using double negatives and sentence structure
This is an extract from a book I am currently reading, the author escapes me at this minute, but i will update.
OFTEN IN ACTUAL LIFE, and not infrequently in the myths and the popular
tales, we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered;
for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests.
My question is in relation to the authors use of double negatives. For example he says, not infrequently. Is it better practice here to write frequently e.g.
OFTEN IN ACTUAL LIFE, and frequently in the myths and the popular tales,...
Or is this a question of style? What are people thoughts on this?
as per @Thomas Myron comment
BELOW IS FOR MY REFERENCE, ABOVE HERE IS MY QUESTION
There is probably more to this senctence than i am getting. If I break this whole sentence down further to try and understand it better
part1: this part could be written on its own
OFTEN IN ACTUAL LIFE, we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered;
for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests.
part 2: and this and not infrequently in the myths and the popular tales
So correct me if I am wrong but this is what he is saying in my own words:
Often in actual life and frequently in the myths and the popular tales,
we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered;
for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests.
So there is my words of what he says:
Often in actual life and frequently in the myths and the popular tales,
we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered;
for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests.
And then there is his way:
OFTEN IN ACTUAL LIFE, and not infrequently in the myths and the popular
tales, we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered;
for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests.
Would anyone care to comment on the difference and which one is better(or easier to understand). Is it just a different style? Or is it just me and my english is not the best i.e. I have to write it down more simpler? Would appreciae peoples thoughts. I mean is the author consciously doing this or
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/25339. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
not infrequently
is not a double negative, (ok, it might be) but it does convey an exact meaning, even in slightly convoluted way.
I don't have nothing
is a textbook double negative, where one part of the statement cancels the other one, basically leading to the exact opposite meaning: "I have something".
The use of former is the matter of style, the latter is grammatically wrong. Or semantically. Or just bad English.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25340. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Not infrequently is a double negative, and is therefore technically grammatically incorrect. Not is obviously the first negative. The prefix in- is considered to be negative, as it means not. The same holds true for similar prefixes, such as im- and un-.
That being said, a negative prefix is far less obvious than a whole negative word. Authors will sometimes use the style you have found. It is likely that the author you are reading is just trying to sound more eloquent by adding more words with more syllables. It's a matter of taste and personal style.
0 comment threads
English is not a programming language and negatives are not minus signs. They do not automatically cancel each other out. Double negatives are idioms and, depending on context, the second negative may cancel, weaken, or strengthen the first.
not infrequently is a case where the second negative weakens the first but does not cancel it out. not infrequently does not mean frequently, it means something between frequently and infrequently, so occasionally might be a good interpretation.
Compare this to a sentence like I am not unfamiliar with copyright law. Here the speaker is saying that they know something about copyright law, but they don't want to claim to be an expert. If you said, I am familiar with copyright law, that would imply that you are an expert. If you said I am unfamiliar with copyright law, that would imply that you knew nothing about it. I am not unfamiliar with copyright law means that I know a fair bit about it, but I don't claim to know all the ins and outs and details. It say, "I can give you general information, but don't mistake my word for professional advice.
But it can also be used ironically. If Mark Zuckerberg tells you that he is not unfamiliar with social media, he would of course mean that he is perhaps the world's greatest expert on the subject. Here the second negative not merely cancels the first but overshoots, emphasising the positive rather than the negative.
I don't have nothing is a common idiom (and in no way grammatically incorrect). It, and similar formulations, are a case of the second negative reinforcing the first. I don't have nothing may be semantically identical to I have nothing, but it has an additional emotional overtone, giving further emphasis to the speaker's destitution, and expressing their despair over it.
But this can also be to express disinterest or indifference to a subject. "What's your take on the decline of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives?" "I don't got nothing."
not infrequently in the myths and the popular tales is a case of the second negative softening the first. Therefore it very specifically does not mean that the call unanswered occurs frequently in the myths. It is, however, denying that that is is rare. In short, it is equivalent to occasionally. It is saying that a sufficient number of cases of it can be found to support the writer's point.
Another use of the the double negative can be to separate two meanings that might otherwise be read as one. For instance, I am not unappreciative of the party you threw for me means that the speaker appreciates that you thought of them and wanted to throw them a party, but that they did not enjoy the party itself and would rather you did not throw them one in the future. Compare this to I appreciated the party, which would imply I liked the party itself, and I did not appreciate the party which would imply that you are not grateful for the thought and the effort that went into it.
Double negatives, are, in short, and instrument of nuance.
They are never ungrammatical because they are a matter of semantics, not grammar. But their semantics is not that of simple or uniform negation.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads