-3

There would be more double-negatives like these, but I specifically want to mention "This couldn't be further/farther from the truth".

When this phrase is used, it apparently incites the sense that "This couldn't be a lie, but much nearer to the truth". It isn't apparently recognizable as double-negative when someone(even with much familiarity with English speaking/listening) hears this for the first time, but innocently could interpret just the opposite that is mentioned above in quotes.

If the speaker had just used an additional term anymore/any/more in this then it could have made sense and become recognizable as double-negative "This couldn't be anymore further/father than truth". And to support this belief, let's compare this with "I couldn't care less", now when someone hears this phrase, it almost becomes clear that speaker shows "uncaring" attitude towards something/someone.

What could be the reason that these kinda "dubious" double-negatives came to be and widely used despite their inherent nature of inspiring "reverse" than what is intended meaning by the speaker ?

Vicky Dev
  • 499
  • Your sentence can only mean it's a lie - it is as far as it is possible to be from the truth. The double negative works normally here. It is not a case of negative concord where the sense is that only one negation has taken place. This is an established idiom with an established meaning. – Phil Sweet Dec 19 '20 at 01:05
  • There is no "almost becomes clear" about I couldn't care less, it very clearly and unambiguously means I don't care at all. The related phrase I could care less is the illogical one because when people say that they actually mean I don't care. – nnnnnn Dec 19 '20 at 01:09
  • I’m voting to close this question because it is asking about double-negatives in sentences that fail to contain any double-negatives at all. – tchrist Dec 19 '20 at 02:55

2 Answers2

3

The phrase, couldn’t be farther from the truth, isn’t a double negative. It does mean what it says - that something is not true, and is, in fact, very much unlike the truth.

Hot Licks
  • 27,508
Nicholas D
  • 39
-1

When this phrase is used, it apparently incites the sense that "This couldn't be a lie, but much nearer to the truth". It isn't apparently recognizable as double-negative when someone(even with much familiarity with English speaking/listening) hears this for the first time, but innocently could interpret just the opposite that is mentioned above in quotes.

What could be the reason that these kinda "dubious" double-negatives came to be and widely used despite their inherent nature of inspiring "reverse" than what is intended meaning by the speaker ?

I think that a more accurate statement would be:

When this phrase is used, I get the sense that "This couldn't be a lie, but much nearer to the truth". I didn't recognize it as double-negative when I (even with much familiarity with English speaking/listening) heard this for the first time, but innocently interpreted it just the opposite that is mentioned above in quotes.

What could be the reason that these kinda "dubious" double-negatives came to be and widely used despite my understanding them the "reverse" of what is the intended meaning by the speaker?

Unless you have some evidence that this is the general response, you shouldn't present your personal confusion as being an "inherent" property of the phrase. And the standard isn't whether a non-native speaker who has learned basic English is confused, it's whether a native speaker is. Language generally doesn't develop with ease of foreign speakers in mind.

You describe your incorrect interpretation as the "instinctive" understanding, but that "instinct" isn't necessarily a natural, objective way of looking at language, rather than an arbitrary pattern that you are so used to that it seems "normal". Native language acquisition involves wiring the brain to think in certain ways, and it's natural for those ways of thinking to feel universal, rather than particular to your linguistic community.

While it may take some thought when first seeing this to figure out what it means, it is pretty straight forward: it is the furthest from the truth that it can be. It is the most not-truth possible.

"This couldn't be anymore further/father than truth".

It should be "any more", not "anymore".

Acccumulation
  • 4,945
  • 2
    This answer accepts the question’s assumption that a statement that isn’t true, or is as far as possible from true, is a lie. The statement may be merely a misconception or misunderstanding. – Xanne Dec 19 '20 at 02:18