this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
563 points (97.6% liked)
aww
20009 readers
267 users here now
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not so strange actually. Sure, seen superficially, it seems that double negatives negate each other but that doesn't fit the empirical data. Many languages do this in their standard variety and English does it in many local, social and historical varieties. I think Shakespeare did it too.
Spanish for example has "sin nada", literally "without nothing" but meaning "with nothing"/ "without anything".
So the linguistic consensus is that the negative is expressed more than once. Depending on the language this might be optional or not. Slavic languages have a negative prefix "ne-" on verbs and this is obligatory if a negative word (like never, nobody,...) is used in the sentence.
Wait till you learn about oxymorons
This person should be aware of them, as they use oxygen and are a moron
What did you just call me
If you are ready to reflext on your biases, you should take the 4min and watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3jxC3zqkEE
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=o3jxC3zqkEE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Prescriptivism in liguistics is for ignorant people.
Prescriptivism is ignorance. No linguist would take your side in that argument.
Tbh prescriptivism has its place in official over regional communication and language learning. We wouldn't understand each other if we were writing each in their local dialect and when you start learning a language, you don't want to first need an overview of the dialect continuum.
That said, in unofficial writing it doesn't matter as long as you write intelligible and advanced language learners should learn about varieties. I for example was tought British English at the start and in the 4th year, we learned about American English and the differences to British English.
That's not about linguistics though.
A true descriptivist will describe the effects, prescriptivism has on language #toleranceparadox
But your right, it isn't linguistics since science is always descriptive.
Naturally. One can't describe any real language without that, even something as "pure" as Icelandic.
No, this is not true. No, English is not math.
See. Both of those sentences contain “double negatives.”
I'm pretty sure you say and hear "I don't have anything" all the time and it doesn't trip you up. That's a double negative used in common dialects of English to emphasize.
Did you mean to say "I don't have nothing"? Because "I don't have anything" doesn't seem to be a double negative
Arguably, since "anything" is only used in negative sentences, it is kind of part of the negative. You wouldn't say "I have anything", only "I don't have anything". Then again, it can be used in positive sentences like "I would do anything" with a slightly different meaning.
But let's take "anymore". "I can't stand it anymore" is a common phrase but "I can stand it anymore" not so much. "anymore" is only used in negative sentences so the "not" is arguably redundant and therefore "not ... anymore" is kind of a double negative.
And even that's not true for all speakers of English. There are native speakers who would say "I go to town anymore" unironically.
Edit: I reread the comment you reacted to and to say it's "to emphasize" is wrong. That argument would work better for "at all" for example. My point is that "double negative" isn't as clear cut as it might seem to be at first glance. "I don't know nothing" is a double negative for sure, "I don't know anything at all" kind of in a way, "I don't know anything" maybe a little bit.
This is close to the dumbest thing I read today, though to be fair I haven't been reading that much today.
First of all, something like "I'll have anything" is a valid and reasonable statement that is not negative, for example when somebody asks you what you want to drink.
But further, "anything", "anymore" and "at all" are all very different - from what I understand, "anymore" doesn't even exist as a word in British English, and I'd point out an example of "do you have any more?" as another non-negative. I think generally "anything" makes more sense by itself than "anymore"/"any more", and "at all" similarly needs context. But just to provide a not-really-negative example, "Do you like it at all?", where a positive response ("yes"/"I do") does mean liking something.
In the end, I think your arguments might be stemming from trying to apply the term to too many things, from my understanding double negatives are very simple in that they need to have two negatives. A word being general, and used mostly in negative statements doesn't mean it's a negative, and that the actual negative part of the sentence is redundant.