fun with negatives

[Laurence Horn]

On Oct 5, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

>> Well, what happens with this?
> Andy: Bob, you can't drive for shit!
> Bob:  I can too drive for shit!
> DAD
>
> Possible only as a joke, IMO.
>
> JL

And part of a general pattern thereof, e.g.

"You don't know squat about it"
"I do too know squat about it"

or even the no doubt apocryphal "retraction" accredited to Disraeli or maybe Churchill, when he was asked to withdraw his declaration that half the members of Cabinet were asses.  "Very well, I withdraw my statement.  Half the Cabinet are not asses."

LH
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM, David A. Daniel <dad at pokerwiz.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       "David A. Daniel" <dad at POKERWIZ.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: fun with negatives
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well, what happens with this?
>> Andy: Bob, you can't drive for shit!
>> Bob:  I can too drive for shit!
>> DAD
>>
>>
>> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: fun with negatives
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> Cf.:
>>
>> A: Robin, you can't drive for sh*t!!
>>
>> B: Robin, you drive for sh*t!!
>>
>> These are synonymous in my idiolect, but perhaps not in everyone's.  Is
>> there anyone who finds B ungrammatical (by standards of common usage, of
>> course)? If so, that would render the statement more readily intelligible.
>>
>> John surely has identified the sentiment:
>>
>> "I'm a good driver, and you're paranoid."
>>
>> I think, however, that he's done so in spite of the *apparent* grammar and
>> semantics of the statement.  Part of the problem too be the poet's
>> (possible) loose application of "paranoid" in the sense of simply "crazy."
>> I
>> can't say that I'm familiar with that usage.
>>
>> There's also may be an odd and confusing assumption that the reader's
>> "paranoia" could actually, somehow, be a cause of the driver's
>> ability/inability to "drive for sh*t!!"
>>
>> JL
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>>
>>> Interesting.  I agree with you on the problem with interpretation.  At
>>> first glance, this seems like a hypernegation, i.e. it "should" be
>>>
>>>> JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN I CAN DRIVE FOR SH*T!!
>>>
>>>
>>> But this is impossible, because "can drive for shit" only occurs with an
>>> adjacent negation--at least it sounds weird to me to say "It's not true
>> that
>>> Robin can drive for shit" or "I doubt Robin can drive for shit" meaning
>>> "Robin can't drive for shit".  So the negation in "CAN'T" has to stay for
>>> what follows, yet the other negation has to stay too, because the
>> relevant
>>> expression it plays off is the one we've discussed earlier:
>>>
>>> JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID (IT) DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT AFTER YOU!
>>>
>>> So the best we could do with the below would be something like
>>>
>>>> JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT I
>> CAN'T
>>> DRIVE FOR SH*T!!
>>>
>>>
>>> which is too long to fit on a legible bumper sticker.  Life is hard!
>>>
>>> LH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other day I picked up a book called _Impounded_, published
>>> anonymously a
>>>> few years ago in Maine.
>>>>
>>>> Though sold in book stores_Impounded_ is, in point of fact, a thick pad
>>> of
>>>> adhesive bumper stickers designed especially to be applied by you -
>>> covertly
>>>> of course - to other people's bumpers. But that's neither here nor
>> there.
>>>> One of the stickers bears the following message:
>>>>
>>>> JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN I CAN'T DRIVE FOR SH*T!!
>>>>
>>>> This utterance seems to be grammatical, but I confess it baffles me.
>> Can
>>> or
>>>> cannot "I" (the driver-victim) "drive for sh*t"?  If so, is that good
>> or
>>>> bad? What effect does the reader-dupe's asserted paranoia have upon the
>>>> driver-victim's ability to drive (or not to drive) "for sh*t"?
>>>>
>>>> In the Future, moreover, all hard-copy books will be pads of adhesive
>>> bumper
>>>> stickers. Bumper stickers facilitate rapid recall, enable instant
>>>> comprehension (except in this case), and, unlike the primitive books of
>>>> today, enable the reader instantly to share his or her new insights
>> with
>>> the
>>>> great world at large, and in permanent form.
>>>>
>>>> JL
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>>> truth."
>>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org