:: Re: [DNG] Historical note on double…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Rowland penny
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] Historical note on double negation.
On 24/12/2020 14:49, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:30:58AM +0100, aitor wrote:
>> On 24/12/20 10:23, aitor wrote:
>>> neither the mouse nor the keyboard didn't respond
>> Mmm..., this is a double denial. Neither the mouse nor the keyboard could
>> respond?
> Agreed. Happy to see neither..nor used. Sometimes that's the clearest way to
> say something.
>
> But I'd have said "neither the mouse nor the keyboard responded".

I would have just said 'the mouse nor the keyboard responded' or
'neither the mouse or the keyboard responded', no need for 'neither and
'nor'.
>
> This seems to be the prevailing English convention about double negation
> nowadays -- that a double negation is a positive.
>
> Historical note:
>
> But there's an older convention (which I've heard dates back to Old English
> and is common in other modern languages) where a double negation is used for
> emphasis.
>
> As in,
>
>     I ain't seen nothing!

Well it might be if "ain't" was a proper word, in fact, the whole
sentence is gibberish, I personally would say 'I didn't see anything'.
>
> This convention, which is perfectly understandable, was stamped out of
> educated usage bu grammarians who slammed their understanding of Latin grammar
> onto English which until than had a quite different grammer.
>
> Another such an example is
>     John and me went swimming.
> Here 'and' serves as a preposition.  Again, not Latin grammar.
> And this has led fo confusion, when students misunderstand the new
> Latin-inspired rules and start to treat 'and' as a preposition taking -- of
> all things -- the nominative and end up with
>     He gave the ball to John and I.

The problem is that there are millions of People who speak English
(which is not to be confused with what they speak in the USA), but there
only a relative few that try to make the rules and they keep trying to
change them.
>
> Long live the complexities of evolving languages!


Which only makes sense if they evolve in a sensible way 😂

Rowland