What is your opinion on double "negatives" in sentences?

[Prinzip]

See this:

Sentence 1: If I don't have X, then I won't do it.

Even better:

Sentence 1: I won't do it unless I don't have X

When turned into "positives":

Sentence 2: I'll do it when I have X.

For me, sentence one feels more complicated. So if possible, I believe people should write with as little negations as it's necessary to convey the meaning. And people often do, though there are exceptions I won't mention.

What do you think? Do you have any other examples of sentences that could be considered confusing than some counter-part either for you or for others?

[saranacX]

I aint got no opinion on that.

[Shade]

Morally I agree with you, but realistically it doesn't exist, if you are in a higher standing say money, job, career wise or politically the person who has the advantage will always dictate how things go, and usually their demands will be in a double negative.

[Prinzip]

Don't delete your posts if you don't want people to not understand what you meant.

If I didn't arrive on time, I wouldn't have done what I didn't want to do.

[Tonepoet]

The nasty attitude regarding double negatives is a misunderstanding of what Robert Lowth[en.wikisource.org] wrote in A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes[books.google.com]


It wasn't meant to be a prohibition, but a description of their operation

Two negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative[9]: as

"Nor did they not perceive the evil plight in which they were, or the fierce pains not feel."

His example was quoting John Milton. He would not admonish Milton.

This rule is most commonly observed through the use litotes[www.merriam-webster.com], which is a method to lessen the effect of a positive by expressing it in negative terms.

Webster describes the same rule in A Philosophical and Practical Grammer of the English Language[books.google.com], and uses the example "His manners are not inelegant", and notes that the manner of description means you are elegant, but only to a moderate degree.

In more common words, you might say somebody is "not a bad cook". The food they make is fine, but it might not be the finest dining you've ever experienced or even particularly praiseworthy.

Robert Lowth even gives examples to contrary usage, more along the lines of negative concord. I think negative concord, where multiple negatives are used for emphasis, is perhaps less proper, because if interpreted in accordance to the usual rule, there is a risk of misunderstanding and confusion. However, with that having been said, in cases of reduplication and/or of using negative interjections (which tend to be more or less syntactically isolated from the remainder of a sentence), such confusion is unlikely.

Few people are going to misunderstand "No, no, no, no!" as ultimately meaning "yes!", irrespective of how many nos are counted.


Anyway, Webster goes on to explain:

In popular language, two negatives are used for a negation, according to the practice of ancient Greeks and the modern French. This idiom was primative, and was retained in the Saxon; as "Oc se kining Peads ne rixade name while."—Sax. Chron. p. 33 And the king Padea did not reign none while—that is, not a long time. The learned, with a view to philosphical correctness have rejected the use of two negatives for one negation: but the expedience of the innovation may be questioned, for the change has not reached the great mass of the people, and probably never will reach them: it being nearly impossible, in my opinion, ever to change a usage which enters into the language of every cottage, every hour and almost every moment. Such usages are always regulated by tradition. The consequence is, we have two modes of speaking directly opposite to each other, but expressing the same thing. "He did not owe nothing," in vulgar language, and "he owed nothing," in the style of the learned, mean precisely the same thing. It makes no difference that men of letters denounce vulgar language, as incorrect—Language in a nation should be uniform: the same words should, among all classes of people, express the same ideas—and rash indeed is the innovator who attempts to change an idiom which has the stamp of authority of thousands of years—[for the idiom in question is certainly as old as the Greek language, which sprung from the Teutonic] and which is so incorporated into the language of common affairs, to render hopeless every effort towards a reformation. To create essential differences between the languages of polite and common life, is a serious evil. In this instance people have the primitive idiom: and if the Greeks, that polished nation, thought it fit to retain two negatives for a negation, in the most elegant languages ever formed, surely our men of letters might have been less fastidious about retaining them in the English. It is not expected that any change can now be effected in the practice of one class of people or the other: but these remarks are intended to suggest a salutary cation against indulging a spirit of innovation,under the pretext of forming what is supposed to be wrong.

---

Anyway, as a necessary aside, I despise the fact that people defame Lowth's name, regularly blaming him for sentiments he obviously never meant to express in order to discredit him as some ancient fuddy-duddy who didn't know what he was talking about and whose thoughts on the operations of English may thus be disregarded.

This is something you see expressed frequently.

For example, in the V.O.A. News Learning English article The Story of the Double Negative[learningenglish.voanews.com]:

It was Robert Lowth who decided the double negative had no place in English grammar. Robert Lowth was a leader in the Church of England. In 1762, he wrote a book called A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Mr. Lowth proposed many restrictions on English grammar, many of them inspired by Latin. Over the years, his rules became the standard for teaching grammar all over the English-speaking world.

This is an extraordinarily widespread myth that so-called descriptivists who likely never even read Lowth's work like to spread. People desperately need to learn to verify their sources of information, unless it is simply their intention to lie.

Yes, he wrote about double negatives in his book, but no, he did not mean to eradicate or prohibit them from the language, or at least not insofar as I have seen.

[WarHeRo]

I understand your point of view. But I dislike the idea of working with rewards.
aka. If it has to be done, it will be done.

[the vampire of time and memory]

words have power, the most appropriate way to phrase things depends on the context and what you're trying to achieve with those words

[Shade]

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

The nasty attitude regarding double negatives is a misunderstanding of what Robert Lowth wrote in A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical Notes[books.google.com]


It wasn't meant to be a prohibition, but a description of their operation

Two negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative[9]: as

"Nor did they not perceive the evil plight in which they were, or the fierce pains not feel."

His example was quoting John Milton. He would not admonish Milton.

This rule is most commonly observed through the use litotes[www.merriam-webster.com], which is a method to lessen the effect of a positive by expressing it in negative terms.

Webster describes the same rule in A Philosophical and Practical Grammer of the English Language[books.google.com], and uses the example "His manners are not inelegant", and notes that the manner of description means you are elegant, but only to a moderate degree.

In more common words, you might say somebody is "not a bad cook". The food they make is fine, but it might not be the finest dining you've ever experienced or even particularly praiseworthy.

Robert Lowth even gives examples to contrary usage, more along the lines of negative concord. I think negative concord, where multiple negatives are used for emphasis, is perhaps less proper, because if interpreted in accordance to the usual rule, there is a risk of misunderstanding and confusion. However, with that having been said, in cases of reduplication and/or of using negative interjections (which tend to be more or less syntactically isolated from the remainder of a sentence), such confusion is unlikely.

Few people are going to misunderstand "No, no, no, no!" as ultimately meaning "yes!", irrespective of how many nos are counted.


Anyway, Webster goes on to explain:

In popular language, two negatives are used for a negation, according to the practice of ancient Greeks and the modern French. This idiom was primative, and was retained in the Saxon; as "Oc se kining Peads ne rixade name while."—Sax. Chron. p. 33 And the king Padea did not reign none while—that is, not a long time. The learned, with a view to philosphical correctness have rejected the use of two negatives for one negation: but the expedience of the innovation may be questioned, for the change has not reached the great mass of the people, and probably never will reach them: it being nearly impossible, in my opinion, ever to change a usage which enters into the language of every cottage, every hour and almost every moment. Such usages are always regulated by tradition. The consequence is, we have two modes of speaking directly opposite to each other, but expressing the same thing. "He did not owe nothing," in vulgar language, and "he owed nothing," in the style of the learned, mean precisely the same thing. It makes no difference that men of letters denounce vulgar language, as incorrect—Language in a nation should be uniform: the same words should, among all classes of people, express the same ideas—and rash indeed is the innovator who attempts to change an idiom which has the stamp of authority of thousands of years—[for the idiom in question is certainly as old as the Greek language, which sprung from the Teutonic] and which is so incorporated into the language of common affairs, to render hopeless every effort towards a reformation. To create essential differences between the languages of polite and common life, is a serious evil. In this instance people have the primitive idiom: and if the Greeks, that polished nation, thought it fit to retain two negatives for a negation, in the most elegant languages ever formed, surely our men of letters might have been less fastidious about retaining them in the English. It is not expected that any change can now be effected in the practice of one class of people or the other: but these remarks are intended to suggest a salutary cation against indulging a spirit of innovation,under the pretext of forming what is supposed to be wrong.

---

Anyway, as a necessary aside, I despise the fact that people defame Lowth's name, regularly blaming him for sentiments he obviously never meant to express in order to discredit him as some ancient fuddy-duddy who didn't know what he was talking about and whose thoughts on the operations of English may thus be disregarded.

This is something you see expressed frequently

For example, in the V.O.A. News Learning English article The Story of the Double Negative[learningenglish.voanews.com]:

It was Robert Lowth who decided the double negative had no place in English grammar. Robert Lowth was a leader in the Church of England. In 1762, he wrote a book called A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Mr. Lowth proposed many restrictions on English grammar, many of them inspired by Latin. Over the years, his rules became the standard for teaching grammar all over the English-speaking world.

This is an extraordinarily widespread myth that so-called descriptivists who likely never even read Lowth's work like to spread. People desperately need to learn to verify their sources of information, unless it is simply their intention to lie.

Yes, he wrote about double negatives in his book, but no, he did not mean to eradicate or prohibit them from the language, or at least not insofar as I have seen.

I think your theory is very well thought out and has amazing points, but reality is reality, in negotiations if someone has an edge they will use it. Doesn't matter at which level.