Talk:Double negative

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Double negative article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The "I have no doubt..." example is incorrect.

The article describes the example sentence as having the verb "to doubt", but it doesn't. The word "doubt" here is being used as a noun.

Were it a verb, it'd be the "I have (never) not doubted..."

This completely breaks at least 2-3 paragraphs of the article. 2600:1004:B0B2:5D87:3445:9CE0:B615:D0CD (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot but

It seems to me that an expression like “can’t not” is awkward, in any register of English, in contrast with “cannot but”. To me, “cannot but” is a double negative which is unambiguously a strong positive. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would an example of that be?

Because for "can't not", it can be pretty simple. For example, "you can't not beat this game" means "you can't lose this game", probably because it's too easy or something. cogsan (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that constructions like "not today you're not" and "that isn't true I don't think" are not covered yet

I'm not a linguist, but none of the existing categories seem to describe these double negatives that are pretty common in informal American English (although I am not sure whether they're part of Standard English.) To my ear, they're not uniformly intensifying (in the case of adding "I don't think" to an already negative assertion I would argue it actually softens it.) Is there a word for them? Are they part of a particular variety of English? Are they worth mentioning in the article? 2003:FC:D71D:E9B8:1C99:148A:B611:D0E1 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled negatives?

This article uses "doubled negatives" instead of "double negative" three times. Which is correct? Ex in the intro: "In some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation." Should it actually be "...double negatives intensify the negation?" Is this a typo or was it intentional? DivineReality (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could at least say what the current rule is

I understand that grammar rules are ultimately an artificial construct. I understand that many dialects of English have negative concord. And I understand that racism and classism probably played a role in the decision to regard negative concord as bad English.

However, we can still mention what the current rule is. I think we should mention from the beginning that using double negatives to intend negative concord is considered bad English.

We can and should mention that these rules are ultimately artificial, and that their non-use by so many English-speakers renders the rules rather *arbitrary*. But it’s still okay to state what the rules ARE.

My 4th-grade English teacher taught us that double negatives are bad grammar (unless you’re using litotes or the like). Every English teacher has been saying that to their students for the last 150+ years.

We can and should mention that the rules are stupid, but it’s okay to say what those rules ARE - whether we like them or not.

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]