0

Does a triple negative make a positive? eg "Ain't nobody gonna eat none of my jellyroll."

user342373
  • 11
  • 2
    Are you talking about colloquial usage (where that sentence means nobody's eating any of my jellyroll) or literal and syntactical usage (where that sentence means there is somebody who will eat none of my jellyroll)? Colloquially, double negatives don't actually mean a positive—they mean a negative. – Jason Bassford Apr 01 '19 at 17:09
  • 1
    mmm in algebra a triple negative makes a negative, no? Your sentence isn't really a triple negative because the nobody and none will be interpreted as agreeing with the ain't, not as being negatives in their own right. If you have a genuine triple negative. as in it turned out not to be the case that there was nobody who didn't like her, then yes that does have a positive meaning, as in algebra. –  Apr 01 '19 at 17:09
  • 1
    No, they do not. See this ELL question & answer which covers very similar territory. – Hellion Apr 01 '19 at 17:10
  • There is no such thing as a triple negative. Only a triple misinterpretation. – Lambie Apr 01 '19 at 17:19
  • Possible duplicate of What constitutes a double negative? – Mitch Apr 05 '19 at 19:00

1 Answers1

1

In "standard" English dialects, negating a negation makes a positive statement. I am not typing nothing means I am typing something. And by this same logic, I am not not typing nothing would mean I am typing nothing. A memorable example of this is a line from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey: "That was non-non-non-NON-heinous!" In other words, that was heinous.

However, numerous non-standard English dialects use double negation as a form of emphasis. I didn't eat none of that food means I really did not eat any of that food. Just as in standard dialects, the addition of extra negatives follows a consistent logic. In this case, instead of additional negation, it's additional emphasis. "Ain't nobody gonna eat none of my jellyroll" would mean, no one is going to eat my jellyroll and I mean it!

Juhasz
  • 7,503
  • I've never been convinced by the 'emphasis' idea. In ain't nobody gonna eat none of my jellyroll, I think nobody and none just mean anybody and any. It seems to me that in a given register people use either nobody or anybody - I just can't envisage someone who thinks they're both available in the same register and nobody can therefore be used to add emphasis. –  Apr 01 '19 at 17:25
  • No, I am not typing nothing would not mean the same thing as I am not not typing nothing. – Jason Bassford Apr 01 '19 at 17:29
  • Oops. Good catch @JasonBassford. – Juhasz Apr 01 '19 at 17:30
  • 1
    @Minty I disagree. Ain't *nobody* sounds much more emphatically negative to me than ain't *anybody. This is simply because nobody* and none are negative words. – Jason Bassford Apr 01 '19 at 17:35
  • but no more emphatic than "Is nobody..."? – Philip Wood Apr 01 '19 at 17:39
  • ...in fact "ain't anybody" is almost an invitation. – Weather Vane Apr 01 '19 at 17:39
  • But do you ever say ain't nobody? Google tells me that ain't anybody appears in Tom Sawyer, but I'm not sure I've ever heard it live, and if I did, I would probably think someone was doing their best English because they were on TV or whatever. More than happy to be wrong about that but there ain't anybody just doesn't sound to me like something anyone would ever come out with. –  Apr 01 '19 at 17:40
  • @Minty, you may be right. "Ain't anybody" may not be possible in the dialects that use "ain't nobody." But the better comparison might be "ain't nobody gonna eat this" and "nobody's gonna eat this." The former sounds more emphatic than the latter. But I don't speak any of these dialects and don't have a deep understanding of them. – Juhasz Apr 01 '19 at 17:43
  • @Juhasz I think that's a different issue - there's nobody who's can get below 9s for 100 metres is more emphatic than nobody can get below 9s..., but it's not to do with negation. –  Apr 01 '19 at 17:48
  • @Minty I don't say ain't nobody, because I'm too much about the grammar. But, having said that, it does sound more emphatic to me—and I can appreciate it when I hear other people saying it. I also think that informal language generally sounds more emphatic than formal language. So, nobody can *does* sound more emphatic to me than there's nobody who can, not only because it's missing the positive is, but also because it's simply shorter and more to the point. In general, more words means less emotional decisiveness. – Jason Bassford Apr 01 '19 at 18:06
  • @JasonBassford well a bit more googling suggests that some people do say there ain't anybody, so if those same people also say there ain't nobody, there could be a difference of emphasis. That said, the uses of it ain't anybody that I found seemed pretty emphatic, so I'm still a bit sceptical. –  Apr 02 '19 at 05:55