# Double negation



## Kaia

Hello, in Spanish we can say "*No* me gusta *nadie*" or "Nadie me gusta", as well as "Sin duda alguna" or "*Sin ninguna* duda".  Apparently changing the word order we can have double negation.  It does not happen in English where we must change the word, for example "There is *no*thing" or "There isn't *any*thing", so we cannot use the same word as we do in Spanish.
In what other language it happens the same thing as in Spanish?
Thank you!


----------



## diegodbs

En catalán se puede decir "no vull res" (no quiero nada), "no ho sap ningú" (no lo sabe nadie).

You can say in Catalan "no vull res" (I want nothing), "no ho sap ningú" (nobody knows).

In Russian you can say "nichevó nié jachú", literally "nothing I don´t want" (I want nothing)
 
ничего не хочу


----------



## Outsider

Portuguese is like Spanish:

_Não gosto de ninguém.
De ninguém gosto._ (--> This one sounds more literary.)

_Sem dúvida nenhuma._ But also:
_Sem dúvida alguma._ (Both these sentences mean the same, "Without a doubt".)

_Não tenho nada.
Nada tenho._ (This is like the first example.)

It used to happen in English as well, and it still does in some dialects ("I ain't got nothing").


----------



## Whodunit

In standard German it doesn't work:

Ich kenne *nichts*. (I know nothing)
Ich habe *keinen* Stift. (literally: I have no pen)
Ich habe ihr *nicht* _einen_ Apfel geschenkt. (literally: I have _not_ given her _any_ apple) --> emphasis on "einen"

... whereas it is possible in slang German:

Der hat doch *keinen* Plan von *nichts*. (literally: He has no idea of nothing = He don't know anything)
Kannst du *nicht* mal *nicht* albern sein? (literally: Can't you be not funny for one time? = Can't you be serious for one time?)

Isn't the same possible in slang English? Often have I already heard "He do*n't* (or: ai*n't*) know *no*thing" or "I wo*n't* go *no*where".


----------



## Roi Marphille

diegodbs said:
			
		

> You can say in Catalan "no vull res" (I want nothing), "no ho sap ningú" (nobody knows).


yes, and as a curiosity, we have this _funny_ _question_: "vols res?" (Literal: do you want nothing?) this is to ask: do you want something? / ¿quieres algo? in Castilian. I must add that you can also use the other question to ask the same: "vols alguna cosa?". I think most of people use the latter though.
We also have the total negation: no-res (Literal: no nothing or not even nothing). Example: "Déu va crear el món del _no-res_" (Literal: God created the World from the not even nothing")
"*res*" is quite difficult to understand for beginners.  I don't know if they have it in another Romance languages.


----------



## Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

In Czech, double negatives (where applicable) are the norm. In fact, you're supposed to negate everything you can. 

For example, take the sentence *Nikdo nic neví*, which is incidentally the title of a good 1947 film comedy:

Nikdo = no-one, nobody
nic = nothing
neví = (he/she/it) doesn't know (a pet peeve of mine: this form is increasingly being used for the plural as well - they don't know - but the proper plural form is "nevědí". So don't you forget it! )

So the literal meaning is "nobody doesn't know nothing", but actually this is THE correct way of expressing the same thing as with the English sentence "no-one knows anything".

Thus we have a triple negative where German would use a double negative (Niemand kennt nichts, or so I hope - my German's a little rusty) and English only a single negative, as shown above.

Conversely, "no-one knows anything" would literally translate to "nikdo ví cokoli", but that would mean there exists an entity called "no-one" who actually knows anything.


On another note, doesn't French have double negation as well? I wouldn't know if Edith Piaf hadn't sung "non, je *ne* regrette(sp?) *rien*..."  Or is that an irregularity, poetic speech, or something like that?


----------



## Whodunit

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! said:
			
		

> On another note, doesn't French have double negation as well? I wouldn't know if Edith Piaf hadn't sung "non, je *ne* regrette(sp?) *rien*..."  Or is that an irregularity, poetic speech, or something like that?


 
No, you're right. It's standard French to use "ne" and a negative form like "jamais (never)", "rien (nothing)", "pas (not)", "plus (no more)", "personne (no one)" etc. However, this is seemingly standard French and is almost never used in colloquial speech:

J'ai pas 18 ans. (I'm not 18)
T'écris plus depuis ... (Don't you write anymore since ...?)
Il aime personne. (He likes no one/He doesn't like anyone.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Laia

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> yes, and as a curiosity, we have this _funny_ _question_: "vols res?" (Literal: do you want nothing?) this is to ask: do you want something? / ¿quieres algo? in Castilian. I must add that you can also use the other question to ask the same: "vols alguna cosa?". I think most of people use the latter though.


 
same happens with *mai *(never):
"et dono unes ulleres per si *mai* les necessites"
 I think I need help to translate it into English... "I give you a pair of glasses for if you never need them" 

I hope someone could understand this...


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

Bengali is like english where one would say "Aamaar bolaar kichhu chhilo naa"-I had nothing to say. Double negation does not occur. Interestingly there is one instance where the grammar is not very logical- Jothokhon shei aashe naa aami ei baarri thheke ber hobo naa- translated literally this would be " Until he/she does not arrive home I will not leave this house. Correct translation would be of course to omit the not.


----------



## Brioche

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, you're right. It's standard French to use "ne" and a negative form like "jamais (never)", "rien (nothing)", "pas (not)", "plus (no more)", "personne (no one)" etc. However, this is seemingly standard French and is almost never used in colloquial speech:
> 
> J'ai pas 18 ans. (I'm not 18)
> T'écris plus depuis ... (Don't you write anymore since ...?)
> Il aime personne. (He likes no one/He doesn't like anyone.)
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.


 
This is certainly the case in colloquial French.

The funny thing is that old French just used *ne* as the negator.
This usage is preserved in the proverb "Qui ne dit mot consent"

Back then the word *rien* meant *thing/something.*
That meaning is preserved in expressions such as:
"Est-il rien de plus beau?"  

Over time the _pair of words_ ne .. pas, ne .. point, ne .. rien, ne ... personne, ne .. plus came to form the negative, and the negative sense moved to the second word.

So now, the original negative word can be left out.


----------



## moodywop

The examples quoted by Kaia, Roi and Laia have exact equivalents in Italian:

non mi piace nulla(or niente) *but *nulla mi piace(_emphatic)_

vuoi *niente*? or vuoi *nulla*? (meaning _do you want anything? _whereas_ non vuoi nulla? = don't you want anything?)_

ti do un paio di occhiali caso *mai *ti dovessero servire

Carlo


----------



## Brioche

Kaia said:
			
		

> Hello, in Spanish we can say "*No* me gusta *nadie*" or "Nadie me gusta", as well as "Sin duda alguna" or "*Sin ninguna* duda". Apparently changing the word order we can have double negation. It does not happen in English where we must change the word, for example "There is *no*thing" or "There isn't *any*thing", so we cannot use the same word as we do in Spanish.
> In what other language it happens the same thing as in Spanish?
> Thank you!


 
Double negatives are a feature of Afrikaans.

_Ek kan nie Afrikaans praat nie. = I can not Afrikaans speak not._
I can't speak Afrikaans_._


			
				Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> yes, and as a curiosity, we have this _funny_ _question_: "vols res?" (Literal: do you want nothing?) this is to ask: do you want something? / ¿quieres algo? in Castilian. I must add that you can also use the other question to ask the same: "vols alguna cosa?". I think most of people use the latter though.
> We also have the total negation: no-res (Literal: no nothing or not even nothing). Example: "Déu va crear el món del _no-res_" (Literal: God created the World from the not even nothing")
> "*res*" is quite difficult to understand for beginners.  I don't know if they have it in another Romance languages.


 
The Latin word *res*, (accusative form_ rem_) meaning "thing", "something" is the origin of the French word *rien*. 

At first, _rien_ in French had the same meaning as _res_ in Latin. It had to be combined with _ne_ to make _no thing._

However, over time, _rien_ by itself came to mean _nothing._

My guess is that _res_ in Spanish has undergone a similar journey.


----------



## Elieri

In swedish double negation is *never* allowed, not even in dialects. It basically works the same way as english;

_Jag har inga skor_ - I have no shoes
_Jag har inte några skor_ - I have not any shoes
or:
_Jag vet ingenting_ - I know nothing
_Jag vet inte någonting_ - I know not anything.


----------



## diegodbs

Brioche said:
			
		

> The Latin word *res*, (accusative form_ rem_) meaning "thing", "something" is the origin of the French word *rien*.
> 
> My guess is that _res_ in Spanish has undergone a similar journey.


 
You may be right, but "res" is not Spanish, it is a Catalan word.
The word in Spanish is "nada".


----------



## Kaia

Oh! thank all of you! I really appreciate all your answers!
Muchas gracias a todos!
Danke schön!
Grazie Mille!


----------



## Dalian

Double negation means affirmation in Chinese. For example:
房间里*不*是*没有*人 (literally, there is*n't* *nobody* in the room./*No* hay *nadie* en el cuarto.)
But actually the sentence means 'There is somebody in the room.' or 'It's not right to say there's nobody in the room.'

Regards
Dalian


----------



## Ilmo

Finnish:
There can't be any double negation in Finnish, because all the negative adverbs consist of two parts of which the first one is the 3rd person of the auxiliar "negation verb" (it is conjugated only in the present tense). Thus:
Nothing = ei mitään, ei mikään
Never = ei koskaan, ei milloinkaan
Nobody = ei kukaan
When a whole sentence is composed, the auxiliar negation verb will be transferred to the predicate of the sentence and the negation thus misses its "ei". 
For instance:
I'll never do that = En tee sitä koskaan


----------



## Roi Marphille

Brioche said:
			
		

> My guess is that _res_ in Spanish has undergone a similar journey.


you are right, "_*nada*_" (nothing in Castilian/Spanish) comes from the Latin "res"  . I checked it in RAE dictionary.


----------



## Outsider

No exactamente.

_Del lat. [res] *nata*, [cosa] *nacida*_


----------



## Roi Marphille

Outsider said:
			
		

> No exactamente.
> 
> _Del lat. [res] *nata*, [cosa] *nacida*_


well, then I'm very confused.  Is it coming from _nata_?...I don't have a clue about Latin...I've just seen it written in there..


----------



## Outsider

The letters in the word would suggest that _nada_ comes from _nata_. I don't see how _nada_ could come from _res_.


----------



## diegodbs

Outsider said:
			
		

> The letters in the word would suggest that _nada_ comes from _nata_. I don't see how _nada_ could come from _res_.


 
Seguramente lo que ha pasado es que de la expresión latina "res nata", el catalán ha tomado "res" y el castellano "nata" --> "nada". Esto no quiere decir que la evolución de la palabra "res" haya dado "nada" en castellano, cosa que parece un poco absurda, sin ninguna explicación basándose en las leyes de la evolución fonética.


----------



## stargazer

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! said:
			
		

> In Czech, double negatives (where applicable) are the norm. In fact, you're supposed to negate everything you can.
> 
> For example, take the sentence *Nikdo nic neví*, which is incidentally the title of a good 1947 film comedy:
> 
> Nikdo = no-one, nobody
> nic = nothing
> neví = (he/she/it) doesn't know (a pet peeve of mine: this form is increasingly being used for the plural as well - they don't know - but the proper plural form is "nevědí". So don't you forget it! )
> 
> So the literal meaning is "nobody doesn't know nothing", but actually this is THE correct way of expressing the same thing as with the English sentence "no-one knows anything"



The same goes for Slovenian language, e.g. "Nihče nič ne ve." is a literal translation of the above sentence. So in this case it's actually a "triple" negative, and I believe that's the top number of negatives one can put in the sentence. If I think of another example, I'll post it.


			
				Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Bengali is like english where one would say "Aamaar bolaar kichhu chhilo naa"-I had nothing to say. Double negation does not occur. Interestingly there is one instance where the grammar is not very logical- Jothokhon shei aashe naa aami ei baarri thheke ber hobo naa- translated literally this would be " Until he/she does not arrive home I will not leave this house. Correct translation would be of course to omit the not.



The same happens in Slovenian: we also say "until ... not". The Slovenian word is "dokler".


----------



## amikama

Brioche said:
			
		

> The Latin word *res*, (accusative form_ rem_) meaning "thing", "something" is the origin of the French word *rien*.
> 
> At first, _rien_ in French had the same meaning as _res_ in Latin. It had to be combined with _ne_ to make _no thing._
> 
> However, over time, _rien_ by itself came to mean _nothing._


Something similar also happened to the Hebrew words for "nothing": *כלום*, *מאומה/מאום* and *שום דבר*. They all originally meant "something/anything", but their meaning changed over the time to "nothing". So in nowadays Hebrew there is double negation: אני *לא* רוצה *כלום* = (literally I do *not* want *nothing*.


----------



## elroy

Double negation does not exist in Arabic, with the possible exception of "abadan" (never), which must be used with a negative.

*Lam atakallam abadan.* _("I never spoke." - lit. "I did not never speak.")_

However, I believe the original meaning of "abadan" is "ever," such that, strictly speaking, this is not a double negative either.


			
				amikama said:
			
		

> Something similar also happened to the Hebrew words for "nothing": *כלום*, *מאומה/מאום* and *שום דבר*. They all originally meant "something/anything", but their meaning changed over the time to "nothing". So in nowadays Hebrew there is double negation: אני *לא* רוצה *כלום* = (literally I do *not* want *nothing*.


 
Can't you also say "af pa'am lo 'asiti et ze" _("I have never done that", lit. "I have never not done that")_?


----------



## lonelyheartsclubband

You're right. In nowadays the double negation is completely allowed.
But there're are some tiny exceptions:
ani klum bil'adayh - "i am nothing without you"(quite literal and ugly translation)_._
Speaking briefly, I think it's only one of the small number of exceptions.


----------



## amikama

elroy said:
			
		

> Can't you also say "af pa'am lo 'asiti et ze" _("I have never done that", lit. "I have never not done that")_?


Yes, in modern Hebrew. I guess that אף פעם (never) is similar to אף אחד (no one). 
Originally אף אחד was אף לא אחד (not even single person):
אף לא אחד רצה לעשות את זה
Not even single one wanted to do it (single negation).
Later אף לא אחד became אף אחד לא, where אף אחד got a negative meaning (like כלום mentioned earlier):
אף אחד לא רצה לעשות את זה
No one _didn't_ want to do it (double negation).

I don't know for sure about אף פעם, but I guess it underwent similar progress as אף אחד did.


----------



## elroy

Ah, very interesting!  How exactly would you translate אף, then?


----------



## amikama

אפילו = אף = even.
E.g.: אף אני עשיתי זאת = Even I did it.


----------



## DeBarcelona

I just want to demonstrate catalan is just as logic as english is.

_res _isn't _nothing_. Otherwise, how could we say "vols res?" "do you want anything?" 

_res_ mens simply _anything._ If you want to say _nothing _you say _no res (not anything) (_substantived as _no-res_). In ancient catalans, it meant the same as _cosa (thing)._

-Què vols? (what do you want?)
-No res. (nothing)

"tot va sorgir del no-res" (all came out of the naught)

The same way, _enlloc (anywhere) _is en+lloc (in+place). Then it can't be _nowhere._

The same for all the other any-words. Even though, _ningú_ has a negative origin (nec unus) but today it means (or should mean) _anybody._

Then, if you want to make a negative sentence you MUST put a _no. _"ningú no té res" (literally "anybody hasn't anything"). The problem comes fromt he fact people say things like that:

-Qui hi ha? (who is there?)
-Ningú (nobody).

 People should say "-no ningú" to speak really well. In some dialects it is done, but 90% of people doesnt. And then people thinks _ningú_ means _nobody. _And is then when they build sentences like this: "ningú té res" assuming negative meanings (nobody has nothing). And it is the way all the system breaks down. The same as with _ningú _happens with the other words: res (anything), cap (any), enlloc (anywhere), gens (any amount). They turn into negative words: res (nothing), etc.

It happens with the help of spanish. And with the help of the teachers of grammar who havent understood the whole thing.

By the way. Dialectically things like this are said: "no ningú sap res" which is as logic as the standard "ningú no sap res".


----------



## jaxineau

Dalian said:


> Double negation means affirmation in Chinese. For example:
> 房间里*不*是*没有*人 (literally, there is*n't* *nobody* in the room./*No* hay *nadie* en el cuarto.)
> But actually the sentence means 'There is somebody in the room.' or 'It's not right to say there's nobody in the room.'
> 
> Regards
> Dalian


 
That sentence has the same sentiment of using double negatives in English. One wants to emphasis that the fact exist. It's right to say both sentences, just like in English, as long as the mood is right.

English double negatives are used in circumstances such as:
_I don't want to do nothing._ 
Emphasising that one really wants to do something.
You can also say I want to do something, but it is not as strong as the nothing part.

_Nothing is impossible._
Emphasising that there is every chance you can do things. This is same as saying everything is possible.


----------



## Qcumber

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! said:


> On another note, doesn't French have double negation as well? I wouldn't know if Edith Piaf hadn't sung "non, je *ne* regrette(sp?) *rien*..."  Or is that an irregularity, poetic speech, or something like that?


I don't think double negation exists in French.

As you know, *ne_pas* is a frozen expression in which *ne* expressed the negation and *pas* "step" was the token object of the verb. *Pas* lost its semantic value, and took on its negative function from *ne*. As *ne* is unstressed, hence often dropped, *pas* is used alone in spoken French to express negation, e.g. Ce *n'*est *pas* vrai. > *C'est *pas* vrai. "It's not true."

*Ne_rien* has a similar story except that the original meaning of *rien* is "thing" < Latin _res_.
*Non, je ne regrette rien.* is standard / classical French.

Conversely colloquial English uses a lot of double negatives, e.g. *I won't tell him neither. for I won't tell him either.

Apart from the cases mentioned by Jaxineau above, the only correct double negation in English - and probably in any other language - is the negation of an embedded clause.
e.g. John can't attend the meeting. Oh, no! That's impossible!
> John can't [John can't attend the meeting] > John can't not attend the meeting. > *John can't possibly not attend the meeting.*
Ditto in French, = *Jean ne peut pas ne pas assister à la réunion.*


----------



## Bienvenidos

*PERSIAN/FARSI:
*
Ma iciz namifâmem (I don't know nothing.)
Iciz nadârem (I don't have nothing)
Delem niz iciz bekenam (I don't want to do nothing)
Ma ic waqt naqurdam (I never ate nothing)


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Turkish *has *double negation and _only _it's grammatically correct.

*Hiçbir şeyim yok.* (_lit. _*I don't have* *nothing*.)
*Kimse* *kusursuz değildir. *(_lit._ *Nobody* *isn't* *perfect*.)
*İstanbul'daki **konferansta tanımadığım** kimseyi **görmedim. *(_lit._ *I didn't **see nobody that I didn't know at the **conference in Istanbul.)*


----------



## Frank06

Hi,
- In, standard Dutch, double negation is considered to be 'wrong'.

- In Middle Dutch it was quite common:
Hi *en* conste mi *niet* genesen. (lit. he not couldn't heal me)
- In modern colloquial Dutch it is also commonly used, at least in Flanders*:
Hij heeft *n*ooit *niks* gedaan. (lit. He never did nothing)
- in some Dutch dialects (as West and East Flemish) it is a rule.
 't *(e)n* is *niet* waar. (lit. it not is not true)
- In the West Flemish dialects it is even possible to use three or more negations:
e.g. Hij *en* heeft toen *nooit* *n*iemand *g*een geld *n*iet meer willen lenen (lit. he not has from then on never borrowed no money to nobody any more).

*I'm curious about the Dutch colloquial variants and Dutch dialects as spoken in the Netherlands.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

stargazer said:


> The same goes for Slovenian language, e.g. "Nihče nič ne ve." is a literal translation of the above sentence. So in this case it's actually a "triple" negative, and I believe that's the top number of negatives one can put in the sentence. If I think of another example, I'll post it.


You can negate everything, so the number of negations in one free sentence is limited by your imagination.  

Nikoli nikjer ničesar ne naredim narobe.  
Janez nikjer in nikoli ni nikomur ničesar zamolčal.


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> Apart from the cases mentioned by Jaxineau above, the only correct double negation in English - and probably in any other language


Double negation isn't incorrect.


----------



## mcibor

In Polish, as in Slavic language, double negation is a must

*Nie *chcę *niczego *- I don't want nothing.
or
*Nic nie* chcę - Nothing I don't want

Strangely question: Would you like anything can be translated to:
Chciałbyś coś do jedzenia? - Would you like something to eat? (receiver is a he)
or
*Nie *chciałbyś czegoś do jedzenia? - Wouldn't you want something to eat?

The latter is more polite and is used more often however strange it may seem...

coś - something, nominative
czegoś - something, genitive
nie - no
nic - nothing, nominative
niczego - nothing, genitive


----------



## Outsider

mcibor said:


> Wouldn't you want something to eat?


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## jaxineau

Outsider said:


> Double negation isn't incorrect.


 
Double negation can be correct.


----------



## Outsider

Certainly, and not just in the cases that Qcumber said.


----------



## jaxineau

Outsider said:


> Certainly, and not just in the cases that Qcumber said.


 
I agree with his sentence "_John cannot not attend....._", however.


----------



## caballoschica

jaxineau said:


> I agree with his sentence "_John cannot not attend....._", however.



Sure he cannot not attend, but that means that he _can_ attend.  It may not be incorrect, but it is used incorrectly many times.  Any double negative in English cancels the negative and makes the sentence a positive.  If that is the result intended, then you can absolutely use a double negative. However many people say, I ain't gonna do nothin' really meaning I'm not going to do anything, but it comes across as I'm going to do something or just bad English.

Every once in awhile I say "S/he can't not do this!" Meaning: She cannot possibly refuse! Or she physically is not able to not be able to do it. If that makes sense.  For example, if she says she can't do a cartwheel and I know that she has the ability, I'd express my shock by saying, "She can't not do a cartwheel! That's impossible!"

I think about double negatives as multiplication.  When you multiply -2 x -2 you get 4.  

But in Spanish, you can use double negatives, I've found.  No tengo ni idea, etc, etc.


----------



## jaxineau

I hear what you are saying, and I agree.
_She can't not do this_ sounds to me more like her not attending is non-permissible instead of her inability to refuse.
I understand your comparison, but sometimes double negation amplifies the idea more than the affirmative.
Nothing is impossible.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think that's the kind of double negation that Kaia had in mind when she started this thread, though.


----------



## jaxineau

Outsider said:


> I don't think that's the kind of double negation that Kaia had in mind when she started this thread, though.


 
_She ca*n't* do *nothing*_ has the same sentiment as _She ca*n't not* do this_.
Another to say that is _She *can't not* do anything_.


----------



## Outsider

The term "double negative" in this context refers to form, not meaning.


----------



## jaxineau

Outsider said:


> The term "double negative" in this context refers to form, not meaning.


I have boldened the two negatives used in the sentences. English is a language where double negation exists. However, heed the use of double negation in English.


Brioche said:


> This is certainly the case in colloquial French.
> 
> The funny thing is that old French just used *ne* as the negator.
> This usage is preserved in the proverb "Qui ne dit mot consent"
> 
> Back then the word *rien* meant *thing/something.*
> That meaning is preserved in expressions such as:
> "Est-il rien de plus beau?"
> 
> Over time the _pair of words_ ne .. pas, ne .. point, ne .. rien, ne ... personne, ne .. plus came to form the negative, and the negative sense moved to the second word.
> 
> So now, the original negative word can be left out.


 
I agree. Sometimes a word has both affirmative and negative meanings.
*Personne* ne me donne *jamais* de bonheur.
Although _personne_ means no one and _jamais_ means never, the _jamais_ in this sentence means _ever_.


----------



## karuna

In Latvian, like in Slavic languages double negative is quite popular. One could say that the negative prefix in these negative nouns, adverbs and adjectives is actually the intensifier. _Es *ne*vienam *ne*ko *ne*teikšu. – I won't tell nothing to nobody = I won't tell anything to everybody. _

It is futher evidenced by constructions like _Tas *ne*der *ne *man, *ne ne*vienam. – It doesn't suit nor me, nor nobody = it doesn't suit me, or everybody else in the world._


----------



## Smurfan

Elieri said:


> In swedish double negation is *never* allowed, not even in dialects. It basically works the same way as english;
> 
> _Jag har inga skor_ - I have no shoes
> _Jag har inte några skor_ - I have not any shoes
> or:
> _Jag vet ingenting_ - I know nothing
> _Jag vet inte någonting_ - I know not anything.


 
I think double negation is allowed in Swedish as well as English:

"Det är inte så att jag inte är hungrig" = "It's not that I'm not hungry"

If you define double negation as when a sentence is negating an already negated sentence so that the sentence regains it original value. 

"Jag är hungrig" = "I'm hungry"


----------



## DeBarcelona

Well, it is a fully logical double negation, and necessary. I think it must exist in most languages. It is denying a negative clause.

For example, the sentence above in catalan would be: "*No* és pas que *no* tingui gana" therefore "Tinc gana".

The problem comes when there is a double negation in a single sentence: "I don't have nothing". Does it mean that it's not that I have nothing, or it means rather that it is that i have nothing?


----------



## In Search Of

It seems you have moved over to the discussion of double negatives that aren't really double negatives - that is, as smurfan talks about, a double negation that is meant as a "positive". 

In English, double negatives are "forbidden", but in many dialects they exist, such as "I ain't got nothing" - which means I don't have anything. This is a "real" double negative. 

A lot of prescriptive linguists complain about the use of double negatives in English, they claim it's illogical and may lead people to think that the negations nullify each other. One argument against this is that a lot of other languages have double negatives without getting confused about the meaning. 
However, I guess it's debatable whether the French negation, for instance, is double or not, as it was mentioned here that it is a frozen expression and thereby not really a double negation.


----------



## Smurfan

The Oxford English Dictionary defines _double negation_ (in _Logic) _as '_a statement containing two negatives which, by mathematical analogy, thereby becomes positive in meaning'_ while a negation is _'an act of denial; a negative statement, doctrine, etc.; a refusal or contradiction; a denial of something.'_ If I'm not wrong I believe the sentence_ "I ain't got nothing"_ should be referred to as a _multiple _negation_, _rather than a _double._


----------



## Outsider

Smurfan said:


> The Oxford English Dictionary defines _double negation_ (in _Logic) _as '_a statement containing two negatives which, by mathematical analogy, thereby becomes positive in meaning'_ [...]


But we're discussing language, not logic.



Smurfan said:


> If I'm not wrong I believe the sentence_ "I ain't got nothing"_ should be referred to as a _multiple _negation_, _rather than a _double._


Why? I see only two negative words there, _not_ (_n't_) and _nothing_.


----------



## CapnPrep

The term "double negation" is not very clear (can refer to either form or interpretation). The phenomenon that the original poster is interested in is called "negative concord" (i.e., two or more negative forms in a single sentence still give rise to only a single logical negation in the interpretation of the sentence). The idea is that only one of the negative forms is really negative; the others are only negative by agreement or concord.

Standard English and most other Germanic languages do not allow negative concord. In these languages it is relatively easy to express mutliple negation in a single sentence (e.g. _Nobody likes nothing._) Romance languages, Slavic languages, and many others, have a strong preference for negative concord, and so it can be difficult to translate this sentence.


----------



## Smurfan

Outsider said:


> But we're discussing language, not logic.


 
So language is not logical ? Ok, a more unreliable source; Wikipedia defines "double negation" in language as occuring "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." It also says that today, the double negation resolving in a negative statement, is often considered the mark of an uneducated speaker and is used mostly in dialects. Further more it says that "usage prescriptivists consider this use of double negatives to be a solecism(i.e. a violation of the rules of grammar or syntax), and condemn it. It makes the rhetorical figure of litotes (a figure of speech, in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary) ambiguous. It remains common in colloquial English."


----------



## Outsider

Smurfan said:


> So language is not logical ?


Language is not the same thing as formal logic. 

In case you've never noticed, many words have different meanings in different disciplines and contexts. This is the case of "double negative". The meaning which the thread starter gave to this expression was cristal clear from the get-go. But some people insist on misunderstanding it as something else -- why, I cannot fathom. Perhaps they're trying to 'prove' something...


----------



## Smurfan

I'm not insisting on misunderstand anything or trying to prove anything, I just happened to find this info in the Oxford Dictionary and thought it might contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Outsider

It doesn't -- it's off-topic.


----------



## morrison

In English, standard phrases such as "I don't want anything" are in fact double negatives (kind of)....  "Anything" has _negative polarity_, because you can't say "I want anything" - it has to be "I want something". It's like the relationship between the words "somewhere" and "nowhere".


----------



## Outsider

Welcome to the forum, but I must disagree. "Anything" has a positive meaning, not a negative one. There is only one negative word in that sentence.


----------



## morrison

Outsider said:


> Welcome to the forum, but I must disagree. "Anything" has a positive meaning, not a negative one. There is only one negative word in that sentence.


 
The morphme "any" is used in negative constructions where is cannot be used in the corresponding affirmative sentence:

John doesn't have *any* potatoes
*John has any potatoes

While it is true that "any" (and other similar lexical itmes) is not overtly negative, cannot be considered to be "positive" because of its use in a negative construction. This phenomenon is known as _negative polarity_.


----------



## huelin

Roi Marphille said:


> you are right, "_*nada*_" (nothing in Castilian/Spanish) comes from the Latin "res"  . I checked it in RAE dictionary.


 
As this seemed very strange to me, I just looked it up in the RAE dictionary. To be exact, it comes from "res nata", which means "cosa nacida" = "born thing".


----------



## Outsider

morrison said:


> The morphme "any" is used in negative constructions where is cannot be used in the corresponding affirmative sentence:
> 
> John doesn't have *any* potatoes
> *John has any potatoes
> 
> While it is true that "any" (and other similar lexical itmes) is not overtly negative, cannot be considered to be "positive" because of its use in a negative construction. This phenomenon is known as _negative polarity_.


Nonsense.  

"Any" always has a positive meaning. It means the same as "some". A word's being positive or negative does not depend on which sentence it's been inserted into.


----------



## DeBarcelona

I agree. Otherwise, how could you use "any" in a question? For example: "do you have any apples?"

Or in other positives sentences: "if you have any apples, give them to me" or "I doubt he has any apples".

[error edited]


----------



## Smurfan

I found that _any_ is primarily used in interrogative, hypothetical, and conditional forms of speech, but with a preceding negative _any_ becomes an emphatic negative, so I guess it could be interpreted as positive or negative depending on which sentence it is inserted in.


----------



## Outsider

If you interpret it as an emphatic negative, then that means double negatives are legitimate in English. But we all know the English language is free from such illogicalities as double negatives, right?


----------



## Smurfan

I'm not certain about what a double negation really is: as I've understood it there are two types of double negative in english, one with a positive outcome and one with a negative. For example you can say: _a not unjust decision _which is a double negative. Or you could say _He does not seek money, no more than he seeks fame_. Both are legitimate usage of double negation. The other double negative, or rather _multiple negative _in _I ain't got nothing_ is incorrect.

Confusing


----------



## DeBarcelona

Smurfan: I thought in sweddish it was exactly like in english.


----------



## Smurfan

It is the same. It's ok to say 

"It's *not* that I *don't* like him" = "det är *inte* det att jag *inte* gillar honom" 

"It's *not* *un*just" = "Det är *inte* *o*rättvist"

So these are not called _double negations_?


----------



## Outsider

Smurfan said:


> I'm not certain about what a double negation really is: as I've understood it there are two types of double negative in english, one with a positive outcome and one with a negative. For example you can say: _a not unjust decision _which is a double negative. Or you could say _He does not seek money, no more than he seeks fame_. Both are legitimate usage of double negation.


None of those is a double negative, in the sense of this thread.



Smurfan said:


> The other double negative, or rather _multiple negative _in _I ain't got nothing_ is incorrect.


It's considered substandard in modern English (though not unheard of), but that was not always the case. Double negatives were perfectly acceptable in older English, and they are still the norm in many languages across the world. Just reread this thread.


----------



## blackorpheus

elroy said:


> Double negation does not exist in Arabic, with the possible exception of "abadan" (never), which must be used with a negative.
> 
> *Lam atakallam abadan.* _("I never spoke." - lit. "I did not never speak.")_
> 
> However, I believe the original meaning of "abadan" is "ever," such that, strictly speaking, this is not a double negative either.


 
i'm not sure about this.  in spoken arabic (e.g. egyptian) you should be able to say

ma9awizsh wala Haaga ("I don't want not-even thing")

or

wala Haaga 9aawiz. ("not-even thing I want")

to mean "I don't want anything at all".  it seems to work like spanish in this respect.


----------



## rosebud1981

Outsider said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> "Any" always has a positive meaning. It means the same as "some". A word's being positive or negative does not depend on which sentence it's been inserted into.


That's not true. As morrison said already, 'any' is a negative polarity item, which means that it becomes negative in the presence of 'not' or 'never' or some other negative word. It doesn't mean the same as 'some' or have the same positive meaning, because it can't be used in the following sentence.

The man has some questions
*The man has any questions

But it can be used in

The man does not have any questions

and in

Does the man have any questions?


----------



## elroy

blackorpheus said:


> I'm not sure about this. In spoken Arabic (e.g. Egyptian) you should be able to say
> 
> ma9awizsh mish 9aawiz wala Haaga ("I don't want not-even thing")
> 
> or
> 
> wala Haaga 9aawiz. ("not-even thing I want")
> 
> to mean "I don't want anything at all". It seems to work like Spanish in this respect.


 You are right; I was referring to standard Arabic only.

Welcome to the forum.  Please note that correct capitalization is required here (Rule 22).


----------



## Outsider

rosebud1981 said:


> The man does not have any questions


The negative word in that sentence is *not*, not _any_. Otherwise, it would be a double negative.



rosebud1981 said:


> Does the man have any questions?


Clearly not negative, there.


----------



## doman

Vietnamese:

Không ai là không khóc ! 
Roughly translation: No one is no cry.
Means everybody's crying.

Không nơi nào là nơi anh ấy không đi ! 
Roughly translation: Nowhere is the place he didn't go.
Means he goes anywhere.

Is it counted?


----------



## Outsider

No, that would be "logical" negation.


----------



## rosebud1981

The man does not have any questions



Outsider said:


> The negative word in that sentence is *not*, not _any_. Otherwise, it would be a double negative.



Obviously it isn't a double negative but the point is that *any *is used in conjunction with the negative word *not*, whereas it can't be used in a purely positive sense.

*The man has any questions

This is what a *negative polarity item* is. Independently it doesn't have a negative meaning but yet it can only be used in a negative sense. Another example would be
He didn't budge while she spoke
*He budged while she spoke

_But _they can be used in questions
Did he budge while she spoke?
Does the man have any questions?

By the way, an example of the opposite, a *positive polarity item* would be *somewhat*.

She liked the play somewhat
*She didn't like the play somewhat


----------



## Qcumber

rosebud1981 said:


> This is what a *negative polarity item* is. Independently it doesn't have a negative meaning but yet it can only be used in a negative sense.


What about: "Our staff will serve you anything you fancy." ?
*Any* has no negative polarity. It only indicates that the statement or the question is open to all the possibilities available.
If the dual is involved, any is replaced by *either*.
e.g. Our staff can serve you either (pork of mutton).


----------



## Outsider

rosebud1981 said:


> Obviously it isn't a double negative but the point is that *any *is used in conjunction with the negative word *not*, whereas it can't be used in a purely positive sense.


"Which brand of milk shall we take?"
"Any will do." --> seems positive to me; certainly _not_ negative, anyway.


----------



## rosebud1981

Qcumber said:


> What about: "Our staff will serve you anything you fancy." ?
> *Any* has no negative polarity. It only indicates that the statement or the question is open to all the possibilities available.
> If the dual is involved, any is replaced by *either*.
> e.g. Our staff can serve you either (pork of mutton).



You have a made good point here about the use of *any* that I'd overlooked. But it's only half of the story. There are two uses of the word: a free-choice *any *and a negative polarity *any*.
The sentence you gave is an example of the free-choice one, as is Outsider's "any milk will do".
But a sentence like "*he has any questions" is an example of the NPI any.
So *any *in this sense does have negative polarity.

As a contrast to *any*, *ever* only has negative polarity.
*The tourists ever came.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Does your language use double negative?

*Moderator note:*
*Please search the forum before opening new threads to avoid repetitions.*
*I've merged your new thread with the identitcal previous one.*


----------



## rocstar

Yes, Spanish does it to mean a negative  form.

Rocstar


----------



## Nizo

*English*:  double negatives are incorrect
*Esperanto*:  double negatives are incorrect

They are used in *Afrikaans*.  _Ek praat nie Afrikaans nie_.  (I don't speak Afrikaans.)


----------



## jazyk

You can't live without them in Portuguese, but it also depends on word order:
Não veio ninguém. - Nobody came.
Ninguém veio. - Nobody came.

So you should use não if the negative word comes after it, but you don't use it if the negative word precedes the verb.


----------



## Forero

French usually needs two negative words to negate something:

_Je ne sais pas_.
I don't know.

_Je ne sais rien.
_I know nothing.

Just one doesn't exactly negate:
_
C'est le meilleur que je n'aie vu.
_It's the best I have seen. [= I haven't seen better.]

----------------------------------------------

English uses double negatives for different purposes.  Sometimes a double negative is roughly equivalent to a positive:
_
This question is not unlike a Gordian knot._ [It is somewhat like a Gordian knot.]
_I didn't just not answer._ [I did answer, in a way.]

Other times it acts as a stronger negative:

_I never, never use the big, big "D"._ [I don't use the great big "D".  Ever.]

The negative conjunction _nor_ joins two or more things so that both/all are negated:

_The correct answer is neither yes nor no._ = "not yes and not no" (the negative of "either yes or no").
_The correct answer is not yes, nor is it no._ = "it is not yes, and it is not no either" (the negative of "it is yes, or else it is no").
_Nor rain, nor snow, nor gloom of night shall stay these messagers from their appointed rounds._  = "Rain won't do it, snow won't do it, and darkness won't do it" (the negative of "Maybe rain, maybe snow, or perhaps gloom of night will stay the messengers.").  

Negatives in different clauses tend to be independent, each negating only its own clause:

_That's not the reason I didn't do it._ [I didn't do it, but the reason is something different.]

But not always:

_I didn't think he had the courage not to say anything._ [= "I thought he did not have the courage to remain silent."]


----------



## Kanes

In Bulgarian it is the norm: *Ni*koi *ne*go e zimal


----------



## Nanon

Whodunit said:


> No, you're right. It's standard French to use "ne" and a negative form like "jamais (never)", "rien (nothing)", "pas (not)", "plus (no more)", "personne (no one)" etc. However, this is seemingly standard French and is almost never used in colloquial speech (...)





In Search Of said:


> A lot of prescriptive linguists complain about the use of double negatives in English, they claim it's illogical and may lead people to think that the negations nullify each other. One argument against this is that a lot of other languages have double negatives without getting confused about the meaning.
> However, I guess it's debatable whether the French negation, for instance, is double or not, as it was mentioned here that it is a frozen expression and thereby not really a double negation.



Double negation in French is standard in writing, and more-than-standard in speech. People who pronounce the "ne" may sound posh. Like me, but I am a "dame de Versailles" after all. And I don't pronounce it _always_.

Of course, learners are taught to use the "ne", then to drop it in order to sound "closer-to-native". Just to make life easier for them .

That's how "frozen" the French double negation is, considering that speech has a single negation and that the negative "polarity" passed from the first (old, classical) to the second (contemporary) element of the negation.

However, obviously, we cannot count all words with a negative meaning as negations. Otherwise "je ne peux pas refuser" ou "je ne suis pas contre" would be triple negations, and "tu ne peux pas ne pas y aller" would be a quadruple one!


----------



## Encolpius

double negation works in Hungarian.


----------



## Black4blue

In Turkish, double negations sometimes make sentences positive.
Example: *Onunla konuşmadım değil* (means like "*It's not that I didn't talk with him/her"*) means *Onunla konuştum* (I talked with him/her).
*Zevk almadım değil* (means "*not that I didn't enjoy"*) means *Zevk aldım* (I enjoyed)


----------

