Talk:Double negative

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Incorrect very first sentence in English section[edit]

"When two negatives are used in one sentence, the negatives are understood to cancel one another"

"If not X then not Y" is not the same as "if X then Y". That is two negatives used in one sentence that don't cancel each other. That's not even two independent clauses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9D00:D58B:8C23:6C0A:77F0:9A58 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK since English is negative concord because...[edit]

some dialects have this feature does this mean I can edit wiktionary to add "dumb" and "stupid" as synonyms to "ridiculously". I frequent websites that have many AAVE speakers and the phrases "stupid thick" and "dumb thick" are quite common. Also, many people all over the world use "infer" to mean "imply" and are understood. So, can they be synonyms? Yoga Conflagration (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You should ask your conscience that. If speakers refer a word through another meaning then it should be raised as thus. Vormeph (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Image used herein[edit]

Evrik, You've been summoned here to explain why you are insisting this image: file:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg at the blackboard in the opening sequence of Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder should be considered for inclusion within the article. Firstly, although the image refers to double negatives its opinion derives from a TV show which however comedic is not appropriate here. Vormeph (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been summoned? First of all, I restored the image. It should stay until this discussion is complete. Your comment actually is the justification for why the image should remain - the images is from a TV show and directly references a double negative. It takes a relatively dry subject and shows it's context in popular culture. By what standard do you think it is not appropriate? Please tell us. --evrik (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Evrik: There's a chance I might put up a picture of an ass on your page because I think it may be relevant; but that doesn't mean there's a correlation between the two, not that I know of at any rate. Conversely, you placing a picture of something you think is relevant is no pretext for you to insist that the subject whereof is relevant to the article. This article is specifically about double negatives not specifically at English but also in other languages. As the article should also be unbiased, a picture that condones or condemns such usage is best avoided. Ironically you've also archived a trove of topics which are about this matter; the fact you've moved them without having established a presence in this article is not only rude but extremely unwelcoming. You wouldn't move furniture when you're a guest at someone's house would ya? Vormeph (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to dignify that with a response. --evrik (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24-hours to forestall any further edit warring. The problem with File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg is that it doesn't have a particularly good non-free rationale at the moment. A free example could exist of just the blackboard writing, which would fall under the threshold of originality for copyrighting. I don't understand what Vormeph is complaining about exactly, though, and it doesn't appear to be anything with non-free rationales. If the reader's understanding of a topic is aided by a popular culture example that many will be instantly familiar with, great. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the edits made thus far. It's just that the picture of a Simpsons character was inappropriate to be placed beside an introduction and should best be under the 'Film and television' sub-section. That said, I look forward in cooperating with @Evrik: to see how the Double negative article can improve in content. Everyone is welcome to contribute, but randomly placing images can emit a wrong impression, especially when edits are made without referring to the talk page thereof; on that where the entire talk page is being archived without due regard for active discussions clearly indicated. Vormeph (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

French last example incorrect[edit]

This has evolved further, so that in French colloquial speech, ne is often left out, leaving pas to serve as the sole negating element: "Je sais pas" or "sais pas" mean "I don't know."

This is incorrect. "Je sais pas" is a langage mistake, not a colloquialism. I realize that the frontier between familiar language and mistakes is a gray zone, but "je sais pas" would be tagged as "incorrect language" (or "lazy language") and not familair. The colloquialism would be "Je n'sais pas", the first negation being present. It is equivalent to "I dunno" in English. I will remove the quoted section if there are no comments. Wsw70 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Wsw70 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, no. Colloquial French is what the French happen to say; and, believe me, this is Je sais pas (in this case, actually, usually "j'ais pas" or even "j'pas"). Leaving out the "ne" is no more unusual in spoken French than, in fact, using "dunno" for "don't know" in English (good example) or "gonna" for the future tense "going to" in American.--2001:A61:2085:9F01:FC0A:40A:BB4E:684B (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. People say or write all kind of things and they do not automatically become "colloqualisms". "T'as vu se film?" is incorrect not because of the "t'as vu" but because of the "se". The "se/ce" or "é/er" mistake is extremely frequent - whcih does not make it a smaller mistake. You mention "J'ais pas" as being used for "Je ne sais pas"? Where? My 47 years of being French do not agree. I have never heard "J'pas". "J'ai pas" could possibly mean "I do not have" (still incorrectly, though, but in widespread use) Wsw70 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree that "se" for "ce" is a mistake, and not a colloquialism. Why? because the s-sound in se and the c sound in ce actually are the same sound. Failure to write down the spoken thing as it ought to be written is simply a mistake; writing down something as it is spoken may be a colloquialism, especially if the thing is in so widespread use as "je sais pas" (as you yourself say on a related issue). It would be a clear mistake to write "je ne saie pa" or what not, even with the ne.
As for "j'ais pas", I heard something in between a "j'ais pas" and a "je pas" with markedly spoken schwa sound (unlike all the other schwas which tend to fall away in colloquial language even where they don't in standard French) in the department of Moselle and it definitely was an abbreviation for "je ne sais pas". "J'pas" was less frequent and more colloquial.--2001:A61:20CD:AA01:B96C:E846:2EEF:3AC9 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Note by the same: Why I wrote "j'ais", not "j'ai", is simply because we learnt in school that what is written "j'ai" without an -s (or an -e for e.g. the subjunctive) is, in standard French, spoken "jé" as opposed to "jè". (Of course, most French say "jè" though.)--2001:A61:260D:6E01:FD44:66FE:20FD:AB22 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Japanese might not be a good example[edit]

The article seems to indicate that Japanese normally uses double negative. This is not true. Normally Japanese does not use double negative. I believe there is only one grammatical construction in Japanese that could be considered double negative, which is when the word "keshite" (by no means) is used. It seems like exaggeration to include Japanese in the introduction. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)