A Float of Bubbles - Double Negative

[SoggyShorts]

I agree. Whether or not this is grammatically correct, it would be cringeworthy to most English teachers.

When I taught English it was admittedly many years ago and just ESL for little kids, but one of the most important distinctions in English is emphasis.
Unlike tonal languages and somewhat different from romance languages you get sentences like
"I did not steal your red bandana"
Where if you emphasize any single word either through volume, a slight pause or in-text by use of bold you get a totally different statement.
Since the use of bold is somewhat garish the arrangement of words can be effectively used for emphasis in the OP's situation, or through a double negative as @Aritra explains below:

I believe that "No one in the audience is not amazed" does not mean the same as "everyone in the audience is amazed." It moves the emphasis from characteristic to quantity. With "everyone in the audience is amazed," the natural stress is on amazement. "No one in the audience is not amazed" emphasizes the significance of quantity of persons being referenced. It shows that no one was unaffected (which is still not the same as everyone being affected, here we go again).

 

[Darielle]

The statement mentioned by the original poster above does start with a negative pronoun, but the sentence does not include a verb in the negative form because "not" determines the adjective, not the verb, just like in the following sentence: "The fox refused to eat the grapes because they appeared to be not quite ripe." Although "not quite ripe" can be replaced by "unripe", many authors prefer the former expression whose ambiguity confers a richer meaning.

"Not" does not determine the adjective. It's an adverb ... it modifies the verb. And an adverb always modifies a verb, never an adjective.

In your case concerning the grapes ... it is still modifying the verb "be" ... meaning it "be not" ripe ... although I do understand that doesn't sound right, still, that's what it modifies and that's what it means.

 

[Darielle]

He meant the first sentence you quoted (bolding is mine):

Fascinating discussion.

I'm not quite sure how that's possible. I made a post about a sentence ... the one in the OP. Then he responded to my post saying basically that I was wrong about that sentence, claiming that it had "un" in it. Since there was no "un" in the sentence I had first posted about, I asked what sentence he was talking about. How could he have been talking about the sentence in his response to my original post, since it was the original post (mine, not the OPs) that he was refuting?

I'm really confused now, lol.

 

[Darielle]

Here's a funny post about double negatives. In casual writing and fiction, they're fine. Writer friends will still look at you as if you're illiterate, lol, but who cares? The only time it's important is when you are writing nonfiction and when you have some publisher breathing down your neck, or when you want to be as clear and precise as possible (which I think is Inno's position on their info. After all, they aren't writing a friend or a novel, lol.)

Anyway, this is a bit funny: https://www.writersdigest.com/there...negatives-in-your-writing-youre-not-incorrect

 

[samidodamage]

@Darielle
I swear I'm not trying to confuse you; I'm going to try one more time (this time quoting his full sentence) to explain how I understood what he said and if it's still not clear, I'll stop, I promise

Double negatives are not necessarily unneeded (note that removing both not and un- from that sentence will create a different sentence with a different meaning).

I thought that what he put in parentheses referred to the part of his same sentence not in parentheses. I thought he was using it as an example of what he went on to explain.
English is hard for me and it's my only language, lol; I can't imagine how hard it is when it's someone's second language! I just always assumed 'no double negatives' was a hard and fast rule of proper grammar. That's why I find convo's like this fascinating; I'm always learning something new!

 

[Pheryll]

I'm not quite sure how that's possible. I made a post about a sentence ... the one in the OP. Then he responded to my post saying basically that I was wrong about that sentence, claiming that it had "un" in it. Since there was no "un" in the sentence I had first posted about, I asked what sentence he was talking about. How could he have been talking about the sentence in his response to my original post, since it was the original post (mine, not the OPs) that he was refuting?

I'm really confused now, lol.

The parenthetical did pertain to the sentence it accompanied. Let's slightly change that sentence.

Double negatives are not always unneeded.

An English teacher might correct this to:

Double negatives are sometimes needed.

A math teacher might correct this to:

There exists at least one case where double negatives are needed.

The English teacher keeps the temporal reference, while the math teacher preserves the scope (one instance is too infrequent to call sometimes, but should be included as a possibility in a true negation).

The thing is, simply cancelling out both negatives to get the sentence "double negatives are always needed" does not have a meaning remotely close to what the two negatives accomplish.

 

[Moho]

"Not" does not determine the adjective. It's an adverb ... it modifies the verb. And an adverb always modifies a verb, never an adjective.

In your case concerning the grapes ... it is still modifying the verb "be" ... meaning it "be not" ripe ... although I do understand that doesn't sound right, still, that's what it modifies and that's what it means.

An adverb can modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. A simple Google search will confirm this.

 

[Darielle]

An adverb can modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. A simple Google search will confirm this.

Moho, I honestly don't know what I was drinking when I said that. I think I probably retired at a good time, lol. Mea Culpa.

 

[Sprite1313]

Whether or not this is grammatically correct, it would be cringeworthy to most English teachers

To a grammar teacher, perhaps; but not necessarily to somebody teaching, say, metaphysical poetry.

 

[CanDaMan]

. . . and to me, when I read it, and I'm an average Joe.

 

[NightshadeCS]

You all may find the podcast "Lexicon Valley'" not uninteresting.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You all may find the podcast "Lexicon Valley'" not uninteresting.

No! Where is my red pen?

 

[Gladiola]

To a grammar teacher, perhaps; but not necessarily to somebody teaching, say, metaphysical poetry.

To a Vogon, it would be the height of perfection.

 

[NightshadeCS]

All things eventually circle back to Douglas Adams...