If I understand what arnie, RE, and BobHale are saying in another thread, British English (and perhaps American English for all I know, but not my ideolect) allow for a construction that takes an adjective that is part of a binary opposition, and allows the speaker to create another newer and more intermediate meaning. For example,

1. I am happy.
2. I am not unhappy.
3. I am unhappy. / I am not happy.

happy ------ not unhappy ------ unhappy / sad
(1) ------------ (2) ------------- (3)

Do I have that right? Is (2) closer to (3) or to (1)?

Too bad we don't have

4. I am not *unsad.

The phenomenon seems more rhetorical to me, and in fact, is called litotes (i.e., understatement).

This reminds me of an urban legend, a quip I've heard attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, when he was an student, attending a lecture given by Einstein: "What Herr Einstein is saying is not entirely stupid."

quote:

Do I have that right? Is (2) closer to (3) or to (1)?

I suspect that the "intensity" of 2 could vary according to context. Part of the beauty of the construction.

Before I started to use this board I had not realised how many subtle devices we use in UK English (I have spoken elsewhere about the use of the passive voice) that help us to use English creatively and to imbue our utterances with so many shades of meaning.

It has been said that the English make the best diplomats, and I suggest that this is not entirely unconnected with our habit of being significantly less than blatant when using our language.

There is often a sense that can best described as "grudging" in the use of litotes in these constructions. "He didn't do badly" means he did quite well, with overtones of "He did quite well for an idiot".

Similarly there is a sense of slight surprise in "I am not unhappy"; the implicit meaning is "despite everything, I am not annoyed".

(edited to make sense)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

quote:

It has been said that the English make the best diplomats, and I suggest that this is not entirely unconnected with our habit of being significantly less than blatant when using our language.

Did this example of British humour fly unnoticed past the eyes of our foreign readers?

Did it? I had seen the irony in Mr. English claiming English to be diplomatic, but I'd presumed that that irony was unconscious, and was too diplomatic to mention it.

I just figured it was another manifestation of his "everything British is best" syndrome.

Tinman

But everything British is best. Especially our modesty.

I hata having to explain a joke - or even humour - since this generally means that the comic effect just won't work.

Suffice it to say that the humour was in the style of the paragraph, not the content, as I am sure our British readers will have realised.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I hata having to explain a joke - or even humour - since this generally means that the comic effect just won't work.

Suffice it to say that the humour was in the style of the paragraph, not the content, as I am sure our British readers will have realised.

Indeed. Your manifest circumlocution was, as always, a joy to the more discerning and particular linguaphile. However, some singular nuances are, perhaps, not always readily apparent to the casual observer.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
But everything British is best. Especially our modesty.

I see Richard isn't the only one suffering from delusions of adequacy.

Tinman

quote:

It has been said that the English make the best diplomats, and I suggest that this is not entirely unconnected with our habit of being significantly less than blatant when using our language.

This is a "singular nuance?"

quote:

This is a "singular nuance?"

Very singular.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

This is a "singular nuance?"

Very singular.

Almost unique, in fact.

Oh, the irony of our British friends.