| Title: | The Joy of Lex |
| Notice: | A Notes File even your grammar could love |
| Moderator: | THEBAY::SYSTEM |
| Created: | Fri Feb 28 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Mon Jun 02 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1192 |
| Total number of notes: | 42769 |
The other evening, my fiance Barbara, and I, were in her kitchen
when she received a phone call from Sandy, a mutual friend.
Sandy was a bit concerned that I hadn't called in a while, and
that perhaps the reason was that I was mad at her.
Barbara attempted to assure her that I wasn't mad, and that
was not the reason (if any) that I hadn't called in a while.
Barbara's first attempt came out like this:
"He didn't call you because he's mad at you"
We looked at each other and laughed as we realized that she
didn't mean that. She tried again:
"He didn't not call you because he's mad at you".
But if we collapse double negatives into a positive, this means:
"He called you because he's mad at you".
which isn't what is meant ! So this is an example of double negation
not equaling the positive !
This can get worse. For instance, if Sandy accused me of avoiding
her instead of "not calling", Barbara might have said:
"He wasn't avoiding you because he's mad at you".
That could be wrongly construed to mean
"He's mad at you, and therefore he's not avoiding you !"
Or it could be wrongly construed to mean
"He wasn't avoiding you because he's mad at you. It's
because of another reason that he's avoiding you !"
Has anyone else ever found themself in a similar communication
difficulty like this involving negatives?
/Eric
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 186.1 | Maybe you can check w/Evelyn Waugh & Joyce Kilmer | STAR::TOPAZ | Sun May 11 1986 13:44 | 10 | |
re .0:
> Has anyone else ever found themself in a similar communication
> difficulty like this...
If you can somehow find a way to overcome the inherent social problems
when you have a fiance named Barbara, I'm sure you'll find a solution
to the multiple-negative problem.
--Mr Topaz
| |||||
| 186.2 | Double negatives are a No-No! | APTECH::RSTONE | Thu May 29 1986 16:52 | 1 | |
| 186.3 | "not an unreasonably difficult task" | SIERRA::OSMAN | and silos to fill before I feep, and silos to fill before I feep | Wed Jun 11 1986 11:14 | 12 |
Another example of misleading double negative. Someone was suggesting
in a technical report that such-and-such
". . . is NOT an UNreasonably difficult task"
Are we to infer that it is therefore
". . . a REASONABLY DIFFICULT task ??"
and hence should not be done ?
/Eric
| |||||
| 186.4 | Reasonable vs. Unreasonable | APTECH::RSTONE | Wed Jun 11 1986 13:44 | 7 | |
Re: .3
If it is only _reasonably_ difficult, you could probably attempt
it if you were _reasonably_ skillful or adept. However, if it were
_UNreasonably_ difficult, you had better leave it for an expert.
Since it is NOT UNreasonably difficult, why not give it a try?
| |||||
| 186.5 | re: .4 | EVER::MCVAY | Pete McVay | Wed Jun 11 1986 23:22 | 1 |
Okay--let's not be unreasonable, then... | |||||
| 186.6 | Aren't we in total disagreement? | TOPDOC::SLOANE | Thu Jun 12 1986 11:08 | 5 | |
Enough already, yet!
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
-bs
| |||||