Talk:double negative

litotes
These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
 * Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
 * Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
 * P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
 * We may disagree, but they are not out of place.
 * An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the first sentence at double negative to make it more like a real usage note, while still hinting at the "correctness" matter. The other material is commented out or moved to an Examples box. Is the Examples box useful? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the examples at litotes to an Examples box and added a double negative example.
 * Many linguistic and rhetorical entries exhibit inappropriate modality. The location that should be for usage examples of the word is instead used for illustrations of the phenomenon. Ruakh's recent provides a format for such things that eliminates, I think, the modal confusion. Many similar linguistic and rhetorical entries need to be appropriately modified. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks better --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Anecdote
Oxford philosopher of language J. L. Austin gave a lecture once in which he noted that there are many languages in which a double negative makes a positive. He also remarked that there were none in which a double positive makes a negative. Columbian philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser was sitting in the audience. Upon hearing this statement, he muttered, “Yeah, right.”

litotes
These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
 * Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
 * Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
 * P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
 * We may disagree, but they are not out of place.
 * An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the first sentence at double negative to make it more like a real usage note, while still hinting at the "correctness" matter. The other material is commented out or moved to an Examples box. Is the Examples box useful? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the examples at litotes to an Examples box and added a double negative example.
 * Many linguistic and rhetorical entries exhibit inappropriate modality. The location that should be for usage examples of the word is instead used for illustrations of the phenomenon. Ruakh's recent provides a format for such things that eliminates, I think, the modal confusion. Many similar linguistic and rhetorical entries need to be appropriately modified. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks better --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He nevere yet no vilaynie ne sayde
Current English translation please? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)