The peculiar case of the double negative in English

Around a year ago, I wrote a post deploring the use of negatives in English entitled Notty Tendencies . The main point was the use of negation to avoid being direct, i.e. such as saying such unappetizing food when you mean how bad it is. A year older and a year wiser, I wish to amend my remarks to say that there is an appropriate role for the double negative in English.

Most Latin-based languages expressed the negative by doubling it as in je ne said pas where the ne and pas are both negative markers. In fact, a lone ne in French does not expressive negativity but instead  inequality (see http://grammaire.reverso.net/3_1_40_ne_expletif.shtml). By contrast, in English, once is enough. It is acceptable to write I am neither hungry nor thirsty or I am not either hungry or thirsty but not I am not neither hungry nor thirsty. The reason for the rejection of the last one is that it includes two negative markers, not and neither/nor. So, double negatives do not make a negative in English but generally lead to frowns by English teachers and editors.

However, they sometimes create a neutral quality. To demonstrate, look at the following sentences:

a     .      The mask is not uncomfortable.

b     .      The girl is not unattractive.

c      .       The chap is not unpleasant.

In all three cases, there is a double negation, specifically the word not and the prefix un.  The justification for the apparent redundancy is the intended meaning. The writer does not wish to say that the mask is a pleasure, the girl is pretty and the man is charming. Instead, the implications are that the mask is tolerable to wear, the girl should be able to find a date for the prom and the man does have some social skills and uses deodorant. In these cases, the doubling most peculiarly creates moderation of the base adjective, i.e., comfortable, attractive and pleasant.

To a native speaker, this subtlety is obvious. However, foreigners can easily misinterpret the intent of the speaker or writer. Learning a foreign language is truly peeling an onion: there is always another layer to grasp and apply. On that note, it would not be unwise to stop, excuse me, advisable, to stop and let you consider the strange case of the double negative (neither with a barking dog nor written by Mr. Arthur Conan Doyle).

Notty Tendencies

Language and culture influence each other strongly. For example, formal English society tends to be rather formal and evasive. Thus, there is a rather common tendency to understate matters when speaking.  Some of the common techniques involve not, un, in, double negatives, a bit and its modern cousin, challenged.

Being direct  would create an uncomfortable amount of tension.  So, one solution is using the opposite word preceded by the word not. It is clear that the phase it is not a good time means you should get out of here. Likewise, if something is not a good idea, it is rather stupid in fact.  For that matter, if someone not looking her/her best looks awful really.  You are simply not allowed, that is to say forbidden, to say exactly what you want.

We cannot forget that confusing preposition in when it means not and not in. (Now that is an unclear sentence.) An inconsiderate remarking is rude while an inopportune time stinks. For that matter, inappropriate behavior means that you are acting like an ass while if someone says you are just impossible, it does not mean that you cannot exist but instead he doesn't know what to do with you.

Un can be just as indirect. An action that is unthinkable, truly horrid, is quite feasible in thought but completely unsocial and unacceptable, i.e., rude. For that matter, crude unsavory thoughts about an attractive female in the office would be, alas, unbecoming, actually quite wrong, meaning you can get fired for sexual harassment, to say the least, if she is unwilling, or if that refuses, to cooperate. In this matter, unassuming has nothing to do with your assessment of the situation and all to do with your uniqueness, meaning completely ordinary.

Of course, a person can double down the negative, creating complete downsizing.  If the gift is not inexpensive, it cost a pretty penny. People are quite aware of a problem that is not unknown.  A woman who is not bad looking is pretty.

For understatement, sometimes a bit means a lot, so to speak. If the weather is a bit chilly, most adults are wearing a warm sweater. If the date is a bit overweight, she's better have a good personality. If you receive a text message from a friend saying that s/he will be a bit late, you have plenty of time to check Face book. People with limited budgets should stay away from restaurants that are a bit expensive.

Finally, in our increasingly politically correct words, people don't have problems. They are challenged. Dumb people are intellectually challenged while short people are vertically challenged. A klutz is physically-challenged. I myself am highly follicly challenged, almost bald you might say.

If all this sounds a bit Orwellian, from 1984, I would agree. We all need to be more aware of our language and say what we mean more often. In other words, be naughty, not notty!

Plus ca change .....

During my family visit, I read an interesting book by Guy Deutscher The Unfolding of Language, published in 2005.  It discusses the development of language structure and vocabulary.

Among its premises, it states that languages are in a constant state of destruction and reformation.  He uses examples from countless languages, including English, French, and Hebrew.

The French examples were very interesting.  I learned that the double negative, ne … pas, is actually the banalization of an attempt to emphasize the negative.  Previously, the participle ne by itself signified the negative.  To add emphasize, people added terms like step or point, i.e. ne pas and ne point.  Overtime, people, the exception became the norm such that nobody remembers the single negative in French.

Another fascinating point was the evolution of the latin term illo, meaning there yonder.  It is a basic marking word representing the third degree to this and that.  Over generations, it evolved into two important words: the (le and il in French and Italian) and he (il in French).  If a speaker used in as a subject like in “There is a large tiger”, il represented the third degree of distance after I and you.  On the other hand, in the sentence, I kllled that tiger, the one over there, the could be used, dropping the unused sounds.

Finally, the origin of the French future endings was illuminated.  They copy the forms of the verb to have in French and not accidentilly.  The verb “to have” has the sense of causing something to happen.  So, if you make occur, it implies something will happen in the future.

This is only a small sample of enlightening tidbits and explanations provided by this book.   I now view the classic Parisian slang, “Je'en sais pas” not as poor French but natural development.  I recommend this book all those who love speaking and understanding languages.