The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
Seemingly from a transcript:
|. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
|It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
|So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
Seemingly from a transcript:
|. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
|It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
|So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
.
[not not] (used that way) is not usu. considered... a double-negative (iirc)
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
Seemingly from a transcript:
|. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
|It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
|So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
.
[not not] (used that way) is not usu. considered... a double-negative (iirc)
____________________________________________________________
From "Peter T. Daniels" (10 years ago)
A snippet of dialog from this evening's *Chicago Fire*:
^^^^^^^
Firefighter A: It isn't your job.
Firefighter B [feeling guilty about not telling a woman that he knew
that her husband had been killed in the tornado]: The hell it isn't.
^^^^^^^
I think "the hell" is more usually used to negate a positive?
------------ B is saying that he should have mentioned it.
Verily, in article <6a1b3a19.d57bf00d65e9d83a@csiph.com>, did HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh deliver unto us this message:
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
Seemingly from a transcript:
|. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
|It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
|So you're allowed to do that? You are not not allowed to do that.
[not not] (used that way) is not usu. considered... a
double-negative (iirc)
It's definitely a double negative. It's opposing "not allowed" and "not
not allowed."
For once HH is right. We use the label "double negative" for the
examples that teachers disapprove of, where
negative + negative --> even more negative
The example that Stefan cites, where the negatives follow the rules of >Boolean logic, might contain two negatives, but by convention that's not >called a "double negative".
1. I haven't never done that.--
2. I haven't left it undone.
My example 1 falls into the category of "double negative". Example 2 is >acceptable to a pedant, so we don't call it a double negative
Verily, in article <6a1b3a19.d57bf00d65e9d83a@csiph.com>, did HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh deliver unto us this message:
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
The meaning of "double negation" as in "We don't need no education"
often is negation. But recently I read an example where it seems to
be actually meant to be double negation in the logical sense:
Seemingly from a transcript:
|. . . The more important thing is what it doesn't say.
|It doesn't say you're not allowed to automate the kill chain.
|So you're allowed to do that?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 26:24:46 |
| Calls: | 1,195 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (9,491K bytes) |
| Messages: | 293,879 |