Talk:double positive

From an anecdote/joke

A linguist took a class at an American university, and explained that a double negative could make a positive, but there was no language in the world in which a double positive made a negative. A heckler replied bluntly "Yeah, right." --Keene 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RFD debate
This is a sort of joke entry, isn't it? Equinox ◑ 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to RfV. Jokiness had better not be a criterion for deletion. It would kill an important motivation to add entries and citations. IMO we need to see whether we can find more citations in support of the linguistic "double positive" concept that are uses not mentions. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of "double positive" being a linguistic term, as claimed in the entry. Linguistically it appears to be a SoP, as in this example:
 * A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." - A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right." Laurie Rozakis, A complete Idiot's Guide to Writing Well. I'd say delete --Hekaheka 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, the rationale of negative verification only applies to the RfV process. Claims of unsuccessful efforts of any number of contributors would not per se warrant deletion on the time frame of RfD. Nor does jokiness. RfV invites advocates of the entry to do some work, which both educates them and may improve Wiktionary by allowing us to have supported entries not covered by other dictionaries. Why rush to delete? DCDuring TALK 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree: for the definition we have ("phrase in which two positive words used together counteract to give a negative meaning"), RFV would be more appropriate. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone give an example of a double positive that's actually negative? --Hekaheka 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in that jokey sense in English. Or perhaps "Yes, yes" used as a brush-off actually meaning "No". It would seem to usually be at the level of pragmatics. The jokey sense seems designed to get people out of the box within which "double negatives" are forbidden.
 * I saw "double positive" used linguistically to refer to the grammar of imperatives in some language. "Double positive" is also used to mean "twice positive" or "doubly positive" in various contexts. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV per DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay WT:RFV, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion

 * Formerly listed at WT:RFD

If this is a specific grammatical term it should be kept. If not, and it doesn't have another idiomatic meaning, it won't pass the RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The quoted example is just a joke.  The words themselves emphasise the positive.  Only the tone and expression indicate irony.    D b f  i  r  s   11:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quoted example is a good illustration of the use of double negative: in the sense given. "Yeah, right" is not a good exemplification of "double negative." There is a for the purpose of showing linguistic phenomena denoted by the headword. We do need two more citations. And we could use some examples of specific double negatives. It would be largely accidental if the citations could include good examples. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that there is no such thing as a "double positive", so I don't think we are likely to find examples, but I agree we could use some examples of a double negative. "Yeah, right" is not an example of either, just a repeated positive with the possibility of irony in some usages.    D b f  i  r  s   06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reality of double positive is not germane. The attestability of "double positive" is. Because almost all of the numerous citations are of the single anecdote, I am not sure that they are independent. Otherwise any nonce with the good fortune to appear in a thrice-told tale would thereby be attested. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The reality of double positive is not germane": It's not germane to whether we keep the entry, but it's germane to whether we give examples of the phenomenon (using an –type approach). I think that's all meant. —Ruakh TALK 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Any thoughts about the "independence" of citations all of the same anecdote?

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 14:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)