Which of these sentences are confusing or unclear?

1. The refreshin' rain-drops will begin to fall without none of your help.

2. She had indeed but one regret — for Rosamond, who she thought would miss not having some one to whom she could speak of Mr. Verney.

3. Fanny looked on and listened, not unamused to observe the selfishness which, more or less disguised, seemed to govern them all.

4. I went and saw the Allen Brothers in a free concert... and I don't know nothing about bluegrass.

5. Indeed, I am not sure you have not a far clearer view of things.

6. I won't have nothing to do with those people, Houdini told his manager.

7. I have (I flatter myself) made no inconsiderable progress in her affections.

8. Progressive thinkers and activists need to consider the practical implications of these principles. Good people of the world cannot fail to ignore them.

9. NYC is the only US city where less than 50% of the households do not own a car.

Speaking for myself I think I can understand the intent of all of them but the following made me think because, in my mind, they say the opposite of what I think the writer meant and are not, as in some others, simply common idiomatic uses.

2, 8, 9

Additionally sentences 5 and 7 gave me pause but I think they mean what they say (or say what they mean).

3 is a very common British formation.


1,4 and 6 may be "logically" wrong but they are idiomatically common and perfectly clear.

I find #'s 1 & 9 confusing.

#8: the meaning seems clear, but I stumble a little, re-reading to make sure I have it right.

I love the old style of #'2 2 & 3. There is something leisurely in the pace, which helps to avoid misunderstanding. One of my favorite reading pastimes has been to mosey along with one of Henry James' half-page sentences, following the the subject and predicate through their circuits.

Which novels are they from, do you know?

I have little or no trouble following them all.

Was this list lifted from Language Log?

It's been asked "if one double negative is unclear, aren't they all unclear?" I will reveal where these quotes are from, and what kind of double negative each contains, in good time.

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

I ain't never confused.

For me, it is 5 and 8.

With 5, it is the "I am not sure," which expresses doubt, but not an absolute negative. So I am not sure whether the sentence means, "I'm sure you have a far clearer view of things," or "I'm not sure you have a far clearer view of things." I'm pretty sure it's the former, but still puzzled that it might be the latter.

With 8, it is the "cannot fail to" construction. It seems to me that if you delete the "fail to" that the sentence means what I think it means with the "fail to." So how does removing the second negative which creates the positive still leave me with a positive? Or have I got the wrong type of double negative?

All of the others make perfect sense to me.

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
I love the old style of #'2 2 & 3. There is something leisurely in the pace, which helps to avoid misunderstanding. One of my favorite reading pastimes has been to mosey along with one of Henry James' half-page sentences, following the the subject and predicate through their circuits.

Agreed.

Two's got to be an Austen. Not sure whether three is Fanny Hill or not!

It's been years since I've followed Henry James' subjects and predicates through their circuits. I suppose this would be a good test of brain deterioration!

WM

Bob correctly grouped the sentences by the kind of double negatives. Here are the details.

1. "…the refreshin' rain-drops will begin to fall without none of your help…"
Marietta Holley, "A Pleasure Exertion," in Mark Twain's Library of Humor, 1888, quoted in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage
This is type 2: negative concord.

2. She had indeed but one regret — for Rosamond, who she thought would miss not having some one to whom she could speak of Mr. Verney.
Elizabeth Missing Sewell, A Glimpse of the World, 1863, quoted on Language Log
This is type 3: overnegation. "Miss not" should be "miss".

3. Fanny looked on and listened, not unamused to observe the selfishness which, more or less disguised, seemed to govern them all.
Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814, quoted in MWDEU
type 1: two negatives making a weak affirmative. "not unamused" = "somewhat amused"

4. I went and saw the Allen Brothers in a free concert... and I don't know nothing about bluegrass.
Rick Stacey, quoted in Bluegrass Unlimited, July 1982, quoted in MWDEU
type 2: negative concord

5. Indeed, I am not sure you have not a far clearer view of things.
Alexander Woollcott, letter, 4 Dec 1917, quoted in MWDEU
type 1: weak affirmative. "I am somewhat sure you have a far clearer view of things."

6. I won't have nothing to do with those people, Houdini told his manager.
E.L. Doctorow, Ragtime, 1975, quoted in MWDEU
type 2: negative concord

7. "…I have (I flatter myself) made no inconsiderable progress in her affections…"
Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814, quoted in MWDEU
type 1: weak affirmative. "I have made some progress…"

8. Progressive thinkers and activists need to consider the practical implications of these principles. Good people of the world cannot fail to ignore them.
From Language Log.
type 3: overnegation. "Fail to ignore" shoud be "ignore".

9. NYC is the only US city where less than 50% of the households do not own a car.
From Language Log.
type 3: overnegation. It apparently should mean "NYC is the only US city where more than 50% of the households do not own a car." My head hurts thinking about this one.

I find overnegation (sentences 2, 8 and 9) confusing, but not always immediately confusing. Sometimes I grasp the intended meaning before I understand that there is one negation too many. It's like the presence or absence of the negation doesn't change the meaning. Here's another interesting one.

In my opinion, overnegation is a mistake. The writer of sentence #2 presumably meant to write "who she thought would miss having some one to whom she could speak of Mr. Verney." The writer of #8 presumably meant to write "Good people of the world cannot ignore them." Some people here did not notice the overnegation in #2 and #8 - and neither did I on first reading.

But the other two kinds of double negatives (3, 5, 7 and 1, 4, 6) are not mistakes. They can be confusing, but to me at least, they are usually much clearer and more straightforward than overnegations.

My intention was to show that there are different kinds of double negatives, and that they are not all equal in ease of comprehensibility. Whether or not I succeeded will be left as an excercise for the reader.

I purposely didn't respond because I didn't want to bias people. I was surprised that so many people were so certain about so many of these. The difficulty with unclear communication is that we often think we know what was meant when we don't.

So...and please be honest...in reading goofy's explanations did anyone misinterpret any of the sentences?

BTW, I have seen purposeful double negatives so that sometimes the sentence means just what it says...the logical interpretation. That really can throw you!

I understood all sentences,but I completely missed the error in #2 ("miss not having someone"). I had to re-read goofy's explanation before I realized I was ignoring the 'not'. Apparently the context makes the meaning clear (atleast for me), so my brain doesn't compute the error.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

8. Progressive thinkers and activists need to consider the practical implications of these principles. Good people of the world cannot fail to ignore them.
From Language Log.
type 3: overnegation. "Fail to ignore" shoud be "ignore".

I interpreted the sentence differently. I interpreted it as satirical sentence in which the writer was saying that principles propounded by "progressive thinkers and activists" are often impractical and that "good people" would ignore them ("cannot fail to ignore them") because of their impracticality. I looked up the article the quote came from and in context I could see it means what you say, but out of context I misinterpreted it. The article by Dharma Deva can be found here and here. The second is easier to read.

After looking at the article (I have not read all of it yet) I think "fail to ignore" should be changed to "fail to observe."

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
I understood all sentences,but I completely missed the error in #2 ("miss not having someone"). I had to re-read goofy's explanation before I realized I was ignoring the 'not'. Apparently the context makes the meaning clear (atleast for me), so my brain doesn't compute the error.

I missed the overnegation in the second example as well, but read it as I assume the author intended, without the "not". The eighth and ninth I had to read carefully to understand what was really meant.

In context, of course, we wouldn't be alerted to the issues with negation, so it's not unlikely that we'd read those incorrectly.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
So...and please be honest...in reading goofy's explanations did anyone misinterpret any of the sentences?

There were lots of misunderstandings, I would have been surprised if there weren't. But the sentences that caused the least confusion were the negative concord sentences (1, 4, 6).

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
BTW, I have seen purposeful double negatives so that sometimes the sentence means just what it says...the logical interpretation. That really can throw you!

That would by type 1, in sentences 3, 5 and 7.

Kalleh, you can of course still disagree with me. But hopefully the issues, exactly what we mean when we talk about "double negatives", are clearer now.

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

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
I find #'s 1 & 9 confusing.

Care to elaborate on why #1 was confusing?

Had I responded, I would have selected #1. It was confusing to me, though I likely would have understood it from the context. The sentence just sticking out there made me ponder for a time.

And for #7, that is a double negative to mean a positive, which really shows that a double negative can mean either a positive or a negative (5). I do agree that I'd have gotten #5 and 7, even though they are both double negatives and mean the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Had I responded, I would have selected #1. It was confusing to me, though I likely would have understood it from the context. The sentence just sticking out there made me ponder for a time.

So maybe it stuck out because it was the first sentence and came completely without context, he said, trying to explain it away.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
And for #7, that is a double negative to mean a positive, which really shows that a double negative can mean either a positive or a negative (5).

Yes, because there is more than one kind of double negative. And it's usually possible to determine which is which.

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

Kalleh--being honest:

I also missed the extra "not" in 2, but understood it fine.

I was flabbergasted that I missed the author of 3; I just re-read that one last year! No problem understanding what she was saying.

In number 5, my best guess at interpretation was the correct one, sort of, except that I did not translate the "I am not sure that" to mean "I am somewhat sure that."

7. Again with the Mansfield Park. I missed another Austen!

And I thought I understood 9 to mean that more than half of households don't own a car in NYC, but I am not sure why, as it said the opposite.

WM

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
In number 5, my best guess at interpretation was the correct one, sort of, except that I did not translate the "I am not sure that" to mean "I am somewhat sure that."

That was my interpretation, your mileage may vary.

quote:

And it's usually possible to determine which is which.

That's exactly why I don't like them...the key word is "usually." I agree that it is "usually," but "sometimes" they aren't possible to determine, as in our survey...or the examples above. If our survey isn't sent to the right people, the world won't fall apart, I suppose.

Oh, and I took #9 the way WM did. Why is it not that? I don't get it, except, I suppose, that logic tells you that many in NY don't own cars. Still that shouldn't be the decisive factor.

And here I vowed to stop arguing about this! Sorry. In the end, I suppose I "usually" agree with you about double negatives.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Oh, and I took #9 the way WM did. Why is it not that? I don't get it, except, I suppose, that logic tells you that many in NY don't own cars. Still that shouldn't be the decisive factor.

Because it's factually incorrect as written. I think it's safe to assume that most households in the US own a car. As it's written, it says that NYC is the only city where the majority of households own a car, and that's silly. Whoever wrote the sentence must have made a mistake and added one negative too many.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
And here I vowed to stop arguing about this! Sorry. In the end, I suppose I "usually" agree with you about double negatives.

Again, I don't think we're arguing. I like talking about double negatives! What started this thread was your question "If one double negative is not clear, aren't they all?" I was trying to show that no, not all double negatives are equal.

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

quote:

I was trying to show that no, not all double negatives are equal.

Okay, I can agree on that!

As for the NYC quote, if it was a mistake, fine; we all make mistakes. But if it was written because "it's safe to assume that most households in the US own a car," well then I don't agree. First, I am not sure how "safe" that assumption is (depending on your definition of "most"). But more importantly, it blurs the communication. That's what I find difficult about some double negatives.

It's interesting that some languages go through a process known as Jesperson's Cycle.

Old French used jeo ne dis, "I do not say".
Modern French uses je ne dis pas, where both ne and pas are negative elements, so the language uses negative concord.
Collquial French uses je dis pas, dropping the ne.

Other languages, including English and German, have gone through a similar development.

It's interesting that some languages go through a process known as Jesperson's Cycle.

Interesting.

Yes. Sorry about posting about it as well, zm! I had somehow overlooked your other post and spotted it only just now. I came back to this thread to link to your post and found you'd beaten me to it!

In July we will be 10 years old. It is interesting to me that Jesperson's Cycle hasn't come up earlier than this. I searched, though, and couldn't find that it had been mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
As for the NYC quote, if it was a mistake, fine; we all make mistakes. But if it was written because "it's safe to assume that most households in the US own a car," well then I don't agree. First, I am not sure how "safe" that assumption is (depending on your definition of "most").

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing about. I never said anything about why the sentence was written.

9. NYC is the only US city where less than 50% of the households do not own a car.

Sentence 9 has the same meaning as sentence 9a:

9a. NYC is the only US city where more than 50% of the households own a car.

And this sentence is clearly false, right?

Therefore, whoever wrote the sentence meant to write sentence 9b:

9b. NYC is the only US city where more than 50% of the households do not own a car.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
But more importantly, it blurs the communication. That's what I find difficult about some double negatives.

Which kind of double negative is the most confusing for you?

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

As long as the NYC statement was really an error, then I agree with you. It may not have been; it may have been a failed attempt at emphasis of a point, which is often the stated purpose of a double negative.

As to your question, I suppose the most misunderstood double negatives are the ones in your third category. My example of a situation that has befuddled everyone but the writers is from that category.

I’m reading Hatred, Ridicule or Contempt: A Book of Libel Cases by Joseph Dean (1933). In a libel trial involving Winston Churchill, a witness was asked:
Q: Do you read The Times?
A: It is not the sort of journal I abstain from reading.
Is that not a convoluted way of saying he reads it?
Or am I mistaken?

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
A: It is not the sort of journal I abstain from reading.

It looks like litotes to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
As long as the NYC statement was really an error, then I agree with you. It may not have been; it may have been a failed attempt at emphasis of a point, which is often the stated purpose of a double negative.

I don't understand. How can it not be a mistake?

Goofy, how can the example below not be an error...and yet it is considered correct (by some) and in that #3 category of yours:

This survey is:

NOT intended for associate members
_Yes
_No

Answering yes means that it is intended for associate members, and no means it's not. To me it is counter-intuitive, but I guess it's quite clear to some. People are different in how they interpret writing, and that's why I think double negatives should only be used with extreme caution, if at all.

In your NYC example, even though it's also counter-intuitive, some might think it right because it adds some emphasis that way. I don't agree that it does (I think it's just plain wrong), but not everyone thinks alike.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
I’m reading Hatred, Ridicule or Contempt: A Book of Libel Cases by Joseph Dean (1933). In a libel trial involving Winston Churchill, a witness was asked:
Q: Do you read The Times?
A: It is not the sort of journal I abstain from reading.
Is that not a convoluted way of saying he reads it?
Or am I mistaken?

It means he reads it - but it's not a journal he is particularly enamoured with. In UK English this is a common way of expressing a feeling that is not actually negative - but not very positive either.

quote:

Q: Do you read The Times?
A: It is not the sort of journal I abstain from reading.

The litotes could also be a form of sarcasm. At the time, the Times was the newspaper that everyone in the upper classes would read as a matter of course. By answering in that way the witness might be trying to say (without being overtly rude) "Of course I read it, you idiot, who doesn't?".

A misnegation today from the Seeing Red In China blog.

quote:

Similar stories have all been told before online, but none of them failed to draw the same amount of discussion as this single image.

Incidentally there is also a use of "flaunted" for "flouted".

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
In your NYC example, even though it's also counter-intuitive, some might think it right because it adds some emphasis that way. I don't agree that it does (I think it's just plain wrong), but not everyone thinks alike.

So you're saying that some people might think that sentence 9 is correct and that it means the same as sentence 9b? In other words, some people interpret overnegation as some sort of emphasis? I don't think so, I think that given a chance to reflect carefully, someone who wrote a sentence like 9 would realize it was wrong. But I don't have any evidence.

I've changed my mind, I don't think your survey example is an example of overnegation. The confusion is caused by the answer. "Yes" is ambiguous, it can mean "yes it is" or "yes it isn't". The same with "no". But there's only one negative in the sentence, so it's not overnegation.

If you answer it the way it was intended, it is over-negation and not logical. That is, you must delete the "not" in your mind before answering. To me, that's over-negation. And muddled thinking.

One negation where you mean to have none is, I suppose, still over-negation.

That is true, it can still be overnegation if there is only one negation. But

NOT intended for associate members
Yes, it is
No, it isn't

This makes sense. Whether it's logical or not is really irrelevant. I don't have to delete the NOT before answering. The NOT is not the problem. The problem is how the answer is interpreted, as I said. So I don't think it's overnegation.

Also, why is it supposed to contain a double negative? It doesn't. I suppose this sentence has a double negative:

No, it is not intended for associate members.

But I'm sure no one would think that was confusing.

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