Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Negatives
- Thread starter AuG
- Start date
Alvaro Martín Gómez A. said:
I think that has something to do with them saying they don't need no education; they're not educated. I dunno. That's what I got out of it.
What really bothers me, even more than double negatives (and believe me, I cringe every time I hear someone use a double negative) is axe instead of ask. I just can't not (heheh) think of them chopping someone with an axe when they say it.
Mole said:
Clearly, that's just it; they could use some.
"we don't need an education" would have worked rhythmically just as well. It was chosen to convey exactly what it does.
i belive you are refering to "standard english", this is ofen seen as the "correct" way to speak, this is not nessaerily the case, standard english is bassed upon the language used by early radio shows which were originaly all transmitted from places in london, this then became the standard. this failed to take into account many accents. since the introduction of television and radio, and the internet, there has been a new force in forming the way we speak, this is called "language leveling", this is where all influcences tend to dull down accents, for example, many people dont speak "standard english", now american language influences a lot of language becouse of the media..... im tired im genna give up on this sure someone can take this somewhere
Basshole said:Enh...the English suck too. I used to think just Americans were illiterate. Then I spent some time on a British forum. They suck too.
I once E-mailed a well known British Internet Grammarian regarding "an historic"...a usage that has begun to peeve me like few others ("an" should be used before words beginning with a vowel sound). He replied that this usage was not all that wrong, and that in fact, he might even be caught saying "an hotel", since Brits often don't enunciate their H's at all.
All in all, it was an horrifying experience
The form an for the indefinite article is used before a spoken vowel sound, regardless of how the written word is spelt. If you say 'an otel' when speaking (which is now often regarded as distinctly old-fashioned), then it may be appropriate for you to write 'an hotel'; but most people say 'hotel' with a sounded 'h', and should write 'a hotel'.
By contrast, words such as 'honour', 'heir' or 'hour' in which the 'h' sound is dropped are written with 'an'. Americans who drop the 'h' in 'herb' may also prefer to write 'an herb', but in standard British pronunciation the 'h' is sounded, and 'a herb' is therefore correct in writing. Because 'European' is said with an initial 'y' sound, which counts as a consonantal sound in English speech, it is said (and written) with 'a' not 'an'. An abbreviation such as M.P., which is pronounced em pea, begins with a spoken vowel, and so it is 'an M.P.'
applerocks said:
I agree fully - hence my peeve with "an historic", which seems to have found favor with ******** American newscasters everywhere...
A fine example of home grown Derbyshire illiteracy, right there! Well done for stepping in and showing we can still compete! I counted 21 spelling errors, and I'm not even going to start on the grammar, punctuation and syntax.kitcar765 said:
petary91 said:
I think that means "I do owe somebody in my family nothing". So presumably everybody else in the family is owed something? Damn, these triple negatives are hard!!
I don't see why some people are bothered when others don't speak "proper English." Languages evolve. I know that's the same excuse that every moron who can't figure out how to operate a dictionary makes when they screw up, but it actually applies in this case. Take it from me, Paul of the impeccable English: when a phrase is assimilated into the language, it's no longer wrong. Making an error because your language skills are sub-par is stupid. Using a phrase because it's accepted English amongst everyone but the snobbiest of snobs is not. What's wrong with speaking the language you were raised speaking, even if it includes double negatives and pronunciations that aren't in the dictionary?
How many mistakes do you count in the above paragraph? Not very many. I can speak and write English well, but does that stop me from using slang and colloquialisms? Of course not! I even make words up when I feel like it. I'm secure enough with my linguistic skill to talk how I want without shame. Language is my tool and not my master. Are you going to call me an idiot too when I choose not to talk proper?
How many mistakes do you count in the above paragraph? Not very many. I can speak and write English well, but does that stop me from using slang and colloquialisms? Of course not! I even make words up when I feel like it. I'm secure enough with my linguistic skill to talk how I want without shame. Language is my tool and not my master. Are you going to call me an idiot too when I choose not to talk proper?
I agree with you, Paul, in the main. I particularly think you're right with this bit:
As you correctly point out, language should be your tool, not your master. Making decisions about how you want it to work for you puts it in the first of those roles. But being unable to make those choices through ignorance or laziness definitely doesn't mean anything's been mastered, does it?
As you correctly point out, language should be your tool, not your master. Making decisions about how you want it to work for you puts it in the first of those roles. But being unable to make those choices through ignorance or laziness definitely doesn't mean anything's been mastered, does it?
Hmm, well lets see; when I was younger I didnt care, today however I do. I too thought as long as they understand me its ok. Now days I think language is someones work, someones art if you will, why would I on purpose spit on it when I don't have to?
I mean think, we as musicians hate when our art gets spit on, it hurts doesnt it? Same way it hurts for a teacher of history to hear false information spread about events in history. I would imagine that ruining a language on purpose would hurt equally for someone who considers language his art, be it writer or an English teacher. So why hurt someone when you dont need to.
I mean think, we as musicians hate when our art gets spit on, it hurts doesnt it? Same way it hurts for a teacher of history to hear false information spread about events in history. I would imagine that ruining a language on purpose would hurt equally for someone who considers language his art, be it writer or an English teacher. So why hurt someone when you dont need to.
lemur821 said:
Very well written and informative post. However, I'm not calling anyone an idiot for their laziness and lack of verbal skills. Sure I understand that people are raised differently. It just seems like slang and ebonics have taken a foothold in society when they shouldn't have. Can you imagine talking to a Judge or LEO and using slang and ebonics? I've seen it happen. It's borderline rude IMO and just showcases your ignorance. Show some respect, that's all anybody asks.
Now I aint funna be debatin' dis topic no more.
Double negations are quite a common thing, I use them quite a lot in my local variant of Dutch.
It's easy to look at people as being stupid for using them while this double negation is a completely valid grammatical construction for these people. That's just how it works. Language changes all the time, it varies, it can depend on region, age, heritage, social stance, etc. I'm not saying it's correct to use them in a professional situation, but it's stupid to say people "lack verbal skills" because their language is different from yours.
Anyway, I'm saying this because people comment me all the time for my pronounciation and think of people as stupid just because they speak differently.
It's easy to look at people as being stupid for using them while this double negation is a completely valid grammatical construction for these people. That's just how it works. Language changes all the time, it varies, it can depend on region, age, heritage, social stance, etc. I'm not saying it's correct to use them in a professional situation, but it's stupid to say people "lack verbal skills" because their language is different from yours.
Anyway, I'm saying this because people comment me all the time for my pronounciation and think of people as stupid just because they speak differently.
So what have we come to here? Are we for the dumbing down of the english language? To the point of kids actually failing classes because of how they were raised and educated at home? I seem to remember a thread about a student who wrote a college level paper in internet talk, only to recieve a grade of PWND.
Is that what we as a society are striving for? I guess so, since enough people think it's ok to have bad grammar and enunciation/pronunciation, then that makes it ok. Almost reminds me of a quote.
Is that what we as a society are striving for? I guess so, since enough people think it's ok to have bad grammar and enunciation/pronunciation, then that makes it ok. Almost reminds me of a quote.
Tommy Lee Jones from Men in Black said:
"Bad grammar" is in the eye of the beholder, a lot of linguists agree that "bad" grammar from a pure linguistic point of view simply doesn't exist (except for people with mental disorders, etc).
