From Newsgroup: sci.lang


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.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

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."
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang


"HenHanna" <HenHanna@Posting.from.CsiPh> wrote:

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.

Did PTD have a point?

____________


Ross Clark says>>> The two "not"s in your second example are in
different clauses, so it is not an case of the "double negation"
famously disapproved of by school grammar.


[not not] (used that way) is not usu. considered... a
double-negative (iirc) in school English class...


--------- Teachers will differentiate between bad slang ("I
didn't see nobody") and intentional, sophisticated literary devices
called litotes. Litotes use a double negative to express an ironic understatement:

Example: "The test results were not ungenerous."


__________


(iirc... Conard uses this a lot)



(Conrad's Triple negative)

Conrad frequently wrote sentences where a negative verb, a
negative adverb, and an inherently negative adjective or noun all
collided in a single thought. You have to actively untangle the math to understand what he means.

Conrad's prose:

(fake Examle) "It was not impossible to believe he was not a savage.





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 31/05/26 06:41, The True Melissa wrote:

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
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On Sun, 31 May 2026 11:49:35 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

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".

I've always called it a double negative, one that follows the English
rule that a double negative is a positive.

But perhaps that's because in South Africa English is contrasted with Afrikaans, in which a double negative is a negative, as in the sign
that used to be diplayed in public transport vehicles:

Moenie spoeg nie.
Spitting is prohibited.

"Moenie spoeg nie" is literally "Must not spit not."

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

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 30/05/2026 23:41, The True Melissa wrote:

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?

Maybe. The queoted sentence doesn't say whether something else prohibits
the automation of the kill chain.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2