Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: Double Negatives
Message-ID: <sarimaDDFvAt.9GH@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <00994B4F.3BE17BC2@vms.csd.mu.edu> <40o883$kqu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <40q870$140_001@actrix.gen.nz> <40tbtk$q6p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 05:01:40 GMT
Lines: 30
Sender: sarima@netcom8.netcom.com

In article <40tbtk$q6p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,  <Brian.Kelk@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <40q870$140_001@actrix.gen.nz>,
>>
>>If "not impossible" is a double negative, would you consider
>>"not black" to be one too?
>
>Let me put it this way. Compare and contrast:
>
>     A     it is not impossible
>
>     B     he has not seen nothing
>
>Keywords: consistency inconsistency

One point to keep in mind is that the use of _in-/im-_ for negation
is a fairly recent borrowing from Latin and French.  It is not really
a native English form of negation.  Thus it is quite possible that
these forms are still not grammatically treated as true negatives.

In fact, I suspect that the _in-_ forms may have been borrowed
during the heydey of the "prescriptive grammarians", and thus
taken in using the logicalized classical model of that school.
In short they are exception because they were incorporated into
English grammar at a time when logicalism and classical styles
were in fashion.
-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com

May the peace of God be with you.

