Talk:Double negative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Misceallany

Bold textI've heard that double neg is grammatically correct in some langaues -- Russian? -- Tarquin 00:51 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

It works in Spanish. -- Zoe

And Italian. 131.183.81.100 01:33 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

The negation in french can be considered as a double-negation, i.e.:
english: I do not lie.
french: Je ne ment pas.
Afrikaans certainly have double-negation, but I can't give an example. - looxix 01:37 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
no, that's not a double neg in French -- they are two parts of the single negative. the same way that in English an infinitive is made of two words. -- Tarquin 14:27 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
OK not exactly the same meaning as in the article, but IMHO only slightly: in english "to" is the mark of infinitive. In french "ne" or "pas" alone can already mark the negation: i.e. "Je n'ai rien vu" which literal translation should give "I didn't see nothing", but means "I didn't see anything" or "J'aime ceçi, mais pas celà" ("I like this, but not that"). You see my point? In all case, in french grammar this is called a double negation. (In liguistic there is a well known evolution in the mark of negation: (1) single negation before the verb, (2) double negation/two-parts negation before and after the verb and (3) single negation after the verb; apparently French is in phase (2) (see Jespersen cycle from the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen)).
In Acadian French, things are clearer: "J'ai pas vu personne" is correct but not in French.
Otherwise, in French a sentence like "Personne n'a rien dit" ("Nobody didn't say nothing" ?) is not incorrect but ambiguous (can resolve to a negative or a positive).
In Latin: "two negations were used in order to stress the positive. For example 'non ignoramus': non = not ignoramus = we don't know(=are ignorant ;-) ) non ignoramus = we certainly know, we know well."
It seems that Cicero used that kind of construction quite a lot in Pro Milone and in the Catilinaria, but this is considered as a 'figure de style'.
Yiddish, like Old-German, seems to use a double-negation like the ne...pas in french, called 'doppelte Verneinung': i.e "ka mol nit shvarts".
In Dutch: "Medieval Dutch texts use it too. Perhaps because most were written by Flemish people. Even today the southwestern dialects (spoken in Brugge, Ostend, Roeselare) use a double negation. I think they would say Het en is nie ware instead of Het is niet waar in Standard Dutch".
In moderm German, the phrase es wird nie nicht zu Gold is grammatically possible, but most people would guess that it means it always becomes gold.
Portuguese has a double negation too (same as the ne...pas in French): Não diz nada
In Italian: Non sono mai a casa prima delle... (I'm not never at home before...).
Hope it's help. -- looxix 22:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
A couple of points: Firstly, the verb ignoro in Latin is a negative concept, but not a negative form of a verb, any more than the English word ignore is a negative form of some verb (maybe *nore?). Also, the French je ne vois rien isn't a double negative; if you take off the word rien, you have *je ne vois, ungrammatical by all accounts; therefore, rien must be part of the single negative ne...rien. They are derived historically from double negatives, but not anymore. Finally, to in English is a linking particle; the true infinitive is the naked, unaltered verb. It just happens that where English speakers use to go, for instance, French speakers would use the infinitive aller. If to + verb were a unit infinitive, you couldn't say to boldly go where no man has gone before! :) thefamouseccles 01:01 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In Ubykh, double negatives are bad grammar. The sentence Nobody did anything is rendered as tæt sya aynsjq'ama or a person did not do a thing. The structure's very similar to the French Personne n'a fait rien. But the emphatic negative suffix -bzra can appear with the plain negative prefix m(æ)- or suffix -ma: aysæmsjæbzran I definitely did not do it.

I can give an example of Afrikaans double negation: Ek praat nie Afrikaans nie (I do not speak Afrikaans). Booshank

Sentence moved from article for clarification:

There can be as many negations as the speaker wants, but typically, all of the words that can be negated are.

I have read this sentence eight times now, and I still have no idea what it means. Can somebody who understands it please re-write it? GrahamN 02:24 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Does "consistantly" = "constantly" or "consistently"? Whatever the meaning, I suspect the point I added about colloquial English is incorrect. Jfitzg

"Consistantly" = "consistently". Don't be stupid.
Is this meant to be a helpful comment? Or funny? Or insulting? AverageGuy 00:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From User talk:GrahamN:

About that translation: is "No-one's negligence anywhere ever to anyone in any way brought anything but unhappiness." correct? Nikola 07:05, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I'm in no position to say whether or not it is correct, as I have no knowledge of the Serbian language. But that form of words sounds very odd to a native English speaker like me, and it requires some deciphering to understand. Would you accept a simplified "meta-translation" of : Negligence brings nothing but unhappiness? GrahamN 14:38, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well yes, I just wanted to emphasize it so I added all possible adverbs.
Negligence brings nothing but unhappiness
No-one's negligence brought anything but unhappiness
No-one's negligence did ever brought anything but unhappiness
No-one's negligence did ever in any way brought anything but unhappiness
No-one's negligence did ever to anyone in any way brought anything but unhappiness
No-one's negligence did ever to anyone anywhere in any way brought anything but unhappiness
In English, all adverbs and the verb are in positive, in Serbian they are in negative. That's what I wanted to say. Nikola 04:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Surely a single negation in Serbian cannot be a grammatical error if there is only room for one negation? I quote from the article: "double negative is correct while single negative is grammatical error". While I don't know Serbian, the concept of a single negative being impossible strikes me as odd. For instance, wouldn't the translation of John cannot swim only contain one negative? thefamouseccles 23:03, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, actually, yes. But John never swims would contain two (literally John never non-swims). Double negative occurs only when both adverb(s) and verb are negated. Is it the same in English?
Please don't correct it before we agree on this. By the way, I think that the same applies to all Slavic languages.
Note that Je ne ment pas is not double negation as only one way of expressing negation occurs: only the werb is negated, albeit with two words. Nikola 04:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree with you. The negation in French is not a prefix and a suffix, but a circumfix. The fact that ne...pas, ne...guerre, ne..rien and ne...que all use the same first word is pretty much incidental; while these terms are all derived from historical double negatives (eg. Je ne fais rien I'm not doing anything is historically I (do) not do nothing), the construct in modern French is a single negative. (However, colloquial French is beginning to drop the ne at the beginning: J'ai pas bu le coca, I didn't drink the Coke. Might French end up with the double negative again?)
English only ever takes the one negative (except in AAVE and some other non-literary-standard varieties), regardless of adverbs or other terms in the sentence:
John swims. (positive; no negatives)
John does not swim. (single negative)
John never does not swim. (double negative >> "John swims all the time")
Gimme a break. That's so contrived, it's not even an English sentence. No one could ever possibly say that.
John swims for nobody. (single negative >> "John doesn't swim for anybody")
John never swims for nobody. (double negative >> "John always swims for somebody", but the prominence of AAVE in recent years means a lot of people would interpret this as an AAVE form meaning the same as "John swims for nobody").
More than two negatives gets impossible to parse for English-speakers, because we're only used to one (or sometimes two). Even AAVE speakers would have trouble with John never does not swim for nobody. thefamouseccles 23:58 08 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Because that's not even AAVE, no AAVE speaker would ever say that. It would more likely be "John don't never swim for nobody".


Sentences such as "I don't disagree" do not contain double negatives, but there seems to be some discussion of sentences like this in the article. Should it be removed? Cadr

I don't think it should be removed. As it does look like a double negative, it should rather be explained why it isn't and what it is. Nikola 11:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
I suppose the problem is that "double negative" isn't a technical term. But still, if "I don't disagree" is a double negative, then we'd have to say that double negatives are sometimes OK in standard English. My understanding is that "double negative" refers to the status of quantified variables under the scope of negation. For example, the contrast between "I didn't do anything" and "I didn't do nothing", where the logical structure of both sentences is something like this:
For all X, I didn't do X
The difference between a double and a single negative being that in the former, the X is also in a negative form. If there aren't any objections, I'll edit the article in a little while to focus on this sort of construction, and not to term constructions such as "I don't disagree" as double negatives. Cadr 22:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, but I'm quite certain that "I don't disagree" is not a double negative. Regarding your logical structure:
For all X, I didn't do X
For all X, I did no X
are one and the same thing. Double negative occurs when:
For all X, I didn't do no X
Now consider:
For all X, I didn't do X
For all X, I didn't do non-X
which are opposites. "I never disagree" and "I don't ever disagree" are single negatives; "I don't never disagree" is double negative. Nikola 07:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Nikola, that was what I was trying to say. Sorry if I didn't make it clear :) Cadr 14:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


I think this point needs some serious reconsideration, for these reasons:
a) I don’t know where it is said in some source text that something of the form ‘I don’t disagree’ is not a double negative.
b) It seems to me that it is a double negative – ‘disagree,’ both grammatically and logically, is simply the negation of ‘agree’ – the two are of opposite value, in grammar, regular speech and logic. The fact that the negations can be a prefix of a word seems to me to have no bearing upon the matter.
So unless this is some sort of citable rule of English, which I’m pretty sure it isn’t, I suggest the article should be changed to include double negations as part of standard English. In any case, why isn’t the bit in the article about them not being included in standard English un-sourced?
It seems like a bold claim and I’ve never heard that said anywhere else.
Fixbot (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Language

German had the double negative, too, but it disappeared almoust completely. In "Hochdeutsch" (the standard German language,) it is only possible to use it as characterisation of a special speaker, or to show "old" language. In Dialekts, however, it lives. If somebody uses a double negative form in standard German, it converts to a positive usually. Example: Ich habe niemals nicht schwimmen gekonnt. (word by word: "I have never not swimming was able": With double negative it means: I never could swim. But with logical negative, it means: I could swim from the beginning. A double negative becomes a kind of ambigous antagonymic sentence and is avoided. But there are some idioms and jokes using it: "Du bist nicht undumm" (you are not unsilly) Best regards --Hutschi 15:06, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the German part is removed. I do not agree to the reasons. (May be the removal itself was ok.)

1. No double negative? The Definition is: A double negative occurs when two or more ways to express 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. --- According to this definition, the examples are double negatives.

2. It is similar to English. That is true. If the international situation is included into the article, it should be mentioned, at least. It will not be possible to include all languages. May be, the article should include the situation in language groups.

German In the German language, the situation is similar to English. The double negative almoust disappeared in the standard language. It is available in the dialects.

In negative questions, however, a special form of the double negative is used:

"Kommst du nicht mit ins Kino?" (Won't you come into the cinema with us?"

If you answer: "Yes" or "No", it is ambigiuos, because of double negative.

The answer would be, for example:

"Nein, ich komme nicht mit ins Kino." (No, I will not come into the cinema with you."

"Ja, ich komme nicht mit ins Kino." is not used. It can be used as joke only. --Hutschi 08:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since the constructions are the same in both languages, and this is the English WIkipedia, let's talk about this in English. ;-) There is no double negative in the question: "Aren't you going to the cinema?" There is no double negative in the answer: "No, I'm not going". There is no double negative in the joke answer "Yes, I'm not going". There is no ambiguity in any of these. Markalexander100 09:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The ambiguity is in the answer Nein!" "No" with one word. The double negative removes the ambiguity. (logically, it is parallel, the other double negatives are serial.) This is a very special case. To the other question: May be, for German, it is enough to mention, that the situation is similar to English. One question: "Aren't you going to the cinema?" How would you ansewr with a single word to say Yes?, or to say No? -- In German, the answer for "Yes" is not "Ja!", but "Doch!" (you want to go there.) ("Doch" "Yes" is used as logical negation of the sentence.) --Hutschi 09:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you answer "no", there is ambiguity as to what you are negating. But there is only one negative. Markalexander100 09:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I want to thank you for your kind answer, Markalexander. But I have an additional question: There is the definition: A double negative occurs when two or more ways to express 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. This does not say anything about how the negatives are connected. Is this correct? --Hutschi 09:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The definition is not entirely accurate (few definitions are!). The sentence "I don't have any apples, nor do I have oranges." contains two ways to express negation, but there's no double negative (because they're negating different things). Markalexander100 01:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the definition is still valid for that sentence, as it is a Compound sentence. And yes, German examples are not double negation despite being ambiguous. Nikola 09:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit]  ?('not not A' means 'A')?

In the sentence I added a parenthetical remark, which I hope conveys the intention of "norm":

In many Slavic languages, double negation is the norm ('not not A' means 'not A')

Please fix it if I have it backward, as I could not understand the sentence as previously stated. Ancheta Wis 09:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) I think I figured it out; please correct my copyedit, if I still have it backward.


[edit] Removal of sections

The "golden rule" and "don't disagree" sections should not be included for two reasons. First, they are completely arbitrary and non-notable examples. Second, the "I don't in/un/ X" construction is not a double negative. Double negatives are where a quantificational element shows negative agreement within the scope of a negative operator (e.g. "I don't have no apples"). It is only this construction which is found in various dialects but is not found in (modern) standard English. See above for further discussion. Since the user who reverted my changes gave no explanation, I will delete these sections again after 24 hours if there is no response on this talk page. Cadr 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double negative form of the Golden Rule

The double negative form of the Golden Rule is well known, and has been for at least one thousand years. Ancheta Wis 09:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC). The article says 2500 years, from China and Persia, among others.

But it's not actually a double negative, as I explained above. And even if it was, it wouldn't have anything to do with double negatives as such, it would just be a random example undeserving of its own section. Cadr 09:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The Positive Form of the Golden Rule has had a consequence: the welfare systems of our civilization. The Double negative form of the Golden Rule is the philosophical basis for Laissez faire behavior. That is notable, with a non-random consequence. Ancheta Wis 10:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the article on double negatives. Cadr 11:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't disagree

It is useful to include the phrase because it translates into a double negative formulation as below:

  • "I don't..." <=> "I do not ...".
  • "I disagree" <=> "I do not agree".

Therefore "I don't disagree" <=> "I do not 'do not agree'.". Ancheta Wis 09:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There are of course two negations there, but the term "double negative" is usually used in a more restrictive sense, as I explained above. Cadr 09:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem is determining the topic. Call the topic A. Consider proposition P(A). A proposition about A. ~P(A) is a negative form. Now what about ~P( ~A)? It appears that you discard this possibility, as not obeying the definition ~~A. But not too many people think only A. They also think P(A), Q(A), etc. with A remaining as the topic. In what sense is P(A) random? Are we to separate all statements in the form of context-free grammars in this encyclopedia? In what sense does that differ from an dictionary, in that case? Ancheta Wis 10:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"Double negatives" in English are the quantificational phrases (e.g. "no apples") which show negative agreement because they are in the scope of a negative operator (e.g. "not"). Anything of the form ~~P is not a double negative in this sense. The article shouldn't have two sections devoted to random statements which happen to be of the logical form ~~P. Cadr 11:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
question for CADR -- since your username is a LISP instruction, you probably know the name for the type of parser which makes the string 'do not agree' equivalent to the stream of tokens: do not agree. It is a philosophical point which has made its way into the innards of computer programming. Ancheta Wis 09:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think one problem, which is not at all systematically addressed, is the problem of thinking 'A', but saying 'P(A)', and representing P(A) as A. Do you have any references or links to the problem to which I am referring? The only thing I can think of is name resolution. Ancheta Wis 10:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian examples

I just looked at two Serbian examples (I am a native speaker), and I couldn't really translate (n)either :) "No one's negligence didn't nowhere brought nothing but unhappiness" would translate to something like "Ničija nepažnja nigde nije donela ništa osim nesreće". However, "ničija nepažnja" (no one's negligence) is really not something you can hear in Serbian, and I can't fit any other pronoun there. "Nečija nepažnja" (someone's negligence) would make some more sense.

The other example is: "This is uncaused by nothing". "uncaused" would be translated as "neizazvano", so the sentence would be "Ovo je neizvazvano ničim", which is somewhat correct, but really sounds weird. I would probably say "ovo nije ničim izazvano", translating to: "this is not caused by nothing" (literally).

A good example would be (as I feel the first one really should be replaced... It took me good 10 minutes to make sense of it): "Niko nikada nigde ništa nije uradio" (Nobody never nowhere nothing didn't do. - Nobody ever did something somewhere). Of course, not something you hear every day, but still sounds natural.

Let me know what you people think, to possibly replace it. --dcabrilo 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] doch - a special word for "yes" when Question is negative

I miss a part about questions and answers: In many languages there is a special word for "yes", that you need when a question is negative and you wanna turn it into positive:

  • German, negative: Bist du nicht glücklich?-Doch
  • German, positive: Bist du glücklich?-Ja
  • French, negative: Tu n'es pas heureux?-Si
  • French, positive: Es tu heureux?-Oui
  • But not in English:
    • English, negative: Aren't you happy?-Yes
    • English, positive: Are you happy?-Yes
  • Argue in german:
    • A:Seid ihr glücklich?
    • B:Ja
    • C:Nein
    • B:Doch
    • C:Nein
    • B:Doch
  • In english:
    • A:Are you (two)happy?
    • B:Yes
    • C:No
    • B:Yes
    • C:No
    • B:Yes

I hope you can see how it works. If the last said thing is neutral(positive) you say ja. If the last statement is negative you say doch.

[edit] Double negative or not?

I am curious if this is a nonstandard double negative "a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control by the people of that state or country." Mrdthree 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC) a

  • republic
    • is
      • a state or country
        • that is led by
          • people
            • who
              • do not base
                • their political power on any principle
                  • beyond the control
                    • by the people
                      • of that state or country

I count one negative. Ancheta Wis 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) okMrdthree 05:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it could be a very non-standard double negative. ;) -- Sasuke Sarutobi 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Relativism

While I understand that this article tries to focus on linguistics, I think a clear statement about the logical problems that double negatives represent is needed. Any discipline of philosophical logic will conclude that two negatives resolves to a positive - this is one of the basic principles of formal logical techniques and cannot be relativized. Therefore I have some reservations e.g. with the sentence "These are strictly grammatical rules and have nothing to do with mathematics." — whether a positive interpretation of a double negative is mathematically incorrect is hardly the point, it contradicts the fundamental understanding of formal logic, established in over 2000 years of philosophy which is the foundation of basic human thinking. The common meaning of "We don't need no education." could never be correct in a strictly formal interpretation, regardless if grammatical rules deny, permit or demand it. Thus, I think the logical problems of double negatives should at least be addressed briefly. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another interpretation might be that this article is linguistic and rhetorical but not philosophical or logical.
Thus a statement about logic might be POV in the sense that it injects an agenda (For formal logic) into a discussion about language. I propose leaving out the agenda; it would be like discussing religion in an article about ants. A very similar point is raised in animal cognition; some apes can parse linguistic streams as long as it is in their self-interest; when self-interest is involved, logic goes out the window. --Ancheta Wis 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Two negatives don't necessarily resolve to a positive; "negative concord" can lead to triple and quadruple negatives that still don't resolve to a negative or positive. --Kjoonlee 07:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
To put it another way: quite simply, language isn't logic. --Kjoonlee 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

When people speak of "double negatives", they often confuse two different things. One is the logical truth value obtained when you negate a proposition twice -- this is a matter of logic. The other is the meaning assigned to a sentence with two negative particles, in a given language. While English (overall) interprets the two negative words as cancelling each other, as in formal logic, in many other languages the second negative word just reinforces and specifies the first one. No negation, in the logical sense, is implied by the presence of those two negative words. FilipeS 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Language is logic. Just not always the same logic as mathematics.

S=X*Y*Z => (-S)=(-X)*Y*Z -- that's in english. S=X+Y+Z => (-S)=(-X)+(-Y)+(-Z) - that's in russian. It's the very same logic as mathematic. Though as not an expert and not not a native speaker I doubt that examples in this article is even a double negative at all. For me double negative is "I don't disagree" (Я не несогласен) -- I mean all is upside-down.--Hepar 8 June 2007

As regards double negatives, I would say that its result depends on how the second negation modifies the first; negation of the negation, or emphasis of the negation.

If it negates the first, it produces a positive.

If it emphasises the first, it produces a negative. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Double negatives (or, more specifically litotes), can be used to serve a genuine grammatical which can be adequately represented logically, though. For example, the statement ‘he’s not unkind’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘he’s kind,’ because statement could just as easily be interpreted as ‘he’s only very mildly helpful’ or ‘he’s a tremendous benefactor.’ However the main grammatical aim in this case is to emphasise that, whatever the subject actually happens to be, it, at the very least, isn’t the negated subject. It is true that there are some logical systems (like propositional calculus) which can’t adequately symbolise such meanings, but that is just a weakness of the system and doesn’t make the grammar illogical.

Fixbot (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double negatives are not allowed in Spanish

In Spanish, double negatives are not allowed either; they simply function similarly to French negation (always single too). For example, "nadie" can mean "anyone" or "no-one", depending on the context.

Con respecto, creo que usted no entiende nada de lo que es la dupla negación. :-) FilipeS 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yo lo creo, también... —Nightstallion (?) 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for template

I forgot to add a message explaining the template. Basically, the article just needs checking for format, grammar, and punctuation. I intend to do it this weekend. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double negative in French

  • In recent years, incorrect double negatives have become increasingly common in a form very similar to English: J'ai pas rien vu ("I didn't see nothing"), whereas the correct form is Je n'ai rien vu or J'ai rien vu.

I've never heard someone using double negatives in French, but I live in Europe. "J'ai pas rien vu" sounds like something maybe young people in Quebec would say. Can someone confirm that? Robin22 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say "J'ai pas rien vu". I think it might be necessary to remove that from the article. And anyway if someone said that, it would be interpreted as saying the opposite. I'd interpret it to mean that the person saw something but doesn't want to admit it openly. I'm going to remove it from the article. Alessiasakura 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah Yeah

In the beginning, I could have sworn the phrase was "Yeah, right"..."Yeah, yeah" isn't a double positive being negative...in fact, I doubt it is a real phrase. However, it does have a cited source. Can anybody verify?

I remember Yeah, right as well. But the links to Sidney Morgenbesser at Columbia say Yeah yeah. --Ancheta Wis 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


'Yeah yeah' and 'Yeah right' are just emphatic. It's like saying 'yes, yes.' Or, for example, when I say 'No, no, no, no' to my toddler, I'm trying to reinforce my meaning, not creating a sequencing of cancelling negatives :) Fixbot (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff from the intro that doesn't belong

Maybe further down in the article or in a different article alltogether?

A famous linguist once made the further observation that it was unknown for a double positive ever to resolve to a negative. A skeptical voice came from the back of the lecture hall: "Yeah, yeah."[1]

This joke is attributed to late Prof. Sidney Morgenbesser of Columbia University. In Bulgarian the expression "Да-да" ("Yes-yes") is used to show disagreement with what has been said. The Portuguese expression Pois sim! (so yes!) has a similar meaning. Also the Spanish sí, sí... or the English, "Yeah, yeah, yeah..." to express dismissal.

[edit] The sub-section on Triple and quadruple negatives doesn't explain it.

It may have been discussed before, but there should at least be a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right. It makes no mention of the actual usage. It just lists examples (which are useless unless their meaning is explained). So for now, I've hidden it. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logic: Double negation

Should there be a separate article on double negation in logic? Double negation redirects here, and Double negation elimination has too restrictive subject matter. Yet the issues important to logicians, while related, are different from the issues important to linguists (which are here). —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double negative rule

An odd number of negatives = a negative (I didn't go to the store = The store he was not at -or- I didn't not not go to the store = The store I was at)

An even number is always a positive (I didn't not go to your house = I went to your house -or- I didn't not not not go to your house = I was not are your house)

Makes sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trav1085 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense, and would be good to include, but it's not always true. For example: "'No, no, no, no,' she moaned." Ain't nothing positive about that sentence. Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It also makes sense for those who were not native speakers, but who learned English as children. When my mom would ask me 'Aren't you going outside to play?', my logical answer was 'Yes'. Meaning 'Yes, I am not going outside to play'. Whereas most of the kids I knew would have answered 'No' (meaning 'I am not going outside to play'). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics and References?

This whole article needs serious revision. First of all, the entire section on English requires referencing - whose judgments are these? Double negation and the semantics thereof is a serious field of inquiry within Linguistics, and a LOT of papers claim that the "received" understanding of "I didn't see no one" in Standard English is "I saw someone." English is not canonically viewed as a negative concord language, so double negation should hypothetically resolve into a positive. That doesn't hold for all registers, of course - "I ain't never done nothing to nobody," means something like "I never did anything to anybody" - one negation. I have some free time coming up so I'd be willing, eventually, to put in the effort to rewrite and source some of this stuff, but as the article stands it's hardly trustworthy. 99.246.67.105 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadruple negative

Can someone come up with a long confusing quadruple negative or something silly, that I can use to bash noobs with whenever they use a double negative? -- Frap (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually tell people "don't never use no double negatives," although that's only a triple negative. PatrickLMT (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article contradicts itself logically

A litote may well be constituted by a double negative, indeed as mentioned in this article. It follows logically that as long as litotes (including the double negative variety) are a part of standard English (which they are), then double negatives can be used in standard English. So it appears to me the article seems a bit self-contradictory.

Anyway, who says double negatives aren’t part of standard English?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixbot (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I'd like to know what source says a) something utilising apostrophes, eg, of the form "it is not the case that he isn't such&such" is not a double negative (because if it is then that is at least one example of double negatives in standard English, though I can think of a variety of others); and b) double negatives aren't a part of standard English (which sounds absurd to me). I mean I could be wrong, but I'd like to see some proof of an outside source claiming this.
So I've added requests for citation in the article where it claims as much.
Brambinger (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Van Dyke

Is it a good idea to cite Dick Van Dyke as an example of colloquial British English? Apart from his awful attempt at the accent the style of speech is supposed to be Cockney. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] pink floyd

isn't this "no education" rather "no-education". more like a term composed of 2 words? could someone clarify it? 84.16.123.194 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irregardless

My least favorite of all double negatives, this word (and the dictionary defines it as a word) is quite common. Seems a disservice not to include it. Can someone add it? PatrickLMT (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)