Language is a natural process of humans, but usually the natural rules of language are modified* by "authorities." The logic of a double negative being a positive is one example of this. I believe, but Fraggle can correct if need be, that ALL languages use double negatives without meaning a positive. Usually this is to strengthen the single negative. "gay faggot" is probably describing one who is obviously gay or a faggot, so much so that it needs a stronger double statement of the fact. Language was evolved for communication, not logic. In fact logic has its own set of symbols - an artificial language. "I ain't goina wear no dress!" just states strongly that the speaker will definitely not wear a dress. Not that he intends to wear a dress. * For examples in English: Do not end sentence with a preposition or split the infinitive and many other imposed rules that violate natural languages rules.
I dont think that is a double negative or how it can be a straight person though and if it is perhaps i am missing something. Of course 'gay' mainy means happy and the other term is not official.
It's like the typical "Stupid idiot!" you hear once in a while from kids. Rhetorically it's considered a duplication. We do them to add emphasis. On the other hand, why would "gay faggot" be a "double negative"? Is "gay" a "single negative"? Is that some new sort of prejudice?
You obviously didn't get the brilliant nuance/irony in my sentence. A "bad mistake" is ALSO a redundancy, just like gay faggot. If I have to spell it out for you, a mistake by definition is always bad.... For extra credit: Redundancy is the duplication of critical components of a system.
I didn't get it because I was too busy writing my own. Good job. Haha, it's really an old prejudice I guess. I didn't mean as in either one are particularly bad. The issue is in contrast; a straight heterosexual would never be misconstrued as meaning homosexual. But a gay homosexual might be misconstrued as straight.
"Gay" and "faggot" are not negatives. They mean something. Saying the same thing twice in two different ways doesn't mean they cancel each other out. You need to watch "South Park" more often. Cartman is always calling somebody a gay homosexual. Yes. A gay faggot is a very joyful bundle of sticks.
if it´s ok for you to be corrected by somebody else, i would like to do that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! in german, both situations can happen. most times, two negatives make a big negative. but then again, sometimes something positive can be the result. but using double negative is somewhat antiquated here, eventually you sound retarded if you use it. in some dialects it´s still used regulary.
I realize that you are mostly referring to spoken languages, but, programming logic offers a different story: x is not not true definitely can be written as x is true. I would venture to say that an English sentence of the form: "He was not unforgiving" yields "He was forgiving", yes? Examples must abound... The ambiguity arises from statements such as: "I do not want nothing!" Colloquially, this would mean "I don't want anything". However, taken literally, and sometimes realistically, it could (and technically does) imply that the person desires something rather than nothing. There is also the matter of "litotes": Depends on context - so it's anybody's guess, and I defer to Fraggle... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks. You are basically confirming my post stating for German at least that most of the time double negatives make the single negative stronger. I agree, especially in written language, that logic may prevail and makes a double negative = a positive. My main point is that human's come disposed to language and that this genetic endowment does come with rules, some of which are in conflict with logic. The more educated tend to let the edicts of "language authorities" and logic modify the natural rules of languages, and make one speaking naturally, "sound retarded;" but as you note, less cultured still speak more purely in accordance with the human rules. To fully understand what I am talking about you need to know what Chomsky has discovered, but don't try to read him directly - only a professional linguist can follow him - Steven Pinker is much better than Chomsky in explaining Chomsky.
