunning architecture of the place won't leave anyone indifferent". 

It jars on me because it doesn't seem to belong to one register. I'd say that this kind of double negative, the kind that is acceptable, isn't much used in colloquial BE, which goes in more for the unacceptable "I don't know nothing" type.

_And the stunning architecture of the place will leave no-one indifferent.
And the stunning architecture of the place is sure to knock your socks off._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

elroy said:


> Boozer actually said it was


It's one of the less well-known ones.

I trust Boozer and do regard that double-negative form as a cliché.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> I'd say that this kind of double negative, the kind that is acceptable, isn't much used in colloquial BE, which goes in more for the unacceptable "I don't know nothing" type.


There's a difference between _I don't know nothing_ (I know nothing), and a true double negative, _it won't leave people indifferent_ (it will excite people).


----------



## elroy

I have no problem with this particular double negative in and of itself; in fact, I think it can be quite forceful and effective.


----------



## expectnomercy

velisarius said:


> "And the stunning architecture of the place won't leave anyone indifferent".
> 
> It jars on me because it doesn't seem to belong to one register. I'd say that this kind of double negative, the kind that is acceptable, isn't much used in colloquial BE, which goes in more for the unacceptable "I don't know nothing" type.
> 
> _And the stunning architecture of the place will leave no-one indifferent.
> And the stunning architecture of the place is sure to knock your socks off._



Same here. I can't put my finger on it but there's definitely something wrong with it. It may be grammatical but certainly not idiomatic, and definitely not a cliché.


----------



## expectnomercy

Thomas Tompion said:


> There's a difference between _I don't know nothing_ (I know nothing), and a true double negative, _it won't leave people indifferent_ (it will excite people).



Can you provide a link to a credible source backing up your claim? Something like an online dictionary, for example? Or maybe a book written by some English or American author?


----------



## reno33

expectnomercy said:


> I was just wondering if this phrase sounds natural to native speakers of English. I have a strong suspicion that it doesn't *but I need to be absolutely sure *



Before I would respond to you, I need to know why you have to be* "absolutely sure"* about this.  To me, that sounds somewhat intimidating and I feel a huge amount of responsibility placed on my shoulders to make absolutely sure I answer absolutely correctly.


----------



## boozer

expectnomercy said:


> ... but certainly not idiomatic...



It is most certainly good English. Whether it is suitable in your context is a different story. 

Here is one of the many examples that can be found, using various forms of the verb 'leave'.

"...but instead of leaving me indifferent..."
https://books.google.de/books?id=8n...#v=onepage&q="leaving me indifferent"&f=false


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> Can you provide a link to a credible source backing up your claim? Something like an online dictionary, for example? Or maybe a book written by some English or American author?


A quick look at my post will 'back up my claim'.  There's no need to consult any dictionary.  In the first form the two negatives intensify the negativity (if that's possible), in the second, they cancel each other out, making a positive statement.


----------



## expectnomercy

reno33 said:


> Before I would respond to you, I need to know why you have to be* "absolutely sure"* about this.  To me, that sounds somewhat intimidating and I feel a huge amount of responsibility placed on my shoulders to make absolutely sure I answer correctly.



Because there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding this particular expression. And I just want to clear it up once and for all. So other non-native speakers like myself don't have to scratch the backs of their heads wondering whether it's idiomatic, grammatical or a cliché .


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> A quick look at my post will 'back up my claim'.  There's no need to consult any dictionary.  In the first form the two negatives intensify the negativity (if that's possible), in the second, they cancel each other out, making a positive statement.


 I absolutely agree. In fact I did not even think anyone could question what you described as a 'true double negative' where the two negative words cancel each other out. Such negation is certainly not unheard-of


----------



## elroy

I'm trying to put my finger on what bothers me about "indifferent" in this context.  This is me thinking out loud:

For this rhetorical device to work, I think you need to be able to change "won't" to "will" and delete the second negative:

won't *will* leave you uninspired 

You can't do that with "indifferent."  "Indifferent" is more than the sum of its parts, whereas "uninspired" is simply the same as "not inspired."


----------



## expectnomercy

*boozer*

The link you provided is Bulgarian-only


----------



## boozer

expectnomercy said:


> *boozer*
> 
> The link you provided is Bulgarian-only


Strange. Here it leads to a book written by one Martha Beck, called "Leaving the Saints...." (long title) It is written in normal good English..


----------



## expectnomercy

Thomas Tompion said:


> _it won't leave people indifferent_ (it will excite people).



I was talking about this part of your comment.


----------



## expectnomercy

boozer said:


> Strange. Here it leads to a book written by one Martha Beck, called "Leaving the Saints...." (long title) It is written in normal good English..



OK, now it works. The example you're referring to isn't exactly what I was looking forward to getting. There's no 'won't' in that sentence which changes the meaning slightly. In that context, it does work well. 

I'm still unconvinced.

P.S. I think *elroy* did a very good job explaining it in his comment:

_For this rhetorical device to work, I think you need to be able to change "won't" to "will" and delete the second negative:

won't *will* leave you uninspired 

You can't do that with "indifferent." "Indifferent" is more than the sum of its parts, whereas "uninspired" is simply the same as "not inspired." _


----------



## boozer

expectnomercy said:


> ... it IS something that should be avoided at all costs





expectnomercy said:


> it's a word-for-word translation





expectnomercy said:


> is complete gibberish to English speakers



And, finally



expectnomercy said:


> In that context, it does work well


Breakthrough!  At least now we know it is normal English, which is what everyone has been saying, despite objections pertaining to the phrase's suitability here.

Nobody has been trying to convince you it is the best choice in your context, of course.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> I was talking about this part of your comment.


So you are asking why 'not leaving someone indifferent' might mean 'exciting someone'.

*Indifferent* means _apathetic, disinterested, unconcerned, lukewarm, tepid, remote, unemotional_.

If you are _*not indifferent*_, the suggestion is that you might be _exhilarated, animated, enlivened, electrified, stirred, enraptured, enthusiastic._

I thought it reasonable to abbreviate these last adjectives to the one word _*excited*_.

I would have elaborated, had I thought it necessary.


----------



## expectnomercy

boozer said:


> And, finally



Look, if there weren't conflicting comments about it, I would have long let it go. But since the native speakers can't agree among themselves I have to get to the very bottom of it. 

Is that so hard to see?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> Because there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding this particular expression.


There's no uncertainty about it at all.

Here are two typical uses of the positive expression from contemporary novels:

_And yet, wrote Harsnet (typed Goldberg), I also knew that it was this cold that drew me, this steady destruction of body and imagination, this utter alienness, as though only that could still excite me, as though anything less alien would only leave me indifferent._ The Big Glass. Gabriel Josipovici, Manchester: Carcanet Press, 1991 

_What strange chemistry turned her blood to rivers of fire under this man's lightest touch, while the most passionate kisses from another had left her largely indifferent, unresponsive?_  Joy Bringer. Lee Wilkinson, Richmond, Surrey: Mills & Boon, 1992

The fact that the form can be used in a Mills and Boon novel attests to its general familiarity among the population, particularly among its female members.

I know I've given examples of the positive use of the expression.  The step from that to the negative one is tiny.


----------



## expectnomercy

Thomas Tompion said:


> The step from that to the negative one is tiny.



I disagree. It's not tiny, and that's why it raises so much controversy. There's no '*won't* leave smb indifferent' in those quotes. And you'll never find a single example of it being used that way, no matter how hard you try. That's why I started this thread in the first place.


----------



## velisarius

Those are two good examples of pseudo-elevated style. I tried to suggest in my post  #20 that the OP sentence is an unsuccessful example. It's a little strange strange to see "will not leave you indifferent" negated with the contracted form "won't leave anyone".  "Will leave no-one" is the what I'd expect to see.


----------



## expectnomercy

velisarius said:


> Those are two good examples of pseudo-elevated style. I tried to suggest in my post  #20 that the OP sentence is an unsuccessful example. It's a little strange strange to see "will not leave you indifferent" negated with the contracted form "won't leave anyone".  "Will leave no-one" is the what I'd expect to see.



Actually, that's not my example. I mean, I didn't write that sentence, it was somebody else's doing 

So, what you're saying is that 'will leave no-one indifferent' makes perfect sense, whereas 'won't leave anyone indifferent' sounds awkward. Is that your point?


----------



## velisarius

I wasn't accusing you of writing a bad sentence, expectnomercy. "OP sentence" means the sentence in post #1, not "the OP's own sentence". 

That is my point, but "awkward" is putting it mildly. Of course, I've no reason to suspect it wasn't written by a native speaker.


----------



## expectnomercy

velisarius said:


> I wasn't accusing you of writing a bad sentence, expectnomercy. "OP sentence" means the sentence in post #1, not "the OP's own sentence".
> 
> That is my point, but "awkward" is putting it mildly. Of course, I've no reason to suspect it wasn't written by a native speaker.



That's OK 

Whoa! If 'awkward' is putting it mildly, then it really DOES jar on you


----------



## sound shift

Thomas Tompion said:


> If you are _*not indifferent*_, the suggestion is that you might be _exhilarated, animated, enlivened, electrified, stirred, enraptured, enthusiastic._


And that you might be repelled, disgusted, and so on - but I'm talking out of context.

In any case, #3 talks of "stunning architecture". If it really is stunning, you're going to be stunned, so by definition you can't be indifferent at the same time. Hence, the sentence in #3 is guilty of overkill, to my mind.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

expectnomercy said:


> I disagree. It's not tiny, and that's why it raises so much controversy. There's no '*won't* leave smb indifferent' in those quotes. And *you'll never find a single example of it being used that way, no matter how hard you try.* That's why I started this thread in the first place.


I don't understand why you make these claims; they are easy to refute.

It did not take me long - *Magical untouched landscapes of Cyprus that won't leave tourists indifferent **(Source)*

The  expression is a cliché of the tourist industry.  It wouldn't take me long to find many others.


expectnomercy said:


> that's why it raises so much controversy.


It raises no controversy.  It's a perfectly unexceptionable piece of English, except that it's a cliché.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Thomas Tompion*

You call that a credible source? And it does raise A LOT OF controversy. Suffice it look at the comments in this thread.

Ok, let's agree to differ.


----------



## Myridon

Thomas Tompion said:


> The  expression is a cliché of the tourist industry.


I don't understand why anyone in the tourism industry would want to suggest that I will either love it or hate it.  I don't think I want to flip that coin.


----------



## kentix

Thomas Tompion said:


> It raises no controversy. It's a perfectly unexceptionable piece of English.


I agree. There is nothing remarkable or unusual about it.


expectnomercy said:


> It seems to me that it's something totally alien to the English language.


You are mistaken in that belief. It's far from alien.


expectnomercy said:


> "And the stunning architecture of the place won't leave anyone indifferent".


No one will be indifferent (have no opinion) after seeing it. Some might hate it, some might love it, but no one will say "Who cares." This could perhaps apply to La Sagrada Familia. Traditionalists might hate it, others might love it, but everyone will have an opinion.

Keep in mind that this quoted sentence is itself an opinion. It might not be objectively true, but it is this writer's belief.

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templo_Expiatorio_de_la_Sagrada_Familia


----------

