7 ms·

> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pu

> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
Irregardless of your subjective opinion about grammar, you literally expressed the exact same thing. It’s either a pun in both or it’s a pun in neither.
blackoil 5y ago
I have seen such double negative at many places, to represent strong negative. Don't know if it is some trend!
- nosianu 5y ago
  Funnily enough, in Russian the double negative is completely normal and that is a normal way to express many negatives. It always triggers my brain when I have to say a double negative in Russian, "just do it, it's completely normal, don't worry about it..." (inner feeling-based monologue). https://www.russiantutoring.com/post/double-negation-in-russian-when-one-person-s-no-is-another-s-yes https://www.russiantutoring.com/post/double-negation-in-russ...
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    The high-brow name for this syntactic gadget is “negative concord”[1], and Wikipedia lists plenty of languages that have it[2] (including several European ones and even Old English!). [1] http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Negative_concord http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Negative_concord [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative
  - Latty 5y ago
    Reminds me of a classic linguistics joke (I assume from a Tom Scott video given where I encounter linguistics the most): A professor is lecturing on linguistics: "In English a double negative has a positive meaning. However, in some languages—such as Russian—a double negative still has a negative meaning. There isn't, however, a language in which a double positive holds a negative meaning." A student in the back responds: "Yeah, right."
    - ratzkewatzke 5y ago
      This is widely attributed to Sidney Morgenbesser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser).
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      This reminds me of ruminations with a friend about the nuance of combined positive/negative affirmations. Eg “no yeah” used as an emphatic agreement in the positive, and “yeah no” an emphatic agreement in the negative.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  It’s fairly common usage in the US southeast, and in AAVE. Regarding it as poor grammar rather than an evolution of dialect is a matter of (snobbish) taste more than anything.
  - jsmith45 5y ago
    One major problem with it is that even in those dialects, a double negative can also be a positive, and outside of some semi-fixed constructs that mandate one or the other interpretation in that dialect, the distinction relies things like tone and/or stress/emphasis, which of course are lost in writing. This makes it rather unwise to use in writing, unless context clearly dictates one interpretation.
  - anderskaseorg 5y ago
    The more northern dialects are infected with certain negation-related illogicalities too. Consider this New York Times headline: “All Options Are Not on the Table as Biden Moves Troops Closer to Ukraine” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/politics/biden-ukraine... which should have been “Not All Options Are on the Table”, since the intended interpretation is ¬∀ option, on(option, table) rather than the very different ∀ option, ¬on(option, table).
    - eyelidlessness 5y ago
      I am never not confused by this.
DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a specific group of speakers of a language find a particular utterance (phrase, sentence, pronunciation, etc) to stand out in a way that feels unnatural, then that utterance is called "marked". Clearly, "can't never" is marked in your perspective. (And, indeed, I also find it to be marked in my own dialect.) However... There do exist large groups of native English speakers for whom this utterance is not marked. In these groups, this is a regular way to emphasize a negative. So, in those groups, the utterance is unmarked. So it is wrong to say that your notion of markedness is universal. Undoubtedly, there are utterances you would produce that members of other groups of native English speakers would find marked. (A simple example offhand: American English speakers find the British constructions of "go to hospital" or "to be on holiday" to be marked. Does that make these utterances ungrammatical universally? Absolutely not.) Context is important. If you are writing, say, an academic paper that you want to publish at a particular venue, then you are expected to adhere to the grammatical conventions of that venue. But for general everyday speech? The rule is straightforward: if you understand the intent, then it is not incorrect. It might be marked for you, but that does not make it "wrong" or "bad" or "poor" universally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness
- ghusbands 5y ago
  Given that the OP has posted to say that it was a mistake and hence isn't "unmarked" as you put it, you've quite missed the point. Not all mistakes (and corrections) are evidence of some classist plot.
  - DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
    On the contrary, I believe you missed my point! My issue wasn't with the correction; my issue was with the use of the term "poor grammar". I do not believe it is acceptable to use that term in any context, because it has a specific history and connotation.
gururu 5y ago
hey thanks for pointing that out. I should have said "can never" instead. it is hard being a non native english speaker

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Irregardless of your subjective opinion about grammar, you literally expressed the exact same thing. It’s either a pun in both or it’s a pun in neither.

blackoil 5y ago

I have seen such double negative at many places, to represent strong negative. Don't know if it is some trend!

nosianu 5y ago
Funnily enough, in Russian the double negative is completely normal and that is a normal way to express many negatives. It always triggers my brain when I have to say a double negative in Russian, "just do it, it's completely normal, don't worry about it..." (inner feeling-based monologue). https://www.russiantutoring.com/post/double-negation-in-russian-when-one-person-s-no-is-another-s-yes https://www.russiantutoring.com/post/double-negation-in-russ...
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  The high-brow name for this syntactic gadget is “negative concord”[1], and Wikipedia lists plenty of languages that have it[2] (including several European ones and even Old English!). [1] http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Negative_concord http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Negative_concord [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative
- Latty 5y ago
  Reminds me of a classic linguistics joke (I assume from a Tom Scott video given where I encounter linguistics the most): A professor is lecturing on linguistics: "In English a double negative has a positive meaning. However, in some languages—such as Russian—a double negative still has a negative meaning. There isn't, however, a language in which a double positive holds a negative meaning." A student in the back responds: "Yeah, right."
  - ratzkewatzke 5y ago
    This is widely attributed to Sidney Morgenbesser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser).
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    This reminds me of ruminations with a friend about the nuance of combined positive/negative affirmations. Eg “no yeah” used as an emphatic agreement in the positive, and “yeah no” an emphatic agreement in the negative.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
It’s fairly common usage in the US southeast, and in AAVE. Regarding it as poor grammar rather than an evolution of dialect is a matter of (snobbish) taste more than anything.
- jsmith45 5y ago
  One major problem with it is that even in those dialects, a double negative can also be a positive, and outside of some semi-fixed constructs that mandate one or the other interpretation in that dialect, the distinction relies things like tone and/or stress/emphasis, which of course are lost in writing. This makes it rather unwise to use in writing, unless context clearly dictates one interpretation.
- anderskaseorg 5y ago
  The more northern dialects are infected with certain negation-related illogicalities too. Consider this New York Times headline: “All Options Are Not on the Table as Biden Moves Troops Closer to Ukraine” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/politics/biden-ukraine... which should have been “Not All Options Are on the Table”, since the intended interpretation is ¬∀ option, on(option, table) rather than the very different ∀ option, ¬on(option, table).
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    I am never not confused by this.

DonaldPShimoda 5y ago

> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a specific group of speakers of a language find a particular utterance (phrase, sentence, pronunciation, etc) to stand out in a way that feels unnatural, then that utterance is called "marked". Clearly, "can't never" is marked in your perspective. (And, indeed, I also find it to be marked in my own dialect.) However... There do exist large groups of native English speakers for whom this utterance is not marked. In these groups, this is a regular way to emphasize a negative. So, in those groups, the utterance is unmarked. So it is wrong to say that your notion of markedness is universal. Undoubtedly, there are utterances you would produce that members of other groups of native English speakers would find marked. (A simple example offhand: American English speakers find the British constructions of "go to hospital" or "to be on holiday" to be marked. Does that make these utterances ungrammatical universally? Absolutely not.) Context is important. If you are writing, say, an academic paper that you want to publish at a particular venue, then you are expected to adhere to the grammatical conventions of that venue. But for general everyday speech? The rule is straightforward: if you understand the intent, then it is not incorrect. It might be marked for you, but that does not make it "wrong" or "bad" or "poor" universally. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness

ghusbands 5y ago
Given that the OP has posted to say that it was a mistake and hence isn't "unmarked" as you put it, you've quite missed the point. Not all mistakes (and corrections) are evidence of some classist plot.
- DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
  On the contrary, I believe you missed my point! My issue wasn't with the correction; my issue was with the use of the term "poor grammar". I do not believe it is acceptable to use that term in any context, because it has a specific history and connotation.

gururu 5y ago

hey thanks for pointing that out. I should have said "can never" instead. it is hard being a non native english speaker