# Don't not go because of this ... double negatives



## rich7

There is this conversation where one person wants to go to a foreign country to study, although his many responsabilities are holding him back, he insists on going but first asks for advices to his co-workers, so one of them says: *"Don't not go just because of the office, we can take care of eveything."*

Is this correct, grammatically or it is colloquially accepted?


----------



## GenJen54

In short, yes, it is grammatically correct.  Yes, it is colloquially accepted. 

That being said, it is a rare construction and the double negative is used for emphasis.  It tends to pack more punch than "don't suspend your trip because of us."


----------



## JamesM

It is not grammatically correct, and it's accepted colloquially.   I've heard it many, many times.  

There are lots of ways around this awkward little double negative, but it's easier for most people just to say it that way.

("advices to his co-workers" should be "advice from his co-workers")


----------



## heidita

Well, that was rather confusing. Is it or isn't it?


----------



## GenJen54

I'm trying to find a definitive answer online, as I am away from my books at present. 

The double negative construction in English is largely frowned upon in formal English, except in matters where one wishes to express themselves in a "colloquial" tone. However, it seems that in the imperative mood, such as the case above, it can be used for *emphatic* purposes.

Most perscriptivists say it's a logical no-no. Most descriptivists believe it to be part of the expression of language as a double negative can be used under certain circumstances to add nuance to a phrase.


----------



## JamesM

That IS confusing. I can't actually quickly Google a reference that supports the position that it's ungrammatical and I don't have my English reference books here at work. Let's just say that it is poor English. It can easily be avoided by:

"Don't put off your trip because of your office duties..."

"Don't cancel your trip...."

"Don't stay here just because..."


It's an awkward construction - "Don't not go..." "Not go" is not a verb, but it is treated here as if it were. Replacing it with an actual verb cleans up the sentence considerably.

I know this will probably spark a flurry of responses regarding "I'm not going to..." , etc., to show "not go" in a valid context, but that's not what I'm talking about here. In this sentence, someone has taken the position where the verb would usually appear and plugged in "not go".

"Don't _________ just because...."

So many things can be plugged in there - "stay", "cancel", "stay behind", "postpone", etc. "Not go" is the one of the worst possible choices. Still, it's not uncommon () to hear it spoken.

I think it stems from a lack of clarity about opposites:

Common / Uncommon
Like / Dislike
Go / Stay (not "Ungo" or "not go")

It's lazy thinking, in my opinion.


----------



## panjandrum

JamesM said:
			
		

> [...]There are lots of ways around this awkward little double negative, but it's easier for most people just to say it that way.[...]


I'm not at all sure that is the reason it is used.
In the contexts I would hear it, this is an expression of choice, not of accident, or mere convenience.

As GenJen suggests, it is a powerful expression of the meaning intended.
Unlike many double negatives, it's interpretation in normal use is syntactically correct.


----------



## GenJen54

James M said:
			
		

> It can easily be avoided by:
> 
> "Don't put off your trip because of your office duties..."
> 
> "Don't cancel your trip...."
> 
> "Don't stay here just because..."
> 
> "Don't even consider not going because..." (my least favorite of these suggestions, but it puts a verb in the right place)


I completely agree that there are suitable substitutes.

Think about the pronunciation of this. Not, in the emphatic, would be expressed more "loudly" than the rest of the sentence generally. 

_Don't *NOT* go because of us._ 

It carries the same meaning as cancel, postpone, etc., but again, is more *emphatic.*

*Edit:*  Panj expressed the same thought with much more eloquence.


----------



## heidita

I found this very interesting page on the double negative.

I think what it sums up to is that it is widely used and accepted but not standard English.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double%20negative


----------



## JamesM

So, let's take it that expressions like:

Don't not enjoy
Don't not eat
Don't not 
Don't not (verb)

are deliberate and emphatic constructions that add emphasis to the message. It can be extended, then, to any verb, and used more than once in the sentence to emphasize more than one point? 

Don't not undo your tie simply because of social convention. (?)
Don't not knot your tie just because you think you don't not know only how to do it badly. ))

I know that in normal conversation we see only one of these double negatives for emphasis, but if it's a good thing, why not use it more? Once you begin to double or triple the expression, I think it becomes clear exactly how unclear it is.

Or, think of it this way... does the sentence make sense if you take away the don't?

"Don't cancel your trip because you're worried about your office duties."
"----- Cancel your trip because you're worried about your office duties." 

"Don't not go on your trip because you're worried about your office duties."
"----- Not go on your trip because you're worried about your office duties." 

It's a poor construction: common, but poor.

[edit- cleaned up my tone a little... sorry for the vehemence]


----------



## TrentinaNE

heidita said:
			
		

> I found this very interesting page on the double negative.
> 
> I think what it sums up to is that it is widely used and accepted but not standard English.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double%20negative


I take the discussion linked to above to mean that is it not grammatically accepted to use a double (or multiple) negative to mean negation, but it is OK when the intent is for the negatives to cancel, leaving an affirmative.

I don't have nothing.  if the intention is to say that you don't have anything (conversely, you have nothing), but
I don't have nothing.  OK if your intention is to say that you do have something.

You would rarely hear the latter construction, because in most cases, it would be confusing (did the speaker mean she has nothing or has something?). In context, it could be fine.

A: What are your ideas on solving this dilemma?
B: Sorry, I've got nothing.
A: Well, I *don't *have nothing -- here's an idea...

It would be more common for A to reply: _Well, I've got something..._ but in this context, is the first option really incorrect?

Elisabetta


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Hello rich7,

I was taught that for the most part, double negatives used to mean a negative are a no-no in standard English,and are not encouraged in colloquial English, but they are heard. However, in certain cases where emphasis is desired, they are used.

Thank you very much, Heidita, for the web reference. I also went to this one for further clarification. Evidence seems to support the views taken by Panj and  GenJen, as does my own education. It is really confusing unless you grow up with it and are used to it.

Keep Smiling!
Sweet Momma Sue


----------



## JamesM

I think "Well, I *don't *have nothing" is very different from "Well, I don't not have anything." In the situation you described, the sentence takes on a virtual pair of quotation marks around the "nothing". 

"Well, I don't have 'nothing'..." 

(If I were writing it, I'd add the quotation marks for clarity's sake.)

To me, this means that the A may not have a wonderful idea, but A has an idea, nevertheless, which is more than B has. 

There are some that fall into a gray area for me:

"Well, I don't NOT want to go...."

It's still that awkward construction, but it communicates that, while I'm not eager to go, I'm not actually opposed to going.

I know that it's very close to "Don't not go just because..."  The difference, for me, is that "Don't not go" is not saying "while we don't actually want you to go, we're not opposed to the idea" and "I don't NOT want to go..." IS saying that.  I'd still prefer "I'm not actually opposed to going" over "I don't NOT want to go."

As I said, it's a gray area for me.


----------



## rosygarden

don't not go' does not make sense formally or colloquially, you don't need to say 'not' in the sentence because 'don't' is an abbreviation of 'do not' so you don't have to say 'not' again


----------



## rosygarden

whoops, i misread the the meaning of your sentence, it does make sense, as the person is saying you should go if the reason is just about the office,(ignore my previous comment)


----------



## JamesM

Witness the potential for confusion.


----------



## rosygarden

a less colloquial way to say it would be 'you shouldn't not go'


----------



## rosygarden

and i'm english! silly me! that should be a lesson make sure you read the sentence properly and not so fast, even in your native tongue, like i just did'nt do!


----------



## .   1

Don't choose to not go just because of the office, we can take care of everything.

.,,
If in doubt add a few extra words for clarity.


----------



## giannid

_Do not not go_ is double-speak and not proper.


----------



## heidita

giannid said:
			
		

> _Do not not go_ is double-speak and not proper.


 
I wonder :

Is there neither in America nor in Britain any kind of organization or academy (like the DRAE in Spain) which sets the rules for what is standard or not?

I can see that not even the natives agree on the point whether it is "proper" or not to use the double negative, although it may be  accepted.


----------



## GenJen54

Heidita said:
			
		

> Is there neither in America nor in Britain any kind of organization or academy (like the DRAE in Spain) which sets the rules for what is standard or not?


I know the British have the British National Corpus. I don't know if the BNC acts as a regulatory agency in the way that the RAE does for Spanish. 

In the U.S., we have nothing of the sort, and rely on the (often contrasting) opinions of adademics, which is why AE tends to be more descriptivist and accepting of non-standard uses. 

When I get home, I will check my reference guides.


----------



## JamesM

> Is there neither in America nor in Britain any kind of organization or academy (like the DRAE in Spain) which sets the rules for what is standard or not?


 
As far as I know, we don't have any central standards organization for American English.  We recently had a movement to make English the official language of the U.S.  My question to everyone who cheered it on was, "Which English?"  We don't have a reference point to say "that's officially American English" or "that is officially not American English."  There are pro's and con's related to that fact, or maybe the same pro and con - as GenJen54 says, our language is very flexible.   My question is... how can you declare something as the official language without a single reference point for that language?  We have so much variation from region to region in our own country.


----------



## Paskovich

I think we can use our language(Well I´m not a native English speaker, but in German it´s the same about this kind of construction.) as we wish and in this case someone has chosen to use "Don´t not" for emphasis, as already said before.


To draw a conclusion:

The construction this thread is about is not wrong.


----------



## A90Six

There are thity-eight threads in the English Only forum where double negatives are mentioned. A flick through those may help.

The double negative has only been considered wrong for a couple of hundred years or so. Prior to that its use was rife.



The reason for its introduction - apart from the mathmatics - was that it was considered that it might cause ambiguity, and yet:I don't owe you nothing!

​Everyone knows what is meant if someone were to use that sentence. The reason I know everyone knows is that, it is either acceted by the listener that nothing is owed, or the listener will correct the sentence either aloud or silently. There is no ambiguity.

The double negative 'rule' does not just include word such as, *no, not, never, nowhere, nobody*, etc., but also to such prefixes as *un-* and *im-*, and negative sounding words such as *deny, miss, doubt, neglect, prevent, without, unless,* etc. 



The double negative can be used, as already mentioned, for emphasis. It can also be used to give a slightly different meaning to the sentence:He's *not without* his good points.
It's *not unusual* to be loved by anyone.
It's *not* as if he *doesn't* know.

​These cannot be replaced by:He's with his good points.
It's usual to be loved by anyone.
It's as if he knows.

​I tend to try to avoid using the double negative if possible. I think it is acceptable when used for emphasis or when it gives a different meaning to the sentence.


One of my favourites is a conversation between a policeman and a young lad he suspects of having been up to mischief (colloquial BE):Cop: What have you been up to?
Boy: I ain't done nuffin'.
Cop: So, you have done something.
Boy: I just said, I ain't never done nuffin'.
Cop: Well that's all right then. Be on your way.
​


----------



## .   1

May I add that we have a construction where two positives now mean a negative.

Yeah right!

.,,
English is nothing if not flexible.


----------



## natasha2000

I am very very confused... 

Don't not go?

Emphasis, yes, but isn't it like: Do not go?

Double negation, but as Wiki said, two froms of negation, and not the same one repeated.

I can understand:

I ain't have nothing
I didn't do nothing

I haven't seen no one.
etc.

But Don't not just does not enter into this thick head of mine.


----------



## A90Six

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I am very very confused...
> 
> Don't not go?
> 
> Emphasis, yes, but isn't it like: Do not go?
> 
> Double negation, but as Wiki said, two froms of negation, and not the same one repeated.
> 
> I can understand:
> 
> I ain't have nothing
> I didn't do nothing
> 
> I haven't seen no one.
> etc.
> 
> But Don't not just does not enter into this thick head of mine.


A. I will *not go* on holiday because I have to much work to do here at the office.
B Don't *not go* just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.

The *don't* is just negating the *not go* from the first sentence.


Does that help?


----------



## natasha2000

A90Six said:
			
		

> A. I will *not go* on holiday because I have to much work to do here at the office.
> B Don't *not go* just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.
> 
> The *don't* is just negating the *not go* from the first sentence.
> 
> 
> Does that help?


 
I understand this one, yes. But what I don't understand is how on Earth this can be qualified as correct grammar?


----------



## Paskovich

All this "don´t have nothing" kind of stuff has nothing to do with "Don´t not go" at all.

Unfortunately I have no idea how to explain this. Anyone?


----------



## natasha2000

Paskovich said:
			
		

> All this "don´t have nothing" kind of stuff has nothing to do with "Don´t not go" at all.
> 
> Unfortunately I have no idea how to explain this. Anyone?


 
I was thinking the same, since "don't have nothing" uses two different negation forms, and "don't not go" uses the same negation form twice.


----------



## A90Six

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I understand this one, yes. But what I don't understand is how on Earth this can be qualified as correct grammar?


I think we would all agree that the sentence given would be a response to a sentence that has already used *not go* in it.
As they are quoting the *not go* from the first speaker, perhaps it would make more sense if quotation marks were used:
Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.​Does this help?


----------



## natasha2000

A90Six said:
			
		

> I think we would all agree that the sentence given would be a response to a sentence that has already used *not go* in it.
> 
> As they are quoting the *not go* from the first speaker, perhaps it would make more sense if quotation marks were used:Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.
> ​Does this help?


Well, if you put all necessary commas and quotation marks, then yes, it helps. But the original question did not have any of it.

I guess it would be something like "Don't you "I don't go" on me! but in some kind of shortened form... At least I understand it in this way.


----------



## natasha2000

Another one.

... just because of the office... is a little bit wierd.

I would say, --- just because of it out of the office.... meaning, don't leave the office just because of it.... Or the reason of leaving is the very same office?


----------



## A90Six

I would just say, "Go, we can take care of everything."


----------



## JamesM

Yes, that part's not much better than the first part of the sentence, but I didn't bring it up since the issue was the "don't not go". 



> I would just say, "Go, we can take care of everything."


 
Beautiful.


----------



## natasha2000

A90Six said:
			
		

> I would just say, "Go, we can take care of everything."


 
Me too, but this is not the issue.

The issue is if the sentence in question is gramatically correct or not. I would swear not, before I'd read this thread.

As a matter of fact, it looks to me like unsuccessful try of an English learning begginer.


----------



## panjandrum

Paskovich said:
			
		

> All this "don´t have nothing" kind of stuff has nothing to do with "Don´t not go" at all.
> 
> Unfortunately I have no idea how to explain this. Anyone?


That is an excellent and perceptive comment.

This conversation has developed as if it would be possible to generalise from the initial example, and as if it were related in some way to the common use of double negatives being negative.

This misses the point of the way the "Don't not go ..." in this, or any other example, would be said - at least in my experience. Surely you all know the way in which a speaker will, in effect, insert quote marks?

Now, how did the original example go? Let's play the dialogue, not the narrative.
*A: I've been invited to go to Italy for three months to improve my Italian. I would love to go, but I feel really guilty about leaving you lot to do all the work while I'm away - so, really, I think I'm not going to go.*

*B: Don't "not go" just because of the office, A, we can cope OK without you for three months.*

As GenJen explained right at the beginning, the intonation and emphasis of the sentence helps carry the meaning. Note the "" around *not go*. The use of "Don't not go ..." in this example would be understood and accepted very widely in English - at almost any level. It doesn't write well, except as dialogue. 

What's missing from the discussion so far is the sense of the emphasis of the "not go". Let me give you another example that would be completely understood in any context I can think of.

A: Would you like some chocolate?
B: Thanks, but I don't like chocolate.
A: What do you mean! You can't "not like" chocolate!

As I said, this construction will not lend itself to EVERY context, and it will not yet lend itself to being written other than as written dialogue.

But as I said before, it is syntactically correct, and is much more acceptable than "I didn't do nothing".

EDIT: As you might expect, I was thinking about this while lots of others posted relevant comments


----------



## JamesM

How is it syntactically correct?  I'm not saying it isn't (to use a double negative), but I can't see how it is.


----------



## natasha2000

OK. So, as a conclusion, the quotation marks and a comma were missing.

When we add them to this sentence, everything becomes cristal clear.


----------



## panjandrum

JamesM said:
			
		

> How is it syntactically correct? I'm not saying it isn't (to use a double negative), but I can't see how it is.


Unlike the double negatives where one intensifies the other, in this construction the actual meaning of the complex instruction can be logically worked out from the individual elements of the instruction.
Go to Italy -> go
Do not go to Italy -> don't go
Do not not go to Italy -> go
... and taking this light-hearted conversation to yet another level ...
Do not not not go to Italy -> don't go.

I mean that a syntax analyser would have no problem understanding the consequence of the repeated negations.


----------



## GenJen54

For those pedants out there, I finally got to dig into Michael Swan's_ Practical English Usage_, _3d Ed_. (Oxford University Press, 2005).

He says this (in blue, bolded parts my emphasis): 

Two or more negative words *can be *used in one clause, but then both normally have their full meaning.

He gives the following as an example. Note how it is similar to our query here. It also reinforces the examples Panjandrum gave, above.

Ex.  Say *no*thing. (= Be silent.)
_*Don't* just say *nothing*. Tell us what the problem is. _(= Don't be silent.)

Multiple negatives are sometimes used instead of simple positive structures for stylistic effects.  

I hope this helps clarify any nagging doubts.


----------



## JamesM

Thanks for the explanation, Panjandrum. That makes sense.

"_*Don't* just say *nothing*. "_

I'd say this is in a completely different class from the discussion. If the example had been, "Don't not say anything", I think it would have been a good parallel. "Nothing" is a word unto itself. "Do not not" is a true double negative. He is talking about having two negative words in the same clause, not having the same negative twice in direct succession (e.g., "not not").

It is similar to the difference between:

"I'm not unhappy" (two negative words in the same clause, but not the same negative twice)  vs.
"I'm not not happy"


----------



## giannid

_Any word could be negatived  by  adding  the  affix  "un"._ _Thus,  for  example,  uncold  meant "warm" ~ George Orwell, 1984


_And _not go_ meant "stay"


----------



## JamesM

giannid said:
			
		

> _any word could be negatived by adding the affix "un"._ _Thus, for example, uncold meant "warm" ~ George Orwell_


 
Agreed. I don't think anyone is saying that it can't. What we're discussing here is more akin to saying, "Don't not warm the food; we'll be home on time."  The question is... is that correct English? I say no, but I also see that others consider it perfectly acceptable.

(Looking over this again, I imagine you're quoting from '1984'.  I would say that was ironic.)


----------



## .   1

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I understand this one, yes. But what I don't understand is how on Earth this can be qualified as correct grammar?


I quite agree with you and doubt if any English native would write this down.
I understand that it is common to speak in this way and easy to understand when you have all the body language and other clues to go by but it is clumsy when written.
I would expect to fail a grammar test if I wrote that way.

.,,


----------



## panjandrum

A90Six has very concisely set out my understanding of how this admittedly odd construction works.





> I think we would all agree that the sentence given would be a response to a sentence that has already used *not go* in it.
> 
> As they are quoting the *not go* from the first speaker, perhaps it would make more sense if quotation marks were used: Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.
> ​Does this help?


So, when JamesM suggests:





			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> [...]What we're discussing here is more akin to saying, "Don't not warm the food; we'll be home on time."  The question is... is that correct English? I say no, but I also see that others consider it perfectly acceptable.


... I want to explain a little, and to qualify the "perfectly acceptable" from my own perspective.
If someone said "Don't not warm the food," in isolation, I would consider it bizarre, and if written down, definitely non-standard English.
But as part of a conversation, or even a written dialogue. Here are Andy and Bill on the phone.
Andy: Hello Bill, we've been delayed at the airport and we'll be a bit late.
Bill: Oh, right, I'd better not warm the food yet.
Andy: I don't think we'll be much longer though, so don't "not warm" the food - we're starving.

I expect we all know how we'd say that so the "not warm" would stand out.  Clear, understandable, smooth communication - as far as I am concerned.
In other words I think it is acceptable in that context. But I also agree with .,,, with a small qualification:


			
				. said:
			
		

> I quite agree with you and doubt if any English native would write this down.
> I understand that it is common to speak in this way and easy to understand when you have all the body language and other clues to go by but it is clumsy when written.
> I would expect to fail a grammar test if I wrote that way.


If my grammar test included the possibility of writing some dialogue and I wrote something as above, following A90Six's guide, I would be rather annoyed (though not completely surprised) to find myself marked down.


----------



## natasha2000

panjandrum said:
			
		

> If my grammar test included the possibility of writing some dialogue and I wrote something as above, following A90Six's guide, I would be rather annoyed (though not completely surprised) to find myself marked down.


 
If I may say...IMHO...

If you put quotation marks and comma, I strongly doubt you'll find yourself marked down.


----------



## rich7

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Me too, but this is not the issue.
> 
> The issue is if the sentence in question is gramatically correct or not. I would swear not, before I'd read this thread.
> 
> As a matter of fact, it looks to me like unsuccessful try of an English learning begginer.


 
Let me tell you, although I heard this in a series on Warner, it was uttered by a senior of a major university in usa, so I would say is commonly said and probably well accepted. In conclusion no a begginer of English.


----------



## natasha2000

rich7 said:
			
		

> Let me tell you, although I heard this in a series on Warner, it was uttered by a senior of a major university in usa, so I would say is commonly said and probably well accepted. In conclusion no a begginer of English.


 
Well, let me tell you something...
Without quotation marks it looks like a beginner's try. At least to me.


----------



## rich7

What is more, read this carefully, and pay atention to the blue-bolded statement extracted from a well-known dictionary.



A *double negative* occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence. In some languages a double negative resolves to a negative, while in others it resolves to a positive. These are strictly grammatical rules and have nothing to do with mathematics. They are used in some languages and considered erroneous in others. Sometimes, triple and quadruple negation can also be seen, which leads to an alternative term for the same phenomenon called negative concord. In literature, denying a negation is known as the trope of litotes


----------



## rich7

"attention"


----------



## panjandrum

Sorry, rich7, I'm not sure I understand the point you are making?
You should also let us know where you are quoting from.


----------



## natasha2000

rich7 said:
			
		

> What is more, read this carefully, and pay atention to the blue-bolded statement extracted from a well-known dictionary.
> A *double negative* occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence. In some languages a double negative resolves to a negative, while in others it resolves to a positive. These are strictly grammatical rules and have nothing to do with mathematics. They are used in some languages and considered erroneous in others. Sometimes, triple and quadruple negation can also be seen, which leads to an alternative term for the same phenomenon called negative concord. In literature, denying a negation is known as the trope of litotes


 
I think that not only I but many other foreros here concluded a long time ago that this has nothing to do with double negative forms.

If you write: 
Don't not go to Italy.

This is not the same as if you wrote:

Don't "not go" to Italy.

The first one, without quotation marks IS WRONG.
The second one, with quotation marks IS CORRECT.
At the beginning of this thread, all native speakers taken for granted the quotation marks even though they were not written, because they would read it with the correct intonation, anyway. But I dodn't understand. Then A90Six wrote:


> As they are quoting the *not go* from the first speaker, perhaps it would make more sense if quotation marks were used:
> Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.
> 
> Does this help?​



​And all of a sudden, I had it perfectly clear. I also knew the correct intonation of this sentence, which, until that moment, I also had it wrong.

Without quotation marks, it is wrong, and it has nothing to do with double negation forms.

Your "well-known dictionary" says:


> A *double negative* occurs when *two* forms of negation are used in the same sentence.


 
Please, now YOU pay attention to the word TWO. It says when two forms of negation, not one twice repeated. And this is exactly what happens in this sentence when you remove quotation marks.

Don't not go = Do not not go
Where not is repeated twice.

After a while, Panjadrum made some very nice examples, too.



> A: Would you like some chocolate?
> B: Thanks, but I don't like chocolate.
> A: What do you mean! You can't "not like" chocolate!


 
And a little bit later, another, very nice example:



> Andy: Hello Bill, we've been delayed at the airport and we'll be a bit late.
> Bill: Oh, right, I'd better not warm the food yet.
> Andy: I don't think we'll be much longer though, so don't "not warm" the food - we're starving.


 
It is clear from all those examples that it is not calssical case of double negation forms.

BTW, I think I know what "dictionary" is in question, but i would like you to tell us first which source you are quoting. At least this is the custom here in WR.


----------



## JamesM

Here's what I think we have agreed upon:

1) "not not" is a common and universally understood construction in spoken English, given the proper context.

2) When written, enclosing the second "not" (along with its verb) in quotation marks clarifies the meaning of the sentence.

3) Don't "not go" does *not* fall into the same category as the typical double negative ("I ain't got nothing", "He don't know nothing", etc.)

So, if the question is "would it be easily understood?" or "is it in common use?" or "is it accepted in spoken English?", we all have come to the agreement that the answer is "yes" to any of these questions.

The question that started the thread, however, was "is it correct English?" There is no consensus at this point on the answer to that question, and I doubt that we would arrive at a consensus no matter how long we continued to discuss it.


----------



## natasha2000

JamesM said:
			
		

> The question that started the thread, however, was "is it correct English?" There is no consensus at this point on the answer to that question, and I doubt that we would arrive at a consensus no matter how long we continued to discuss it.


 
OK,James. I agree. I suppose that I hastily jumped into conclusion that we all had agreed upon that if there are no quotation marks, than it is not correct English.

That is why I said:


> At the beginning of this thread, all native speakers taken for granted the quotation marks even though they were not written, because they would read it with the correct intonation, anyway.


 
At least I understood it this way. 


Apart of the Panjandrum's posts, this one also made me think that without quotaton marks it is not correct English:



> I quite agree with you and doubt if any English native would write this down.
> I understand that it is common to speak in this way and easy to understand when you have all the body language and other clues to go by but it is clumsy when written.


 
Now, try to read it without quotation marks. Try to ignore the intonation you would usually (and automatically) give to this sentence. Read it just as it is. 
Don't not go

If you say that it still has sense, than ok. I apologize, I was wrong.


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> A90Six has very concisely set out my understanding of
> how this admittedly odd construction works.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.
Click to expand...


I also hear an emphasis on that "just" in there, as if to say if that's the only reason then it isn't reason enough.

Don't, "not go," just because of the office, we can take care of eveything.


----------



## JamesM

> OK,James. I agree. I suppose that I hastily jumped into conclusion that we all had agreed upon that if there are no quotation marks, than it is not correct English.


 
I think we all agreed that it was much more difficult to understand without the quotation marks, as rosygarden's initial confusion pointed out. I may not be making myself clear. I agree that it's much more difficult to read without the quotation marks. I would encourage anyone who chose to write this sentence construction down to write it with quotation marks. We agree on that point.

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on at this point is the statement that it is correct English when you add the quotation marks. It is certainly much more understandable with the quotation marks, is widely spoken, and is accepted in common, everyday speech. On all those points we agree.

The point with which I was disagreeing was from this part of your post #54:



> The first one, without quotation marks IS WRONG.
> The second one, with quotation marks IS CORRECT.


 
I disagree that adding the quotation marks makes it correct, and I also accept that there are many native English speakers who would agree with that statement.  It is an unresolvable difference of opinion, and we have no authoritative body or code to which we can point to resolve the dispute. This is the glory and the bane of English usage.


----------



## giannid

I'm with JamesM - even with the quotation marks, I still think it's not proper.


----------



## natasha2000

JamesM said:
			
		

> I think we all agreed that it was much more difficult to understand without the quotation marks, as rosygarden's initial confusion pointed out. I may not be making myself clear. I agree that it's much more difficult to read without the quotation marks. I would encourage anyone who chose to write this sentence construction down to write it with quotation marks. We agree on that point.
> 
> The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on at this point is the statement that it is correct English when you add the quotation marks. It is certainly much more understandable with the quotation marks, is widely spoken, and is accepted in common, everyday speech. On all those points we agree.
> 
> The point I was disagreeing was from this part of your post #54:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, and I also accept that there are many native English speakers who would agree with that statement.  It is an unresolvable difference of opinion, and we have no authoritative body or code to which we can point to resolve the dispute. This is the glory and the bane of English usage.


 
hmmm....

Ok. I guess that I should get used to the fact that in English nothing is wrong, and everything can be correct.


----------



## moodywop

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> For those pedants out there, I finally got to dig into Michael Swan's_ Practical English Usage_, _3d Ed_. (Oxford University Press, 2005).


 
I found more corroborative evidence:

_A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ (1985)states that this particular use of double negation is more common with modals:

I can't 'not obey her
You can't 'not admire him

"Occasionally, two negators may be used with auxiliaries other than modals:

She didn't 'not like them
They don't often 'not remember her birthday
He hasn't ever 'not understood a lecture"

From the _Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English_ (1999):

"More than one negative can occur in the same sentence in standard English, each negative expressing a logical negation: _You can't just not have speed limits_" [AmE CONV]"...

"Multiple negation is a complex choice which requires deliberate planning. It is not stigmatized and is found particularly in writing. We do, however, also find colloquial examples.

_Of the many directives gummed to the glass partition, one took the trouble to thank me for not smoking. I hate that. I mean, it's a bit previous, isn't it, don't you think? I have*n't not *smoked yet _[FICTION]"


----------



## natasha2000

giannid said:
			
		

> I'm with JamesM - even with the quotation marks, I still think it's not proper.


 
Hmm.. This is what James said? 

Now I am confused again.

Honestly, I thought with or without quotation marks it is not "proper" (I won't use again the word wrong), but with quotation marks at least it can be understood.

But, anyway... Since I am in this forum, I flip out with you, natives, really. All of a sudden, everything is ok, and I started to be afraid to use the word "wrong". All my "English world" is slowly coming down and vanishes, and it seems that everything I was taught earlier, is not correct. It is unedrstood, it is accepted, it is understandable.... But is it correct English? One says yes, the other says no, and then all of you agree that it is correct and it isn't. Can it really be the both ways?


----------



## JamesM

> One says yes, the other says no, and than all of you agree that it is correct and it isn't. Can it really be the both ways?


 
Without a common agreed-upon reference point, it is absolutely possible, and in fact probable, that something can be correct in some people's view and incorrect in others.  

I think you'll find that you will get more agreement on what is incorrect than on what is correct.  There is more consensus on "what's just plain wrong."     For example, no one in this thread contended that "I ain't got no shoes" is correct English.

Correct English, though, has a common base of rules on which there is widespread agreement,  but begins to fall into a very gray area on the finer points beyond that common base.  I think we tend to talk about "good English" and "poor (or bad) English" rather than "correct" and "incorrect", simply because it is so variable.  

It's much like the expression you hear here in Los Angeles whenever it rains: "No one knows how to drive in the rain."  You'll get plenty of agreement on that statement, but all you need to do is ask the same group of people to describe the correct way to drive in the rain and watch the sparks fly.


----------



## GenJen54

natasha said:
			
		

> All my "English world" is slowly coming down and vanishes, and it seems that everything I was taught earlier, is not correct. It is unedrstood, it is accepted, it is understandable.... But is it correct English? One says yes, the other says no, and then all of you agree that it is correct and it isn't. Can it really be the both ways?


 
In short, this boils down to a matter of personal preference and understanding. 

Sources show that this double negative construction _*can be* _used in certain contexts. 

These sources do not claim that this construction is *incorrect*. Rather, they support its usage.

Whether this is considered *standard* English is arguable. Most have agreed that the "Don't not+infinitive" construction is *not* *standard*, even if it is *accepted* *in* *certain contexts*.   Accepted and standard are two entirely different concepts.

Its being "proper" is wholly subjective, and is not supported by the evidence.

In short, Natasha, it's one of those scenarios where you have to learn "all the rules" to understand which ones may be "broken!"


----------



## natasha2000

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In short, this boils down to a matter of personal preference and understanding.
> 
> Sources show that this double negative construction _*can be* _used in certain contexts.
> 
> These sources do not claim that this construction is *incorrect*. Rather, they support its usage.
> 
> Whether this is considered *standard* English is arguable. Most have agreed that the "Don't not+infinitive" construction is *not* *standard*, even if it is *accepted* *in* *certain contexts*. Accepted and standard are two entirely different concepts.
> 
> Its being "proper" is wholly subjective, and is not supported by the evidence.
> 
> In short, Natasha, it's one of those scenarios where you have to learn "all the rules" to understand which ones may be "broken!"


 
Well, it is completely different concept of what I have about my language, or Spanish. As a matter of fact, I thought English is the same, but now I see, it isn't.

It will be so hard for me to get used to this new concept, since I am used to have or black or white. No grey zones. And English is full of greys.

Thank you all for your explanations.


----------



## GenJen54

natasha said:
			
		

> And English is full of greys.


That sums things up very nicely.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> And English is full of greys.


In that case it is British English — American English is full of grays


----------



## JamesM

maxiogee said:
			
		

> In that case it is British English — American English is full of grays


 
... Unless it's a "greyhound"....


----------



## GenJen54

Now we're really all on a bus to nowhere.


----------



## natasha2000

moodywop said:
			
		

> Well, natasha, studying a language in textbooks is a bit like an alien in a far-off galaxy studying textbooks on human anatomy, physiology and psychology in preparation for the first contact
> When I first went to England at 15 my first contact was a bit of a shock too - and many years on I still get pleasantly shocked now and then
> Languages are just like people after all - lots of different shades of grey...


 
I guess you're right. I learnt English from movies and TV (apart of the usual tools - classes, professors etc). I have never been to any English speaking country. Although my English level is pretty high (I won't play modest here , there is no need for it), I realize that something is still missing... The last square in the puzzle I have almost resolved... 

The thing is then, that while learning, maybe many times you wrote or said something "acceptable", "understandable", or "proper", but nevertheless, you were marked down. Then, are the tests criteria to severe? Or there are, after all some generally accepted rules?

(This is a rethorical question , I am aware that I am straying off topic here, therefore, it is not my intention to start a new discussion, but to express my current state of mind, which is, simply, like you would be if you came across to this )


----------



## .   1

You are quite correct natasha and so is your English and it is perhaps this point that you may not be able to overcome until you are able to immerse yourself in the living language that you are learning.
Your English is at times too correct but can contain such simple errors as substituting to for too which generally leaves the sentence understandable but marks the writer as not being a native speaker.
To explain a little further.
Many native speakers also missplace to and too but their sentence construction is generally such as to indicate a general lack of interest in Standard English.
You display a marvelous control of Standard English but are tripped up by the most obscure rules that native speakers do not even consider.
I suspect that the last piece of the puzzle for you is total immersion in speaking English for an extended period with native speakers to imitate.

I mean no disrespect to you. Your grasp of the rules of English almost certainly exceed mine.

.,,


----------



## rich7

That's the reason of my post natasha, I would've thought you were a native of the language, due to your so elaborated-eloquent posts.
Althouh, I happened to spend some time in the states upnorth and I've studied, watched, and transpired English through movies,songs and direct contact with Americans, I have to acknowledge that your English is way much better than mine.


*Keep up the good work.*


----------



## Primal

Good afternoon,

I was under the impression that a double negative could be used, and is sometimes a key part of a discussion or debate. Is this incorrect?

Thanks a lot,
Primal


----------



## jcminthedriversseat

Every teacher who ever taught me English grammar, from the first grade on, always said that it is incorrect to use two negatives together. People do it all the time in informal conversation but it still isn't correct. Someone correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## la reine victoria

Primal said:


> Good afternoon,
> 
> I was under the impression that a double negative could be used, and is sometimes a key part of a discussion or debate. Is this incorrect?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Primal


 
Double negatives are to be avoided. Two negatives create a positive.

I haven't got no sweets = I have some sweets.

Have you seen any examples of double negatives being used in a discussion?

Note: It is quite commonplace in BE to hear double negatives used in conversation. This doesn't mean to say that it is correct.


LRV


----------



## Primal

la reine victoria said:


> Note: It is quite commonplace in BE to hear double negatives used in conversation.


 
Sorry, what is "BE"?


----------



## irene.acler

It's British English, I suppose!!


----------



## la reine victoria

Primal said:


> Sorry, what is "BE"?


 
Hi Primal,

BE = British English
AE = American English

LRV


----------



## Primal

Oh, right. That makes sence. Yeah people use double negatives in informal Canadian English too. No I have never actually heard it in a discussion but I believe I read it somewhere. And, although it would sound pretty vulgar, it could work in a discussion such as if someone said that they "wouldn't drop no bombs" (bad example) it would actually be saying that they would drop bombs, although the party they were talking to may not realise this...


----------



## Amityville

"Creative writing for people who can't not write"
"What we can't not know: A guide"
"You can't not laugh"

These are deliberate ones, is that what you meant, Primal ?


----------



## technostick

A double negative is a positive. There is nothing incorrect with it.

Example: I never say nothing. (This means "I always say something".)

Triple negative: I never say nothing to nobody. (There is always somebody to whom I say nothing.)


----------



## panjandrum

Do not assume that negatives can be cancelled out as if a sentence were an algebraic expression. This is a modern illusion.


----------



## la reine victoria

technostick said:


> A double negative is a positive. *There is nothing incorrect with it.*
> 
> Example: I never say nothing. (This means "I always say something".)
> 
> Triple negative: I never say nothing to nobody. (There is always somebody to whom I say nothing.)


 
I disagree, Technostick.

People who speak correct English would say "I never say anything" not "I never say nothing."

Also, "I never say anything to anybody."

LRV


----------



## cuchuflete

I ain't got nobody to correct my grammar.

Double negatives are used in colloquial, non-standard, informal AE.  They generally
reflect nothing more than habit or custom, but may be used to give added emphasis to a
negative.  Two negatives, as the good Pongo Panj has said, do not cancel one another out.


----------



## navi

I am not a native speaker and I am not sure about this, but I think double negatives are correct if they are used to mean what they do actually mean.
If you say: *'I didn't see nothing'* and you mean: *'I didn't see anything'* thenyour sentence is *wrong*. But if you mean *'I did see something'*, then the sentence is correct, although it is awkward and strange. Technostick's examples are a lot better.
You need a special reason to use a double negative.

-You did not help me on purpose.
*-I did not not help* you on purpose. I just couldn't help you.

-You could have spoken out you coward, but you said nothing.
-*I didn't say nothing* on purpose. My jaw was broken and I couldn't speak.

I will not deny that it is impossible not to find everything you need to know about this subkect here:
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/023.html


----------



## jcminthedriversseat

Amityville said:


> "Creative writing for people who can't not write"
> "What we can't not know: A guide"
> "You can't not laugh"
> 
> These are deliberate ones, is that what you meant, Primal ?


 
These would be examples of creative license - someone (usually a writer) breaking the rules of the language _intentionally _because it adds in some way to the meaning of the message. It's okay to do it for the purpose of creativity but it doesn't change the rule of grammar. It's still incorrect and the person using it is aware that it's incorrect.


----------



## L'insoumis

is this a double negative: a not insignificant number...? because we use this all the time in law.


----------



## panjandrum

It is very important to recognise that there are two ways in which negatives are understood in English.


			
				panj said:
			
		

> The idea that negatives should be processed in a mathematical way is relatively modern, but in most cases it works OK.
> In casual use, however, double - or indeed multiple - negatives for emphasis are common. The general spreading of negativity through the sentence makes the meaning absolutely clear without any attempt to work out how many there were and whether this one cancels that.
> _Source_


I don't love you no more. I can't get no satisfaction.

What makes this really difficult is that if you can be sure that the discourse is taking place using 20th/21st century formal English grammar, then double negatives do in fact cancel out, and can be used with precision.

However, if you are using natural vernacular English, then often, but not always, multiple negatives often intensify one another and do not cancel out.

It is pompous, pretentious and patronising to point out to those who speak naturally this way that the words they speak contradict the meaning they wish to convey. Especially so because those who have been educated to use modern formal English grammar should know the difference.

How a non-native student is expected to pick this up is completely beyond me.


----------



## jcminthedriversseat

L'insoumis said:


> is this a double negative: a not insignificant number...? because we use this all the time in law.


Yes, I would say your example is a double negative. I think it would be okay to say, "...not an insignificant number." Clearer yet would be to eliminate both negatives and say, "...a signigicant number."


----------



## panjandrum

technostick said:


> [...]
> Triple negative: I never say nothing to nobody. (There is always somebody to whom I say nothing.)


I was looking for an illustration, and this is a good one.  I hope technostick doesn't mind if I borrow it for a moment.

I never say nothing to nobody.
Using modern grammar, I'll accept technospeak's analysis - there is always someone to whom I say nothing.  With the corollary that I tell everything to everyone else.

Using normal vernacular English, it means:
You can rely on my discretion, I never tell anyone anything.

How can I tell which is intended?
It's very easy, only people who use vernacular English would ever use this sentence.  Those who would interpret it as technospeak explained would die a thousand deaths rather than say something like this.


----------



## panjandrum

L'insoumis said:


> is this a double negative: a not insignificant number...? because we use this all the time in law.


This kind of phrase is very common, and well understood, though I would have thought it a bit imprecise for use in a legal context.


----------



## mplsray

L'insoumis said:


> is this a double negative: a not insignificant number...? because we use this all the time in law.


 
The term "double negative" is problematical because it can refer to _ten_ different grammatical phenomena, according to linguist Geoffrey Pullum, who decided to avoid the term when he co-wrote a grammar of English. The type of negation occurring in a sentence such as _I didn't go nowhere_. he called _negative concord_ (a term mentioned elsewhere in this thread). He would consider _I didn't go nowhere._ to involve only a single negation, the negation of _I went somewhere._

The type of negation involved in _a not insignificant number_ is the _litotes._ Linguist Otto Jespersen treated the litotes as a sort of multiple negative when he wrote, in a passage opposing the mathematical argument against the double negative, 



> "[N]ot uncommon" does not mean exactly the same thing as "common"; it is weaker[....]"Not uncommon" [...] cannot be classed exactly with the mathematical -(-1).


----------



## mplsray

panjandrum said:


> Do not assume that negatives can be cancelled out as if a sentence were an algebraic expression. This is a modern illusion.


 
Hardly a _modern_ illusion: The first grammarian to make the connection between negation in English and negation in mathematics was Bishop Robert Lowth in 1762, quoted here:



> two negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative -- in English, that is to say, just as in mathematics...


----------



## panjandrum

Forgive my whimsical sense of history.
On a timescale running from before Chaucer to the present day, Bishop Lowth might be considered something of an upstart, a parvenu, a Bobby-come-lately.  

In strictly numerical terms, it seems that the condemnation of the colloquial double negative began about then.  However, it has doggedly survived and is used routinely by very many people, including many extremely erudite people whose education happens to have omitted English grammar.


----------



## mplsray

panjandrum said:


> [The double negative] has doggedly survived and is used routinely by very many people, including many extremely erudite people whose education happens to have omitted English grammar.


 
It should also be pointed out that the colloquial use of the negative concord version of the double negative is in such widespread use that most native speakers of standard English haven't the slightest problem understanding a speaker who uses it. This makes it a bit tricky for a standard speaker to use the double negative in rhetoric to indicate the negation of a negation. The Wikipedia article Double negative puts it this way: 



> It should, however, be noted that in standard English one cannot say "I don't want nothing!" to express the meaning "I want something!" unless there is very heavy stress on the "don't" or a specific plaintive stress on the "nothing".


 
While I agree with the author of that sentence, can anyone think of any examples of such a negation of a negation used in actual speech or writing (excluding discussions in which the subject is the double negative itself)? I can't, although I think someone, somewhere must have used it.


----------



## .   1

panjandrum said:


> However, it has doggedly survived and is used routinely by very many people, including many extremely erudite people whose education happens to have omitted English grammar.


The problem with formal English education for native English speakers is so much emphasis is placed on proscription and prescription and some of us ain't got no time for that so we wander off and absorb the lexicon and ignore pedants up with whcih we will not put.

.,,


----------



## panjandrum

That's a very profound question.
We had a conversation last year about
*Don't not go because of this.....* 

Much of that was comparing the constructions in which negatives intensify one another with constructions in which negatives cancel one another.

Indeed the relevance is so strong that I will merge the two threads shortly.  Feel free to read back to the beginning of what will then be a composite thread.


----------



## mplsray

GenJen54 said:


> I know the British have the British National Corpus. I don't know if the BNC acts as a regulatory agency in the way that the RAE does for Spanish.
> 
> In the U.S., we have nothing of the sort, and rely on the (often contrasting) opinions of adademics, which is why AE tends to be more descriptivist and accepting of non-standard uses.
> 
> When I get home, I will check my reference guides.


 
I would be surprised if the British National Corpus were anything but a language corpus, that is, a collection of examples of actual usage of the sort used by modern dictionary makers to, among other things, determine what is actual standard usage. But that's a d_escriptive_ function, and has nothing in common with the prescriptive stance taken by the Spanish, French, Esperanto or any other language academy.


----------



## panjandrum

I can confirm - the BNC is merely a reference source.  It has no prescriptive role whatsoever.  Such a role does not exist for English.
Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) reports usage as it is found.

Both are therefore useful as a source of usage information.  Both give some indication of the register of usage - but again, they are reporting what they have found.


----------



## technostick

> People who speak correct English would say "I never say anything" not "I never say nothing."
> 
> Also, "I never say anything to anybody."



That means something completely different of course. "I never say nothing" means "I always say something". For me, such usages do not sound strange; a more practical example:

"A talkative person never says nothing in a meeting even if he be told by his boss to say nothing."

That said, I am a mathematician.


----------



## la reine victoria

I recall a thread, a while back, in which I posted -

"You can't not go to the party = you must go the party, everyone is expecting you."

LRV


----------



## .   1

la reine victoria said:


> "You can't not go to the party = you must go the party, everyone is expecting you."


'Twould be difficult to reword such a sentence with elegence.

.,,


----------



## gaer

I once said to my wife: "Do you like him?"

She replied: "Well, I'm 100% positive that I don't _*not*_ like him."

That shut me up for several minutes as I thought about exactly what that expressed that would not be expressed with a simple: "I definitely like him."


----------



## .   1

Well I'm sure that I don't dislike him.
This sounds closer to normal usage but still contains the double negative with the same message as your cheeze and kisses.

.,,


----------



## Panpan

mplsray said:


> The term "double negative" is problematical because it can refer to _ten_ different grammatical phenomena, according to linguist Geoffrey Pullum, who decided to avoid the term when he co-wrote a grammar of English. The type of negation occurring in a sentence such as _I didn't go nowhere_. he called _negative concord_ (a term mentioned elsewhere in this thread). He would consider _I didn't go nowhere._ to involve only a single negation, the negation of _I went somewhere._
> 
> The type of negation involved in _a not insignificant number_ is the _litotes._ Linguist Otto Jespersen treated the litotes as a sort of multiple negative when he wrote, in a passage opposing the mathematical argument against the double negative,


 
John Major, a former Prime Minister of the UK, used the expression 'not inconsiderably' on at least two occassions. (He was quoted many times by political satyrists). However, it dosn't mean exactly the same as 'considerably', there is a shade of meaning in there. Saying that something is 'not inconsiderably + adjective' is not necessarily the same as saying it is considerable. You could also be saying that it falls into a grey area somwhere between considerable and inconsiderable.

For example, on a scale of results you can have;

An insignificant result (no useful evidence found)
An indeterminate result (possibly some evidence, but you need to do more experiments)
A significant result (statistically, you have proved your case).

A 'not insignificant result' can include an indeterminate result.

Panpan


----------



## .   1

Panpan said:


> John Major, ...


I really not averse to the concept of the yin/yang subtelty indicated by double and triple negatives but surely it is less than positive to use a politician as an example to support the current usage.  Polliticians are word manglers from way back and can take the dark out of the night time and paint the daytime black.

.,,


----------



## panjandrum

Double negatives have a very long history, on both sides of the Atlantic.
I don't think there is any reason to suspect that their use in BE has been unduly influenced by AE.

The original question includes subject-verb disagreement with double negatives and other grammatical quirks.  All of these appear regularly in casual spoken usage.  They appear much less often in written form.  Many who use them are well aware that what is common in speech would do them no credit if used in writing.

_The very specific topic of double negatives had a good airing in:_
Don't not go because of this ... double negatives


----------



## MarX

Doesn't (or don't ?) double negatives exist in Classical English?

I thought I read such constructions in various English literature works, including Shakespeare.


All I know is that double negatives is (or are ?) quite common even among well educated speakers, at least in oral communication.
Many of them don't realize it when they use it, and some speakers use it more frequently than others, but it is quite common, and doesn't have much to do with educational level.

Grüsse,


MarX


----------



## Loob

Hi MarX

I think you're reinforcing the point that panj made earlier: that the double negative has a long history: it would in the past often have been seen as standard.

Panj also made the general point that people use constructions in speech which we would never use in writing. I agree: I have on (thankfully only a few) occasions in my life seen my spoken language reflected in transcripts. This was an uncomfortable experience, from which I learnt, for example, that I don't speak in sentences. I've since learnt that I'm not unique...

That said, I honestly believe that I don't use double negatives, except in constructions in which two negatives make a positive: _I don't NOT like him = I don't dislike him; I haven't got NOTHING = I've got something.)._

In the usual meaning of 'double negative', the second negative reinforces the first to make a clear and unambiguous negative: I haven't got nothing = I have nothing/I haven't got anything.

In this sense, a double negative is - today - non-standard English; and it is, as others have commented, used by 'educated' speakers only if they wish to use a non-standard register for a particular purpose.

Loob


----------



## LMorland

> Doesn't (or Don't ?) double negatives exist in Classical English?
> 
> I thought I read such constructions in various English literature works, including Shakespeare.


Well, Old English, and Middle English, and even Early Modern English (there is no such term as "Classical English") had a different grammar than we do -- to justify modern practice by reference to a 400+ year old state of the language would be like using French grammar rules to correct an English speaker. 





> [All I know is that double negatives is (or are ?) quite common even among well educated speakers, at least in oral communication.


Oh really? You state that you are from Indonesia. All I can say is that the statement you make is not true for Americans, nor for the British people whom I know. I believe an Australian speaker has said the same for the folks in his or her country.


> Many of them don't realize it when they use it,


Well, if they don't then they are, _by definition, _not educated, right?





> and some speakers use it more frequently than others, but it is quite common, and doesn't have much to do with educational level.


Again, I cannot disagree more strongly with your opinions. Where are you getting your data from?


----------



## Metztli

I agree with LMorland!


----------



## james.

Mary Therés said:


> Such a use of double negatives is no longer limited to the USA. Thanks to, I guess, hip-hop and other popular cultures it has spread to this side of the pond too....



There are examples of these kinds of grammatical inaccuracies in British literature that predates any American influence on British parlance. Do you think everyone spoke with proper subject-verb agreement in _Oliver Twist_, for example? Recently I read Thomas Hardy's _The Return of the Native_, and the excellent dialect-based dialogue writing in that makes frequent use of grammatical inaccuracies that deviate blatantly from standard English. To ascribe this to the influence of American hip-hop music would be absurd, as the novel was written in the late 1870's.


----------



## panjandrum

Posts from the US double negatives thread have been relocated to this thread because they were going over much of the ground that has already been covered here.  To get a clear picture of the spread of opinion and research on the topic it is necessary to at least skim the previous posts.
Please do not fall into the trap of believing that the last post on the thread carries the most weight.


----------



## LMorland

Dear Panjandrum,

Thanks for combining this thread with the previous two threads.  It makes an interesting read!

However, it seems that the first discusion was focusing on a special kind of double negative used with the imperative of the sort_ *"Don't not go to the dance because of me!" *_The current discussion is more of a cultural one: * "Does use of the double negative in American English speech indicate a lack of education?" * 

On this question, my vote is a resounding _*yes*_.  I worked in the financial districts of San Francisco and Oakland, California, for many years, and the only people one would encounter there who used such speech patterns would be the cleaning crews (although more of them were likely to speak Spanish or Cantonese, to be truthful).  I also spent many years in a university setting, and it goes without saying that the same logic applies there.

It is sad, but if people grow up learning to speak using double negatives*, and are not taught (or doesn't care) to "unlearn" this speech pattern, they are destined to spend their lives in less remunerative professions. Even the owners of garages (car repair shops) and construction crews are expected to speak standard English in order to communicate with their clients, although most of their hourly employees may well use double negatives as part of their dialect.

________
* I'm not referring to the "Don't not do such-and-such" locutions here


----------

