Question, question or two...
Dec. 28th, 2004 02:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Okay, because I'm a broken record. Two things seem to be a common (and pollable) theme in the recent angsty discussion.
1. "If language changes, eventually we'll have lots of incomprehensible languages instead of just one"
2. "Double negatives are confusing, because two negatives can make a positive".
Now, the first one is pretty much true. Look what happened to Latin, or to Chinese (now Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) However, the question isn't "is this true" but "do we care?". After all, in other places people *expect* to be multi-lingual, to know five or six languages. And we could always go the IAL route, have one auxlang that's not anybody's native language and let the rest of it all go its way.
The second one, I just don't believe. I don't think *anybody* has ever actually gotten confused when hearing a double negative. I know for a fact that it used to be an accepted part of the English language (which, yes, means that the educated classes said it) and that it's a required part of many other languages now. Edit: That's not true. I can certainly believe that *some* people have. However, I don't believe that any native speaker with normal language development has, and I'm fairly certain that most non-native speakers haven't, unless they had a well-meaning (but ill-informed) language instructer tell them that "In English two negatives are a positive", when the reality is "In English, two negatives are a negative, but this usage is considered to be uneducated".
So, poll!
[Poll #409457]
You all know my view by now, so it was hard for me to keep my bias out of this poll. My apologies.
Edit: Wow. I'm honestly surprised. I didn't expect *anybody* would pick "yes, recently, native speaker". Okay, I'm not too surprised with Moggy, because she's not typical I think, but the other (can't spell name gah)? I wasn't expecting that. I still think that my case still stands, most people are never gonna get confused by this usage after childhood. Keep voting, of course. I'm just chattering.
1. "If language changes, eventually we'll have lots of incomprehensible languages instead of just one"
2. "Double negatives are confusing, because two negatives can make a positive".
Now, the first one is pretty much true. Look what happened to Latin, or to Chinese (now Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) However, the question isn't "is this true" but "do we care?". After all, in other places people *expect* to be multi-lingual, to know five or six languages. And we could always go the IAL route, have one auxlang that's not anybody's native language and let the rest of it all go its way.
The second one, I just don't believe. I don't think *anybody* has ever actually gotten confused when hearing a double negative. I know for a fact that it used to be an accepted part of the English language (which, yes, means that the educated classes said it) and that it's a required part of many other languages now. Edit: That's not true. I can certainly believe that *some* people have. However, I don't believe that any native speaker with normal language development has, and I'm fairly certain that most non-native speakers haven't, unless they had a well-meaning (but ill-informed) language instructer tell them that "In English two negatives are a positive", when the reality is "In English, two negatives are a negative, but this usage is considered to be uneducated".
So, poll!
[Poll #409457]
You all know my view by now, so it was hard for me to keep my bias out of this poll. My apologies.
Edit: Wow. I'm honestly surprised. I didn't expect *anybody* would pick "yes, recently, native speaker". Okay, I'm not too surprised with Moggy, because she's not typical I think, but the other (can't spell name gah)? I wasn't expecting that. I still think that my case still stands, most people are never gonna get confused by this usage after childhood. Keep voting, of course. I'm just chattering.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 03:54 am (UTC)I think it's incredibly snobbish of me, but it depends on the ennunciation of the word "nothing". If it causes me to think the speaker means "I didn't do anything", I'll take it like that. If I believe they mean a negative, then I'll take that.
OK, in a general sentence with no context,
"I didn't do nothing" means "I did something", whether the emphasis is on either negative.
"I din' do nuffin'" means "I didn't do anything", and I wouldn't have any difficulty understanding it.
So context, including pronounciation is incredibly important. I need to make a judgement on the speaker to imply meaning.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 04:02 am (UTC)Except that, thinking about it, owt isn't nothing is it. It's anything (or more specifically, ought) hence "you don't get owt for nowt" (you don't get anything/ought for nothing/nought.)
Erm. Yeah. So my example completely doesn't add anything. I'll shut up now.
Oh, unless you count the interesting fact that if someone round here was to say it in standard English, they'd use the double negative and say "I didn't do nothing" but to say it dialectically/slangily they'd use a single negative, "I didn't do anything."
When people answer a negative with a negative I get confused, because I don't understand if they mean it to be a positive (as 'correctly' and mathematically it should be) or a negative.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 04:04 am (UTC)*bamf*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 05:01 am (UTC)You bamfed, whee! :0D
no subject
Date: 2004-12-28 04:09 am (UTC)