|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Ask for help > IN TWO MINDS. (2)
IN TWO MINDS. (2)
|
Greek Professor
|
IN TWO MINDS. (2)
|
|
Good Morning from Everyone...
Some more help I would like...Since I can �t find my first thread I will have to start again. I am revising this month with my students since they are sitting for exams....while going through a specific grammar book, I came across this sentene.
"I didn �t see nobody"
I know what it basically means...I didn �t see anyone but reading closer there was a meaning next to it which said something else..." I saw someone"....am I missing something?
So dear Friends enlighten me please.
Thanks in advance |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
|
diddy2703
|
|
It �s a double negation I didn �t see nobody = they cancel each other, meaning "I saw someone". Grammatically speaking, the only ways to say you saw no one are: I didn �t see anybody I saw nobody
|
14 May 2012
|
|
|
Greek Professor
|
|
Hi diddy,
Yes I know what you are saying...just trying to get an answer based on the grammar book. I too thought something was wrong...just wanted a 2nd, 3rd 4th, 5th ...opinions.
Thanks |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
douglas
|
|
"not ...nobody" is a double negative so it would mean "somebody".
I �ve always been taught not to use double negatives--can �t give you any good grammatical source though. |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
Greek Professor
|
|
Actually Douglas...You just gave me the answer.
Thanks |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
We �ve had a few posts on this type of thing recently (including your last one, Effie), and this is more or less what I had to say on the subject of negative concord :
Marking negation twice is sometimes used emphatically in standard English (as in "Raise your voice? Not here you won�t!") and often in non-standard ("I can �t get no satisfaction"). There may be two grammatical negatives, but there �s only one semantic one.
It �s a fairly common thing for prescriptivists to insist that "I didn �t see nobody" means "I saw someone" but this, as many modern grammarians say, is to confuse logic with grammar (I have sources!).
It sounds, then, as if the second meaning you saw was a typical prescriptivist view - with very little understanding of the difference not only between logic and grammar, but also between Standard and Non-Standard English (where negative concord is more likely to be a regular - and definitely not illogical - feature). |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
PhilipR
|
|
I didn �t see nobody = I didn �t see anybody
Although technically two negatives cancel each other out, in real life when you hear people say this, they almost always mean that they didn �t see anyone.
It �s informal English, spoken language or dialect, and is grammatically wrong but nevertheless used by many, esp. by people without a (higher) education. Note that a double negative is (in 99.9% of cases) NOT equivalent to a positive. |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
Basically agree, Philip, but two things:
1) The idea that two negatives logically cancel each other out is not really at issue -we �re talking about negative markers such as �not � and �nobody �, and negative concords which you �ll also find uncontroversially in French and Spanish, for example - and, in any case, you �ll find that in algebraic logic -x + -x = -2x. The �logic � argument comes from Latin grammar and wasn �t introduced into English until the 18th century.
2) I think you �re confusing �informal � and �non-standard �, since the first is a style which can be unarguably Standard, while the second is simply a variant which has its own grammatical rules and specific dynamic, and shouldn �t be considered in any way inferior or even illogical (I �m thinking of some very expressive Scots dialects or even AAVE - African American Vernacular English). But you �re right, negative concord in English is mainly restricted to non-standard variants. |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
Greek Professor
|
|
Thanks all...
I read your posts and they are enlightening and I understand what you are trying to tell me but the thing I don �t understand is the meaning in the Grammar Book....but anyway...thanks for your answers. |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
GP, You �ve indicated that you still don �t understand the grammar book �s point. Maybe I can help. Think about the statement "I did nothing yesterday". It clearly states that nothing was done. Now, the opposite/negation of that would be "I didn �t do nothing yesterday". If you analyze it logically, it should be saying the opposite of "I did nothing yesterday", which would be "I did something yesterday". That is the book �s point. I hope this helps. Bruce |
14 May 2012
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
That �s a pretty dodgy grammar book if that �s what it �s suggesting. Can you give us the title and author of this book, Effie, or better still, a screenshot of the relevant section
|
14 May 2012
|
|
1
2
Next >
|
