Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Oh! Probably that extra 'it' is my own mistake. I didn't notice it.
But what I was looking for was changing 'never' into 'ever'. So, I was right.
Dick said
Also, what is the word this defines?
Well, it doesn't actually define a word. Just explains the idiom.
Thank you all!
RobertB said
Amazing how many problems can be packed into one short sentence! This is canned sardines, except not tasty.'else' is used to distinguish this, that. There is no point whatsoever for else to be in there.
'activity' cannot possibly be taking place or it would not be uncharted territory.
You are right about "else" being wrong, this would mean that the speaker has, himself, experienced it and therefore it would not be uncharted.
Territory can describe other than just land. Idiomatically "uncharted territory" can describe an activity.
This is the infamous double negative. The only use of a double negative in formal English would when they cancel each other out and make a positive. As in "No one in this room doesn't know what happened" (everyone does know). People do say "I don't have nothing" to mean "I don't have anything" but that gets the grammar police all upset.
Larrfirr, double negatives do not cancel each other out and they do not make a positive. If they do anything besides negate, they simply make something more emphatically or persuasively negative. Here's one source out of the many thousands that will tell you that: "A common, erroneous assumption is that the sentences are somehow illogical because they contain two negatives, and two negatives make a positive. While this is true in logic, it is not true in grammar. In, fact many languages of the world use double negatives to express negation."
PS: double negatives can be used as understatements or weak affirmatives, but as a specific kind of rhetorical device that appears in higher registers of English than the "he don't have no more money" kind of double negative.
Grant Barrett said PS: double negatives can be used as understatements or weak affirmatives, but as a specific kind of rhetorical device that appears in higher registers of English than the "he don't have no more money" kind of double negative.
The examples in that link is exactly the same kind as 'he don't have no more money.' The authors are using them to create a sense of verbal realism. Here's bits of that to make sure we are all looking at the same: We ain't had no breakfast... Harper's Weekly...
In speech, such dn's are as common as apple pie. But in writing, there can be only 3 possibilities: realism effects, comical or self-mocking effects, or that the writer is grievously uneducated.
Robert, you were looking at the wrong examples. The examples for the "weak affirmatives" are:
"Fanny looked on and listened, not unamused to observe the selfishness which, more or less disguised, seemed to govern them all."
"I have (I flatter myself) made no inconsiderable progress in her affections."
"Indeed, I am not sure you have not a far clear view of things."
And so forth. Those are clearly not in the same register as "he don't have no more money." There is one "weak affirmative" example that includes a quote of that type, but also includes the weak affirmative statement.
Did you read the entry I linked to? There are more legitimate reasons for a double negative than what you list. First and primarily is to "strengthen the negative idea" -- to emphasize the negativity rather than to cancel it out.
Rafee said, "Although I accept what you quoted, Grant, I also believe that we should conform to the common language laws, unless they change over time, which of course we should conform to the new ones."
Of course we should conform to good language practice for a specific cohort and context. I am simply pointing out that it is wrong — and has always been wrong — to unequivocally say that in language two negatives make a positive. There is no linguist at all — none — and no grammar expert (real ones, not the self-appointed solipsists) — none — who would disagree.
Among those, the 2 kinds represented here have no kinship or affinity whatsoever beyond that both are called double negative:
Fanny looked on and listened, not unamused to observe the selfishness which, more or less disguised, seemed to govern them all.
He don't have no more money.
The first is totally valid for speech and text, the 2nd strictly speech, or as speech simulation, comedy, etc.
larrfirr above contributes to the confusion with this, which should be perfectly good for text:
No one in this room doesn't know what happened
What about this one? I am not sure you have not a far clear view of things.
I wouldn't look to this one if I teach grade school children standard English, except perhaps as counter example. Apparently it means 'I do not think you have a clear view,' but it's wide open to mock interpretations, and to frowning and head shaking, and 'far clear' does not help as it hints at some expansive transcending mood not quite fit as role model for children learning standard English.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)