Talk:Double negative/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clause or sentence

The opening lines are confusing. "A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause. Typically, in English when two negatives are used in one sentence the negatives are expected to cancel each other out and thus produce the affirmative."

A clause is not a sentence, although a single clause can be a simple sentence. So which is it? We shouldn't be using clause and sentence interchangeably because they have two different meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZgokE (talk • contribs) 09:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They aren't being used interchangably, and both sentences are true. Could use a comma, though. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Misceallany

I'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 s^ya ayns^jq'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: aysæms^jæbzran 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

Clarification needed

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)

The first part is a tautology and the second part nonsense. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistancy

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)

Well, yknow, GIGO. (Of course, applies equally well both to OP and the reply.) -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Serbian translation

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 "no single negation" is an error

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.

He just did. Though you're right that the more natural way to express the idea is John never stops swimming.

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").

It really has very little to do with AAVE or its supposed prominence. It's simply informal/dialectal English both in Britain and throughout the South (of which dialect AAVE is simply a branch.) -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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".

"Not disagreeing"

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)

Fixbot is absolutely correct and Nikola & al. mistaken (probably due to lazy English teachers.) Double neg is a precise term and means precisely what it says: paired negatives, both of the standard (=weak pos) and dialectal (=emphatic neg) varieties. Fix'd and sourced. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the blanket assertion that these "double negatives" resolve to a positive. That doesn't reflect real world use. "I don't disagree" could be taken to mean "I don't disagree or (necessarily) agree." The use negates the negative but does not affirm the positive. It might reflect a neutral position.

Also, in contexts where the "double negative" is meant to negate, as opposed to an identical sentence (but not identically stressed one) that uses a negative as an intensifier, its purpose is very different. Saying "I didn't DO nothing" with the stress on "do" clearly and unambiguously uses the double negative as an intensifier. However, suppose a person says, "You have to do something. Do you think it's fine to do nothing?" A response of "I can't do NOTHING" doesn't mean "I can do something." It means "I have to do something." I can't think of examples where a double negative would truly negate terms in the way that is mentioned and commonly taught. It simply doesn't reflect real world usage and more closely resembles pedantic nonsense. Hagrinas (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

i would say "disagree" is a negative, hence "i don't disagree" is a double negative. however, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a negative. for instance, is "ugly" a negative? what about "unveil" or "disrobe"? "dislike" however, seems quite popularly accepted as a negative· Lygophile has spoken 00:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Definition of "Double Negative"

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)

If you look at the same article in the german wikipedia you´ll find a sentence with 5 negations that has actually quoted from a german law; so therfore German DOES have multiple negations and even some native speaker didn´t never not missunderstand nothing of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.117.80 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

?('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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

-- But that's not how it works in English. A negative question is commonly "affirmed" with "No." Aren't you coming?" "No [I'm not coming]." It depends on whether you use "affirm" to mean "answer in the affirmative" (i.e. positive version) or "affirm" in the sense of agreeing with the statement. In your example, the response would not be affirming that the person is not happy. "No, I'm not happy" would affirm it in the "confirm" sense of the word. Hagrinas (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The problem with that logic is that it incorrectly defines a term as a negative. Arguably it is a negative from a linguistic standpoint but not from a logical one. "We don't need no education" could be considered to mean "We don't need any education" in standard English. But "any" serves no logical function and works as an intensifier. Logically, it's no different in meaning from "We don't need education." In neither case is the intensifier necessary for the meaning of the statement. But it's not a question of whether the word is "positive" or "negative." Its use is pleonastic and it doesn't function as a negative as the statement is meant. From a philosophical standpoint, your argument fails due to the fallacy of equivocation.Hagrinas (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

It seems to me that you are the one not understanding. In that sentence, "nada" would properly be translated as "anything". Hence, not a double negative. In Spanish, there is no word that means "nothing". The only way to express the concept of nothing is to say "not anything"Heqwm2 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

At least some sources disagree with you. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

A bit late, but did some fixing. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not always. In my experience it's usually used, with a negative tone, as "yeah, yeah!" (meaning: 'whatever', 'I accept grudgingly' or 'I'm not interested') and "yeah right" (meaning: 'no' or 'no, I don't believe you'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.103.192 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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."

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.

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. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Need examples? Rapper Eminmen uses at least twice in an interview. That interview was later recut and the tripple negitives specifically pointed out by weird Al Yankovic, on his AL TV.

• "I don't owe no body in my family nothing.", Eminem
• "I don't believe no body can not swear.", EminemLarek (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, examples aren't needed. Explanations (backed by sources) are needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

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)

Done -- Double negation. Wvbailey (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

This rule only applies to the mathematical logic of mutiplication (-2 x -2= 4) whereas most non-standard English double negatives use the mathematical logic of addition (-2 + -2= -4) making the second (or third or fourth) negative increase the negativity of the statement. Your rule does not make sense insofar as it is never (as far as I can tell) the intended meaning of a double negative. A person claiming "I ain't gonna' do that" may not want to "do that." A person claiming "I ain't never gonna' do that" is intensifying their disapproval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.113.0.101 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, he's absolutely right for standard written English and people do sometimes even use it correctly and with that intent. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"...not noway nor nohow" gets you a little farther. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody never got nowhere with no double negatives - Deddly (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Fix'd and sourced. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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))

Nothing wrong with including _Mary Poppins_, but the character is "Bert." Dick van Dyke doubtless normally used SWE and his line readings aren't quotes of his speech. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's more of an oxymoron or self-contradiction, innit? -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Double positives causing a negative?

For example, "yeah, right!" -Esn (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that being sarcastic? -Nantucketnoon (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sure! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, no" ?

On the part about Brazilian portuguese, where the "Oh, no" comes from? Is that correct? I would have translated it without that "oh". If the portuguese phrase was somthing like "Ah, não, eu não vi nada não" perhaps I would have used the "oh" in the translation. But I'm not an expert in english, and I probably got tons of things I mess up with portuguese too.--TiagoTiago (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew

I removed the following discussion from the article page (Hebrew section):

The opposite view: The above assumes that the words שום and אף express negation. Checking in a dictionary as well as recalling expressions in which these words are not used as negations may show that actually in Hebrew there are no correct double negatives, at least not with the above examples.

The word שום means anything. The word אף means: also, too. Similar mistakes are made with additional words, not mentioned above. The word כלום means something, anything, a little of. The word מאומה means something.

To sum up: Words used with negations are often confused as being negations. - Elyada (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added that paragraph to the article, and I agree that it has no place in the body of the article, but I came to this article independently and made the same observation: all of the examples are cases of single negatives, where the opposite has happened: it has become colloquial to drop the first part of the phrase, and use the latter part as a negative, even though it is not one. The paragraph you removed sums it up pretty well.

Since none of the examples are cases of double negatives, I removed the Hebrew section entirely. JudahH (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a sidepoint, there is at least one occurrence of an apparent double negative in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 14:11), which is of course one of the primary sources of the modern Hebrew language, but this is very unusual, and also an example of quoted dialogue. JudahH (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And it is... ? :) -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I gave the verse above. A typical translation of the phrase in question is, "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die?" (from the New International Version, quoted at http://bible.cc/exodus/14-11.htm), but a literal translation of the phrase would be, "Was it for lack of no graves in Egypt?...", or perhaps more appropriately, "Ain't there no graves in Egypt?" JudahH (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When is a double negative not a double negative

Steven Pinker discussed this and his discussion needs to be added to the article. Don't have the book now, but basically 'ain't no good' is not a double negative. The 'no' is agreeing with the 'ain't'. In standard English this is done with the word 'any' 'aren't ANY good'. Thus you have the negative and the word agreeing with it. In standard English this is 'any' in many dialects this is 'no'. It is NOT a double negative. 85.179.156.60 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least approximate the title and page? If you can give a citation with page number that would be even better. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

'No' and 'ain't' are both Negative Polarity Items, so in fact this sentence technically contains a double negative. What Pinker is explaining is that this is not a problem because the varieties of English where such a construction is allowed do not follow the same "logical" rules as standard Englishes, and in such dialects all the NPIs in a sentence agree and form one overall negative. Lamb (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Pinker's point is the precise opposite of the (incorrect) definition currently given in this article. It's not a combination of two negatives (a "double negative"), which must necessarily occasion a watered-down positive. Rather, the second negative is being used as an intensifier. Otoh, the definition given in this article says only such negative intensifiers qualify as "double negatives." One imagines the original author had a very memorable, but not terribly well-educated, English teacher at some point in his life. -LlywelynII (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

double-negatives-make-a-positive rule

"The double-negatives-make-a-positive rule was first introduced in English when Bishop Robert Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes in 1762."

This sounds like a very unlikely claim. Languages don't general change to order, they evolve through usage. Perhaps this is meant to say 'first documented' or 'first codified'. As written is implies that no English speaker used double negatives as positives until *after* this work was written, then the idea was adopted by English speakers from this text. Like the man said, "I don't beleeeeve it!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.103.192 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's simply an incorrect way to phrase it, though the general point is right that the rule was brought over from Latin grammar with the rest of the don't-split-infinitives crowd. -LlywelynII (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd entry

The line "we don't need no education" isn't a double negative. It's simply that in colloquial English, "no" is often used instead of "any" i.e. it means "We don't need any education, we don't need any thought control" 81.20.49.81 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be replaced with an example from Wu Tang Clan - Wu Tang Clan ain't nuthin ta f' with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.35.244 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, that kind of dialectal usage is precisely a double negative. Some people/dictionaries may erroneously claim that is the only kind of double negative and exclude litotes from the term, but everyone (apart from you?) agrees that it includes that kind of colloquial renegation-as-intensified-negation. (And based on context, Pink Floyd was presumably not trying to make the point - either directly or ironically - that the children do in fact need an education, what with their poor grammar and all.) -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Error in Translation of 我不相信没人不来

The translation of the triple negative is wrong.

"我不相信没人不来": lit. "I don't believe nobody won't come.", meaning "I believe somebody will not come."

The sentence in Chinese should mean that "I believe that somebody will come." instead of "not" come. The sentence sounds most accurately as an expression of anger (or expression of negative sentiment) said for example when no one came to your art show in two hours' time. -BLX8 (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello BLX8, if you see a mistake, don't hesitate to make the correction yourself. That's what wikipedia is for. --McSly (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, "我不相信没人不来" do means I don't believe everyone will come.--刻意(Kèyì) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you've got characters in your screenname and I don't, but nope. At least among Shanghainese Mandarin speakers, it is used fairly commonly precisely as BLX8 did: to express that the speaker believes people/everyone will show. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

没有人不知道 a double negative?

"没有人不知道": lit. "Nobody doesn't know", meaning "Everybody does know!"

The direct translation is "Don't have people (who) not know" This is not really a double negative. It's phrasing. "Don't have (people who don't know)" It just doesn't hit the same brain patterns for emphasis as "Don't have no people who don't know"

Is this English sentence a double negative? "We don't have people who don't understand." It does not feel like one to me. It is a complex sentence that has two negatives, however I don't believe the simple fact of two negatives makes the sentence a double negative. A double negative adds emphasis to the negative. This —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.13.202 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor direct translation: 没有 here has the sense of the English "There exists/is."

And yes, "We don't have people who don't understanding" is a double negative, albeit the grammatically correct positive kind and not the dialectical "incorrect" kind intended by 3rd grade English teachers while admonishing their children not to use double negatives not noway nor nohow. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Many 'negatives' are not negative at all

Many so-called negative aren't negatives at all. Part of the confusion seems to stem from the mathematical concept of negative meaning less than zero whereas 'grammarians' but not linguists tend to confuse the grammar 'negative' in basic textbook use to mean the same thing. But this is simply not the case. 'No brothers/No Money' is not negative in the mathematical sense. It's zero. "I have no brothers" means "I have zero brothers".

So from jumping on the concept of what prescriptive grammarians do understand: 'two positives make a negative' and combining it with the misunderstanding of what a mathematical negative actually is we get the totally absurd "I don't have no money" = "I have money". In other words, trying to be clever but actually misunderstanding. I think this article would be better of looking at the concept of the double negative with reference to linguistics and the 'mistakes' by grammarians explained in a historical context.

Otherwise, it's like explaining the solar system based on the concept the earth at its center.

This article suffers throughout by give 'no + noun' as negative examples whereas they are 'zero'. The Pink Floyd example. "No education" is zero education. Part of the problem obviously is the inexact way negative is used in discourse, but not among linguists. Macgroover (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence (in this article or in general) that linguists or grammarians are confused by the mathematical meaning of "negative". Expressions such as don't have or no education are called "negative" because they involve (or can be interpreted as involving) logical negation. CapnPrep (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there obviously is confusion as 'no education' is 'zero education', and any logical multiplication by zero leads to a zero, yet "I don't have no education" is talked about as a double negative possibly leading to a logical positive which is simply not the case. Logical and mathematics clearly defines a negative and a zero as different, and negative and negation are not the same:

I don't have 10 dollars but I do have 100 dollars! (a joke)

I don't have 0 dollars, but I do have 3 dollars. (again)

I don't have 0 dollars even, I'm in debt.

I don't even have no money. (ditto)

The 'nots' here are negation in the logical sense. The bolds are quantities and in the last two cases 'zero', i.e. non-negative. Linguists understand the complexities of this, grammarians (as in mavens) it seems not, otherwise they wouldn't talk about Mick Jagger singing about a double negative when he's actually singing about a negation of a zero quantity.Macgroover (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Note that "I don't have ten dollars" is not synonymous with "I have negative ten dollars." The negation in "don't" is logical negation, which maps true → false and false → true, not mathematical negation (the additive inverse). In Standard English, because it lacks negative concord, "I don't have no money" = "it is not the case that I have no money" = "it is the case that I have some money" = "I have some money." It's not a common construction, but it certainly can arise naturally:

—You have have three kids and no money?

—What? I don't have three kids! And for that matter, I don't have no money, either; I've got plenty of money, just no cash!

(It's not even ambiguous in Standard English, except insofar as Standard English might borrow negative concord from some other forms of the language.)

Also, "no money" is not quite synonymous with "zero dollars", in that "I have X dollars" can mean either "I have exactly (or approximately) X dollars" or "I have at least X dollars" ("Hey, do you have twenty dollars I can borrow? I need to buy some gas" "Sure, I have twenty dollars"), whereas "I have no money" can only mean "I have exactly (or approximately) zero dollars", never "I have at least zero dollars." That is, "no money" is the linguistic expression of a logical negation (that of "some money" or "any money"), which is generally but not necessarily the same as the linguistic expression of a mathematical zero. —Ruakh_TALK 03:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all. You're misunderstanding the point. I'm taking the strict logical meaning of negating a zero quantity. Of course, this is not how we speak. The issue here is that grammar mavens take a mathematical rule (two positives make a negative) without realizing that a grammar negative "I can't get no satisfaction" is not a mathematical double negative anyway (no satisfaction = zero, i.e not negative). In other words, if you're going to be pedantic your pendaticism falls apart if it actually is not logical anyway. Macgroover (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things are completely unclear to me

In the Slavic languages section a paragraph starts:

The double negative is used in any case that pronouns are used with a negative construction, and is considered grammatically correct. Nie znam nikogo (literally I do not know nobody) means 'I do not know anybody; nic nie mam (literally I do not have nothing) means 'I have nothing'.

I have no idea what language is referred to here. There is no continuity from the preceding paragraph in which several languages are mentioned.

At the end of that section:

The English triple form of the words nay no not may have an IE origin.

I have no idea what that means or why it belongs in that section. Gr8white (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nie znam nikogo (literally I do not know nobody) means 'I do not know anybody'; nic nie mam' (literally I do not have nothing) means 'I have nothing'. Probably this is Polish, as the letters use the Latin alphabet. When I jammed it into Google translator I got something coherent back.

Thanks - my guess is you're correct about it being Polish, and it originally followed the previous sentence about Polish, then someone inserted the bit about Slovenian and someone else decided the paragraph was too long and started a new one. I didn't want to edit it without any knowledge of it but I may look at the history and see if I can figure it out.Gr8white (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess about the Polish was close - the sentence originally read "In Polish, the double negative is used...". Then someone inserted more text about Polish before it and removed the "In Polish" because it immediately followed and it was obvious. But someone later inserted the sentence about Slovenian and it was not so obvious. I edited it to make it clear it referred to Polish and also removed the incongruous sentence about English "triple forms".Gr8white (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IE is probably jargon for indo-european. It probably would have been better style to format the sentence: "The English triple form of the words 'nay', 'no', 'not' may have an indo-european origin". Hope this helped. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand IE to mean Indo-European but the sentence still makes no sense to me. What is meant by the English triple form of the words? And why would this be in a section about Slavic languages? Again I was hesitant to make any changes but I may remove the sentence altogether. Gr8white (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Double negative in Yiddish

It is not true that Afrikaans is the only standard West Germanic language with double negatives - Yiddish has them, too, in a manner similar to Afrikaans: Ikh hob nit kayn bukh, literally "I don't have no book", is the standard way of saying " I do not have a book". Aviad2001 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Yiddish is considered a standard West Germanic language or not, but if so you should find an appropriate citation and edit accordingly. Gr8white (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki thinks it is, though obv. it's a meld of German and Hebrew, so it's a somewhat moot point which one predominates. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a moot point, Yiddish is totally Germanic in structure and origin, the Hebrew element is just borrowed words with no more linguistic (as opposed to cultural) significance than that of English loans in modern German.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Double Negative Resolving to a Negative

What's it based on? can anybody find me the origin please, 'cos I have to write a paper on it. Thousand thanks, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.185.221.178 (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A little late for your paper, but you should look for a dictionary or other etymology resource. M-W.com gives 1830 something as the first mention of the neg + neg = NEG format being called a "double negative." Then again, it's an American resource.

Negative Concord

I'm a Polish native speaker (and also speak Russian) so my remark is based on Slavic section. I think negative concord should be separated as another section. As far as I feel in Slavic languages there is no such a thing like "double negation". In normal circumstances all parts of a sentence are negated like they were separate "points of view" or separate aspects of a situation. (Did anybody win? - No. Who won? - Nobody. What was won? - Nothing. etc.) Is negative concord true for really all Slavic languages? What other languages have it? What are more scientific observations of this aspect? How did it evolve? Is it related to other features of a language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.246.214 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, then what might 'Nie znam nikogo' mean to you? Do you agree with the meaning as stated above? I am not trying to be difficult; your answer affects your questions. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with you

Can this sentence means "I did not express my opinion," i.e. "I have not objecting you (and supporting you)."--刻意(Kèyì) 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. "I support you: I just haven't voiced my opinion yet" wouldn't be expressed using the word "disagree."

Here, the speaker is replying to a person who believes the speaker did disagree with him or is arguing a point in such a way the speaker has come to the conclusion the other person must feel the speaker disagrees with him (God, there's a unpleasant span of syntax.) The closest to your meaning would be something like "I haven't disagreed with you." (Conveying the sense "I haven't yet taken advantage of/had a chance to disagree with you.") -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese double negative

Chinese double negative sentences "sb.+差一点+没 (lit. almost + not, here "almost" serve as negation)+do sth" have ambiguity depend on the meaning of "do sth" and the speaking tone and the dialect of speakers.--刻意(Kèyì) 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, not really. "Almost" isn't actually a negative. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, normally Chinese doesn't use double negation to express emphasized negation. Personally I've never used (or seen) "没有没人不来" for "Nobody comes;" actually, that sentence sounds grammatically incorrect. Added [citation needed] to that part; will remove later if no one counters. Wyverald (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed 没有没人知道 as valid Chinese: possibly it's some unusual dialect, but much more likely author confused it with *有没有*没人 which is roughly 12million of the roughly 12.001m google hits for the term. Many of the rest appear to be split sentences or typos & myself & other Shanghainese can't vouch for its use. 没有没人 anything is just pretty bad (the 没人 is already short for 没有人 so it's doubling up something that shouldn't ever be.)

On the other hand, even despite its gloss on the Chinese wikipedia, 不认为没人不来 is understood — at least in Shanghai — to mean "I think everyone's coming" and not "I believe some people won't come." It doesn't fit the standard paradigm (double negatives are almost always litotes-style weak affirmatives in Chinese), so they have a hard time explaining why it works that way, but it seems to be an occasional looseness with 没人 similar to the Romance and dialectal English "nobody" for "anyone." -LlywelynII (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OR

I just removed a chunk of text that lacked a reference and appeared to be original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC) whether“差点儿没”（nearly+not)means positive or negative depends on speaker's wish.1.‘差点儿没买到票（买到票get the ticket)”the speaker wish he can get the ticket,thus this sentence means Positive.2.‘差点儿没被刀割到（被刀割到be cut by the blade)”the speaker doesn't want to be cut,so this sentence means negative,the same meaning as "差点儿被刀割到" dialects in chinese may have double negative resolving to a negative.such as in wenzhou dialect"断用“means useless,"无用”means useless,"断无用“also means useless;"晓否得”means don't know ,否晓否得also means don't know and highlight the negation.(用：use,无：no;断：not at all;晓：know;否：not；）i'm working on this ,anybody can tell me if they,especially the 否[晓(否得)] work in the same way as english or in other dialets in china? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 如风 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Context and culture

I'd say that a double negative can either emphasize negation or indicate a positive, depending on context.

Also, there are those frown upon using the double negative in English (my high school English teacher for one), because you ain't never supposed to mix colloquial English with formal prose.

It would help our readers if we would more clearly distinguish the contexts in which a double negative indicates a positive. In math, obviously "minus a minus" is a plus:

7 - (-4) = 7 + 4 = 11

This like the inverse of an inverse: e.g., five divided by a half

5 ÷ (1/2) = 5 × 2 = 10

And let's not shy away from the cultural divide between those who promote some sort of "standard English" in which a double negative must be avoided. Who are these people? When and where do they insist on this rule? Would our readers get an SAT English question wrong, if they didn't know about this rule?

Finally, in French, Spanish and in Korean I've seen a double negative used to emphasize negation. Ne ... pas and Ne ... jamais look like emphasis to me, and in Spanish No quiero nada means I do not want anything like colloquial I don't want nothing (emphasis). Also, there are adverbs in Korean which are only used with a negative.

Let's not shy away from the Point of View problem. Just be neutral by saying it depends on who's promoting what rule. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the lead:

It talks at the end about how double negatives can be a form of litotes, and then gives a SINGLE negative. "Bad" isn't grammatically a negative, it just has a meaning people associate with negativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

English: Is it non-standard use only?!

In section "Two or more negatives resolving to a negative" we see: "the non-standard use of a second negative", "normal part of the grammar of Southern American English, African American Vernacular English, and most British regional dialects" and "part of characterization, particularly to establish a speaker's lower-class". However, please, see motto of Glider Pilot Regiment: "Nihil est Impossibilis "Nothing is Impossible"". Is it speaker's lower-class? Sorry, I am not native English speaker, and I think this important example should be added to the article for readers like me. Also, how we have to write "Nihil est Impossibilis" in standard English? --Tim32 (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Your example comes under the category of "two negatives resolving to a positive", and is standard English usage. This means "nothing is impossible" has the same meaning as "everything is possible". My Latin is a little rusty, but I think you are correct in saying that "nihil est impossibilis" would be translated to "nothing is impossible" in standard English. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In that regard, I have just reverted an editor with an agenda. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Vormeph in keeping with WP:BRD, please reply by backing up your uncited edits with citations, and take your position to this talk page. The concepts of negative and positive concord are already in the article, and there is no need to stake out a position with redundant sentences. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ancheta Wis For some weird Reason people have a general hostility towards double-negatives. They fail to rationalise this hostility, and it is apparent throughout the entire article. We need to include both sides of the argument as to why double-negatives do exist in various contexts of the English language. My argument is that English does have a negative concord, and it would be silly to say that it doesn't. Generally, people already know this but simply deny it. When someone says: I'm not hungry no more to perhaps every native speaker of our tongue it means I'm not hungry anymore. Indeed, these two concords allow English to get the best of both worlds here and either usage is fine. Maybe here in Britain we're less formal in the way we converse; or perhaps it's just that I wasn't born in an elite that dictate how and what English should be appropriated as. Indeed, our language has the Liberty to evolve how it intends to; and at best any language deserves this. To imply that one paradigm of the English language deserves little place herein only prescribes hypocrisy on them due to the nature of our language. Most things we do converse through as to grammar and the lack of a gender would have been deemed rudimentary or 'slang' to those yonder generations long ago. Thus, I plead for a counterargument to exist in this article so that people of both native and foreign tongues know such a concord does exist, and that either are fine for use.

Moreover, need I remind you that French, Spanish, Italian and all other Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin which in our era today would be described as 'slang Latin'. Eventually, it's slang that does become popular simply because it's where evolution starts: not in books or scriptures. You talk of redundancy at me, and say that what I write is redundant, but that is not true in its slightest sense. I reserve that argument only to myself when I deem it so; and am thus unmoved by any deletion or undoing of my contributions to this article to present an unbiased view. In the meantime, I would search for works to cite (albeit difficult given the hostility towards double-negatives) which I shall include to back-up my points. Vormeph (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I await your citations with great interest. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Uralic section is uncited and inaccurate

Can't speak for Hungarian. But "Kukaan" in Finnish does not mean "no one", it literally translates to "anyone", as in, it can be used in negative and interrogatives but not in positives. Same for all the other forms ending in -kään/kaan. You can also ask "Onko kukaan täällä?" to mean "Is anyone here?" which is positive. "Kukaan ei soittanut minulle" literally translates to "anyone didn't call me", which happens to mean the same thing as "no one called me", which is a more effective and natural translation. To call this a "double negation" is like saying "I haven't seen anything." in English is a double negation where "anything" can only be used in a negative or interrogative sentence in lieu of "something" which is pretty much how kukaan and similar pronouns ending in -kään/kaan work in Finnish. Wouldn't be surprised if Hungarian used the same system. 81.204.20.107 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Doubt never

• I have no doubt never this sentence is false. (??)

To me this does not parse as a sentence, nor indeed pass as one.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

"Two or more negatives resolving to a negative" heavily biased, narrative

This section, and the fourth paragraph especially so (beginning with regardless), appears to be narrative rather than expository, and even uses several double negatives in the body of the paragraph itself, as if its being sly to be people who disapprove of double negatives. Does not seem very objective, and cites no sources.

"Two or more negatives resolving to a negative" heavily biased, narrative

This section, and the fourth paragraph especially so (beginning with regardless), appears to be narrative rather than expository, and even uses several double negatives in the body of the paragraph itself, as if its being sly to be people who disapprove of double negatives. Does not seem very objective, and cites no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.148.23 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions to the article herein

I have been given word of the dismay of certain individuals who do not like my contributions pertaining to double negatives and why they are relevant in the English language. I will start modifying these contributions to make them less opinionated and more cited. In the meantime, please do not attempt to remove the content as this can complicate matters further. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vormeph: Your unsourced opinion will continue to be removed per Wikipedia policies. Repeatedly adding unsourced material will just result in more warnings and eventually, blocks. Wikipedia:Verifiability is core policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for your input. I will ensure I observe Wikipedia's policies more closely.

Double negative means something new

"I can do it" (meaning that I have the ability to do it) obviously means something else than "I can not not do it." (meaning that I do not have the ability to not do it.) Droonkid (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Droonkid

so much idiocy

ok everything here is wrong. this article claims that Spanish and Italian have "negative concord", which is explained as a property of language where multiple negatives aren't used to negate eachother. however, the article Litotes quotes examples of negative negation in both Spanish and Italian, and as such, according to the definition of Negative Concord giving in THIS article, Spanish and Italian are not Negative Concord. so which is it?

it seems pretty much everything about double negatives on Wikipedia is retarded bullshit. unfortunately i don't speak Italian or Spanish, so i can't fix the error, i can only point it out.i may try to look into it, but i can't do much if i don't speak the language.· Lygophile has spoken 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Afrikaans

so how would you say in Afrikaans "he didn't know he would not be coming"?· Lygophile has spoken 00:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Does English have negative concord?

The article states, without providing a source:

English also has negative concord, although the usage whereof is controversial (see below).

Apart from the fact that this sentence is ungrammatical, it is not clear to me that it is true without further qualification. I tried to relativize this by replacing it by

It [i.e., negative concord] was present in Old English and Middle English, and several contemporary English dialects employ it, although the usage is controversial (see below).

Not only is this generally accepted as being true, but this formulation also provides some additional relevant specific information. To my surprise, however, this was reverted (without explanation). Is someone here on a mission to impose a particular point of view on the article, one that is by no means generally accepted, instead of neutrally reporting on all significant points of view?

Then I added a {{citation needed}} request to the statement in question. However, this was equally reverted by the same editor, this time with the rationale: "citation not required for grammar". Does our verifiability requirement have an exception for statements about grammar? That would be absurd. If that was the case I should be equally able to add the unreferenced statement that English has no negative concord. I don't want to start an edit war, but this is not right.  --Lambiam 16:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the user was claiming that you were asking for a citation because you said their sentence (rather than the content thereof) was not grammatical. Nonetheless, your edit was more informative and accurate than the one reverted to, so I hope it will be fixed. --GreyAlien502 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyAlien502 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that was the issue. My edit summary simply read: restore info about presence in Old English and Middle English without reference to grammaticality. The information was removed before by the same editor who reverted my edits, and whose user page stated at the time: "Currently I'm observing the Double Negative article and my objective is to eliminate the view that double negatives are non-standard English." So it appears to be more than a misunderstanding.  --Lambiam 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit it is hard to not start an edit war, but I believe the proper thing would be for anyone who disagrees with your edit to explain why here so we can come to a consensus as to what exactly should be in the introduction. GreyAlien502 02:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyAlien502 (talk • contribs)

This is a concrete and stabled fact regarding the said subject: English does have negative concord. It may not be socially agreeable, but it is grammatically possible - that is what counts. German and Latin do not have negative concord not because they're not socially acceptable, but because it's not grammatically feasible since that's not how the language was formulated nor interpreted. True, English has derived heavily from German and Latin, but what's important is that historically and presently English did have negative concord, still does have negative concord, and will continue to have negative concord in the future. You have my assurrances of that, and even if this entire article were to be robbed of a clear and concise argument based on that fact, then our language should also be erased from not even half its content and more aphorisms that lay and cannot be preached unless by the common speaker of the said language. As a common language, English has every right to evolve, and double negatives are indeed gaining ground because for too long people have been misled and miseducated into believing that double negatives are a form of 'non-standard English' or 'slang'. And then you look up an article on Wikipedia to find that some editor decided to make a point that double negatives exist in some forms of English, but not English as a whole. That doesn't make sense. It's like saying that a man is a woman while a woman isn't a man. It doesn't make no sense at all. The argument stands. I don't need to cite the fact English does have negative concord because it's pointless since by virtue English has negative concord otherwise we wouldn't have an entire article dedicated to Double negatives. Thank you very much, have a nice day. Vormeph 01:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

@Vormeph, It has been a year since my note awaiting your citations. Perhaps there are confounding issues which have impeded your search. For example, there is the issue of social stratification; in Spanish, there is an accepted double negative, so that bilingual English & Spanish-speakers flip from Spanish to English, with a double negative carried over wholesale to English during the code switching. Have you tried seeking citations for this thread of thought? It's a delicate issue because social acceptance of an individual's speech hinges on that individual's persona, accent, grammar, and perceived education, or perceived sympathy with the audience. Even the Pope has this problem, and the Pope knows it, and has attempted to redress it, for example by consulting with his English-speaking Cardinals.

Another avenue of investigation might be the Gini_coefficient_of_opportunity. I admit it's a stretch, but maybe you might find citations that way. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis I have added citations as many I could find regarding double negatives. It's astounding as to how much bias there is in sources against double negatives. I even cited quotes from well-known works that use double negatives. To say that English doesn't have negative concord when it's been used many times in the past and still is in use with the famous word "ain't" that clearly shows an understanding of double negatives to emphasise the negative clause, and not cancelling it out. And the fact people refuse to see this reality are only making themselves more comforted in their own worlds than reality. Double negatives are not non-standard English, not no more; they require a polite and matured use to ensure that people understand what is granted to be grammatically acceptable is distinguished from something socially acceptable. In English, the former has always stood and still stands today. With regards to the latter, I think the reputation of double negatives only is stained as it's been viewed as something disassociated from them. It's more a social stigma than a grammatical one. Just because most people think something grammatically correct isn't correct, doesn't mean a language is devoid of it. Since when did English belong to those who ought to know what ought to be right or wrong? Vormeph 11:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

The question is not what you, Vormeph, clearly see that "most people" refuse to see. That is irrelevant here. The only question is what reliable sources have to say on the issue. The broad statement that English has negative concord (as opposed to more specific statements that certain varieties or dialects of English have negative concord) is, as far as I can see, not supported by reliable sources.  --Lambiam 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lambiam Read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton and countless other authors; I have cited their works herein. Then, return to this page, my good fellow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Concluding yourself from English texts that the English language has certain grammatical features is original research. You cannot use such observations for claims about English grammar in a Wikipedia article. In order to support the claim that English has negative concord, you need to provide a reliable source on English grammar that basically states: "English has negative concord". You will not find that statement in the works of Shakespeare or Milton. And even if you find one, you should make clear that this is only one particular and actually somewhat rare point of view, since many other reliable sources clearly state that Standard English does not have negative concord.  --Lambiam 19:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't cite no sources to insult you, but your words give me authority to do so. At any rate, you should have to cite all the other languages too in order to prove that those languages also have negative concord. Persian has negative concord because.. it just does. English has negative concord because.. it just does. Boiling water is hot because it just is. Would it be counted as a source if I put my hand in boiling water and then to prove it's hot? Should I record people on the streets who use double negatives and that be sourced? Should I log this discussion so that you can see how foolish you are? I can't believe you would go to great lengths in order to 'prove' why common sense needs a citation. If anything, your words are without foundation. The argument still stands; double negatives have been used in works of many writers; that is undeniable and is not original research. Have you read their works by the way? Every rational individual should read at least one book in their lifetime! --Vormeph 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

I'd advise you not to put your hand in boiling water, because the result, however painful, would not be acceptable in Wikipedia as evidence for the hotness of boiling water. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Everything stated as a fact in Wikipedia has to be verifiable from a reliable source; please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to know what does count here as a reliable source, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You will see that your personal observations just don't cut it. Without such policies, I could as easily claim that the Earth is flat because.. it just is and maintain that this statement does not need a reference because it is common sense.
In fact, the examples you give of things that "just are" and therefore don't need a citation when challenged, inasmuch as they are true, can easily be supported by citations from reliable sources. For example, for negative concord in Persian, try this: Saera Kwak (2010). "Negation in Persian". Iranian Studies. 43 (5): 621–636. doi:10.1080/00210862.2010.518028.
If you want to write about the situation of negative concord in English, you might start with studying: William Labov (December 1972). "Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar". Language. 48 (4): 773–818. doi:10.2307/411989. You will then see that the situation is not nearly as simple as you appear to believe it is. Further recommended reading, with an interesting hypothesis on how negative concord was lost in Standard English: Amel Kallel (2011). The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Cambridge Scholars. ISBN 978-1-4438-2738-6.
So please abort your mission and stop pushing your personal view; that is not acceptable here. In Wikipedia, we stick with a neutral point of view. That is an official policy and not just some editorial recommendation.  --Lambiam 23:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Earth isn't flat; it's round: that's common sense. Since you've cited two sources for the following, why won't you utilise them and prove better? I am not even advocating a personal viewpoint; it's more neutral than you think. All content I appreciate is cited, and for what it's worth citations aren't always required in an introduction. I will continue to retract your useless edits until you come to reason. --Vormeph 01:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

Not in West Germanic languages?

The article presents it as a specific West Germanic trait not to have double negations. Well, English is a West Germanic language, so is Dutch, so is Lower German, so is German, and so is Afrikaans. English obviously does have double negation, as does Lower German, as does German, as does Afrikaans, as does (I've been told) Dutch (in its dialects). I don't know about Frisian. The fact that three of them (apart from Afrikaans and Lower German, which latter never built a real standard-language) have adopted omission of the double negation for their relatively recent standardizations-of-language may be significant in its own right, but a "common West Germanic trait" looks different to me, doesn't it?--2001:A61:219B:4601:B9F4:42BC:2B72:1D1C (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)