2

The idiomatic expression never ever is used to strongly convey the meaning of never:

used for emphasizing ‘never’ very strongly.

  • It should never ever be allowed to happen again. I will never ever leave him.

(MacMillan Dictionary)

The same emphasis could be easily conveyed repeating never twice:

It should never, never be allowed again.

  • So what's the grammatical rational of the usage of "ever" to reinforce "never". Does it just echoes some other idiomatic usages of ever such as "ever so" or "ever such"?

  • According to Ngram the expression is from the early '30s, but what are its earliest usages?

Edit: This is not a duplicate. The binomial question suggested as original by @Mari-Lou A has little or nothing to do with the present question.

Community
  • 1
  • 2
    sounds like reduplication to me, e.g. dilly-dally, roly-poly etc. – Mari-Lou A Jun 16 '17 at 18:19
  • Siamese twins (also irreversible binomials, binomials, binomial pairs, nonreversible word pairs, or freezes) in the context of the English language refer to a pair or group of words used together as an idiomatic expression or collocation, usually conjoined by the words and or or. The order of elements cannot be reversed e.g. "near and dear" "never, ever" and "nitty gritty" – Mari-Lou A Jun 16 '17 at 20:16
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of crisscross, dillydally, riffraff, etc – Mari-Lou A Jun 16 '17 at 20:17
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA - I don't really see how this question can be answered by the supposed original ones. Can you provide evidence? Do the second terms in the suggested binomials have the function of intensifiers? –  Jun 16 '17 at 20:24
  • You're asking for the reason, the reason is that it sounds "poetic" or "lyrical" if you prefer, that's all there is it to it. The two terms rhyme, it's binomial stuff. If you don't think it's that you can edit and explain why. – Mari-Lou A Jun 16 '17 at 20:25
  • @Mari-LouA - I am asking the grammatical aspect between never and ever used in the cited expression, the binomial story might have something to do with its origin, if you can prove it. –  Jun 16 '17 at 20:27
  • @Mari-LouA - I wish you had posted an answer, even in a comment. No, I am not annoyed, you are just wasting time and energy, and creating confusion about a question. Not really exemplary. –  Jun 16 '17 at 20:32
  • @Mari-LouA - whenever I delete anything is just because it doesn't provide the answer I am trying to give. As in the "duck" case, which is still "work in progress" btw. –  Jun 16 '17 at 20:37
  • I'm fairly sure that this is not too far from asking for the 'grammatical justification' of 'silly billy'. Note that repetition '... never, never ...' works also. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 '17 at 22:17
  • @EdwinAshworth - maybe, but is billy in siilly billy an intensifier? –  Jun 16 '17 at 22:20
  • The schm-reduplication is common and has a pragmatic force: it is usually a form of ridicule of the concept, practice, or person addressed. Grammar? Defined by the acceptability of the usage. Admittedly, 'never ever' seems an almost unique emphasised form using an irreversible binomial ('millions and billions' has been used). – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 '17 at 22:39
  • @EdwinAshworth - yes, a unique emphasised form, from which the question. –  Jun 16 '17 at 22:44
  • 'Pretty please' is an exaggerated form of 'please' doubtless used to sound more attractive. I doubt if the first zillion people to use it worried about the then ungrammaticality. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 '17 at 22:52
  • @EdwinAshworth - well, I do. Sorry for that. –  Jun 16 '17 at 22:54
  • OLD probably gets close with << itsy-bitsy (also itty-bitty) ADJECTIVE

    informal Very small; tiny. ‘itsy-bitsy candles that couldn't light the path of an ant’ ... Origin 1930s: from a child's form of little + bitsy (from bit + -sy). >>

     – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 '17 at 23:03
  • Hi @Josh, as my background isn't in linguistics, I'm struggling to understand what you'd consider a "grammatical rationale" for a phrase. If you're asking what aspect of grammar requires ever after never, I don't think there's one. If you're asking what aspect of grammar allows that sequence, the intensifier comments cover it. But you seem to be after something more. You also mentioned idiom echoing and the early usage of the term, neither of which I'd normally consider to be related to grammar. Can you please elaborate (further) to help me understand what you're asking? – Lawrence Jun 17 '17 at 08:49
  • @Lawrence - please see my comment under Laurel's answer. –  Jun 17 '17 at 10:05
  • @Josh I saw your comment about the double negative rule, but that still doesn't give me enough to work with. You're asking for a rationale - that is, a reason. Rules aren't reasons. Are you asking why "never ever" is grammatically sound, or are you looking for a label ('double negative' doesn't work here, but it serves as an example of a label) for the collocation? Or are you asking for something else? – Lawrence Jun 17 '17 at 10:45

3 Answers3

1

According to OED, it's actually a lot older than that:

With ever as postmodifying intensifier. Now colloq.

  • (1859) The light is old, Eternal, never ever new.

The expression "never never", in turn predates that. The OED's first citation for it is 1593 (see here).

As for the grammar, never is an adverb and ever is an intensifier.

Community
  • 1
Laurel
  • 66,382
  • I understand it is an intensifier, actually it is specified in the question. What I am referring to is the grammatical construction. Has it something to do with the double negative rule for instance? –  Jun 16 '17 at 18:31
1

A search of newspaper archives reveals use of never ever far before the date attested by OED. Specifically, 1772

In St. Stephen's Chapel, in printed Volumes, in Pamphlets, or from a Stage in Moorfields, you may appeal ten thousand Times to the People; they will never ever dream of "scandalous Profusion, or flagrant Corruption," till your friends are in office.

enter image description here

As Laurel pointed out, "never never" seems to have appeared earlier by far, and may have been a precursor.

RaceYouAnytime
  • 22,413
1

The central issue of idioms is that the mechanics of their exact construction can be somewhat obscure. Unless there is documentary evidence, we are left with speculations. Which is why I believe the answers of RaceYouAnytime and Laurel are precious.

There should be no grammatical reason for using 'ever' instead of 'never' because (as you pointed out), the following sentence is grammatically correct:

It should never, never be allowed again.

Perhaps your hypothesis that double negative is playing a role; but that would for a purely practical reason (i.e. avoiding ambiguity): so that the people who are hearing such a sentence do not think for a split second that it could be a double negative, thus increasing the time it takes for them to dig the sentence; they would usually figure it out in the end, but precious time would have been lost. But in written form, I do not think that would be a problem.

A good clue could be in phonetics. Ever is an intensifier that sounds "right" (euphonic): in speech, it allows a cracking attack on the first syllab (-Ever), that one can amplify at will.

Indeed, we can imagine a preacher talking of the afterlife from the pulpit with a majestic:

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for -Ever and -Ever. (King James Bible, Revelation 14:11)

... which is a rendition of "in saecula saeculorum" of the Vulgate bible. And this should set us back to the early 17th century.

Litteraly it means "for the centuries of the centuries" (Greek εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων "to the ages of ages"), which is of course a metaphor of "eternity". I suppose, however, the translators of King James thought that translating it litterally into English would not have sounded idiomatic; and a mere "forever" would have been dull. Hence the powerfully sounding "forever ever" likely found its vogue thanks to the Bible and church sermons. In that case "ever" was the placeholder for the Latin "saeculorum".

Turning the phrase into the negative (from "forever ever" to "never ever") must probably have been the next logical step in the 18th century. Furthermore, adding an "n" in front of "ever" would definitely have attenuated that attack. N is a nasal sound, so really amplifying ("never -Never") would have sounded like a neigh. That may have played a role in why English speakers (and therefore writers) stuck to "ever".

So the answer to your question likely traces back to a book written in Ancient Greek, long time ago!

As a bonus fact, the French translations of the Bible kept the Latin expression word for word:

Et la fumée de leur tourment montera aux siècles des siècles.

fralau
  • 1,719