Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: What's with the double negative "not in...", "not un..."?
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:12 +0100
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <slrndd56kn.5fk.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <Misc-F2DF2B.07131011072005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net m28HPAHZxXVb7FKPjOtI2gWN0f1/ENSPs7DK61Gw8jYSZHxmE=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:866
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:12:57 GMT, Miss Elaine Eos
<Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> I think I first heard this form from Charles Schultz in a Peanuts
> cartoon (I believe Linus spoke it, but this is close to 40 yrs ago, so I
> may be mis-rembering), and it always sounded British to me, but I don't
> actually know if it's considered proper or not, and what the origin
> actually is.
Thomas Hardy (1840-1928) used a lot of double negatives. It's one
reason I am not a fan of his writing. I don't have examples to hand but
I am pretty sure that it was in use earlier (I'm thinking 17th-18th
century, I seem to remember that Jane Austen used the form).
> I refer here to the use of "not" before a word that is modified to be
> its own negative as with the prefix "in" or "un". For example, "it is
> not inconceivable that...", in a place where "it is conceivable that..."
> would work just as well.
There is a difference in emphasis. "It is conceivable that..." gives
the impression of a higher probability than "it is not inconceivable".
For instance:
It is possible that the bombs were planted by hippies.
It is not impossible that the bombs were planted by hippies.
In the first case the possibility is significantly above zero, whereas
in the second the implication is that while there is a possibility it is
very remote. If something is "impossible" then thre is no possibility
at all, so if it is "not impossible" then there is a possibility but it
could be vanishingly small. If something is declared as "possible" then
that is only a step down from "likely".
A more obvious example is "not unhappy":
I am unhappy
I am not happy
I am not unhappy
I am happy
In this case "not happy" and "not unhappy" occupy some middle ground
between being "unhappy" and being "happy".
I am not happy that you did that.
I am not unhappy that it turned out that way.
In the first, I'm not quite unhappy but I'm close to it. In the second
I'm not quite happy, it wasn't my preferred outcome, but I'm not unhappy
about it either.
The same can be used with "pleased" ("she was not displeased at the
results"), "like" and other words which have a large "grey area" between
positive and negative.
> The cynic in me sort-of half wonders if this practice began with someone
> who was either paid by the column-inch or a student admonished to fill 2
> whole pages. :)
The latter, while not impossible, is unlikely <g>.
> Maybe the reason is sounds British to me is that it seems to fit with
> the stereotype of understatement that is theirs.
I know people who regard the double negatives of that form as
'affected'.
> At any rate, does anyone know where this form originated, and whether or
> not it is considered proper?
It is considered to be not improper <g>. However, over use of the form
can be annoying to readers (as in Hardy, above). There are some words
where it doesn't make much sense, though:
not uncertain
not improbable
Chris C
|
|