Not for nothing

[Henry Flower]

At this stage the moderators would actually be doing Pierre a favour if they banned him.

[GUT]

He is critical of authorities in 1888 who thought Juwes meant Jews.

This from the same person who wants us to accept that it meant Judges.

[David Orsam]

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001/acprof-9780199290802

p. 142

What do you mean by a "true" double negative, David?

Pierre

I mean exactly what I say my dear boy.

The words "not" and "nothing" are undoubtedly two negatives so there is a double negative in the construction but it is not what I would call a true double negative because there is no ambiguity in the meaning.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the expression "not for nothing" is a standalone phrase which has its own distinct meaning (i.e. it means "for a very good reason").

If we take a true double negative like "I’m not doing nothing", the speaker here is trying to convey the impression that they are not doing anything and thus should have said "I’m not doing anything". With the double negative in it, the sentence is ambiguous because the two negatives create a positive. If the person is literally not doing nothing then they are doing something, which is the exact opposite meaning which is trying to be conveyed. Not doing nothing could thus mean equally "doing nothing" or "doing something" depending on whether you interpret literally or in context. That’s where the ambiguity lies.

With "not for nothing", while the two negatives do in some respects create a positive, there is no ambiguity and, indeed, if you were to replace it with "not for anything" or "not for something" it now doesn’t make sense. That’s because it has a distinct meaning unconnected to the double negatives. Hence, in my view, my dear boy, it cannot be considered a true double negative, especially not one of the cockney variety.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;418169]

I mean exactly what I say my dear boy.

The words "not" and "nothing" are undoubtedly two negatives so there is a double negative in the construction but it is not what I would call a true double negative because there is no ambiguity in the meaning.

So it is just your own opinion. "What you would call".

I naturally prefer research to that.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the expression "not for nothing" is a standalone phrase which has its own distinct meaning (i.e. it means "for a very good reason").

Warren would surely have needed your help. Just think about it! The Pointing Out of Distinct Meanings, a book by David Orsam. Dedicated to Warren and to all those people who understood nothing when they read the GSG and the "copies" of it!

If we take a true double negative like "I’m not doing nothing", the speaker here is trying to convey the impression that they are not doing anything and thus should have said "I’m not doing anything".

Could you please tell us what sort of syntactic function you are trying to describe here?

With the double negative in it, the sentence is ambiguous because the two negatives create a positive.

Reference to research on this function, please.

If the person is literally not doing nothing then they are doing something, which is the exact opposite meaning which is trying to be conveyed. Not doing nothing could thus mean equally "doing nothing" or "doing something" depending on whether you interpret literally or in context. That’s where the ambiguity lies.

With "not for nothing", while the two negatives do in some respects create a positive,

That is really a very bad method for comparison between the types and you just discovered this by yourself. Congratulations.

there is no ambiguity and, indeed, if you were to replace it with "not for anything" or "not for something" it now doesn’t make sense.

For you, that is.

That’s because it has a distinct meaning unconnected to the double negatives.

Can you explain to us the syntactic definition of your idea here?

Hence, in my view, my dear boy, it cannot be considered a true double negative, especially not one of the cockney variety.

And the last two words of course should be included in another linguistic discussion but if you do not manage syntax, how could you manage linquistics?

To be fair to you, David, I do not say that you do not manage it. As you can see, I wrote "if" and I am waiting for your answers.

Pierre

[Pierre]

He is critical of authorities in 1888 who thought Juwes meant Jews.

This from the same person who wants us to accept that it meant Judges.

Dear GUT,

I do not want you to accept anything.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Here is the result of this discussion.

Posters thought about "Not for nothing" that it:

- Has nothing to do with the Ripper case

- Comes from literature

- Is not only cockney

- Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double
negative

- But still completely different

- Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage.

- Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative?

That depends on education and context

- Not for nothing is good for nothing

- "Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or
said with good reason

- The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or
history.

- Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though?

- They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular
circumstance,

- Hardly "Victorian"..

I'm going to mark your work now, my dear boy, and, oh dear, I find it very lacking in any academic quality and can only give it an E minus. The lack of source references (i.e. post numbers) and poster IDs for each of the supposed "examples" of poster responses is very poor scholarship. In fact, you seem to have been reading a different thread to the one on this forum.

There was a very consistent response to your OP in the subsequent posts which is that you were wasting everyone's time. That hasn't been mentioned for some reason.

Let me take your purported responses about "not for nothing" individually:

"Has nothing to do with the Ripper case" - Now that is perfectly correct so why are we actually discussing it?

"Comes from literature" - Oh my dear boy, there seems to be some confusion on your part. It was you who gave examples of this phrase from literature. I don't recall anyone else saying anything about it.

"Is not only cockney" - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, my dear, dear boy. You have misunderstood again. You can actually read English I take it? You were told that "not for nothing" is not a cockney expression at all. I told you that in #21 (i.e."No-one is saying, or has said, that the expression "not for nothing" is "pure and simple cockney from the street in Victorian Whitechapel""). Steve told you the same thing in #40 (i.e. "the term "not for nothing" which Pierre as strangely introduced is neither cockney or general London in usage or history.") When you posted strangely in #18: "you may see why I am puzzled when some people say that the expression was spoken cockney from the East End", GUT directly replied to you in #20 saying "Please show us where anyone has said that, about the phrase that you can't even link to the ripper case." So no-one, my dear boy, no-one, is saying it is "not only cockney" they are saying it is not cockney, comprendo?

"Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double negative" - Well they have the words "not" and "nothing" in them so there is some element of similarity.

"But still completely different" - Yes my dear boy, because they are not the same thing.

"Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage" - Yes my dear boy. What conclusion do you draw from that?

Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative? - Now my dear boy it is correct that Scott Nelson asked in #23: "Would someone be lees inclined to write a sentence with a double negative as opposed to speaking one?" to which GUT replied in #24 "Possibly vary be education and context of the writing.". But Scott was not suggesting that there was difference between using (i.e. writing) or speaking a double negative, he was just asking if it would be less common to write it rather than speak it.

"That depends on education and context" - As I have just explained my dear boy, that was the answer given by GUT to a different question than the one you have summarised. He was only referring to the likelihood (i.e. inclination) of it being spoken as opposed to written.

"Not for nothing is good for nothing" - I think someone might have been speaking about you there my dear boy.

""Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or said with good reason" - That was the dictionary definition supplied by Pcdunn in #8.

"The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or history." - Yes my dear boy, that was Steve, as I have already mentioned, and what he said was consistent with everything you have been told.

Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though? - That was andy1867 my dear boy in #50 responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

"They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular circumstance" - That was andy1867 in #50 again, responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

Hardly "Victorian".. - And once again, you are quoting andy1867 in #50 replying to Harry.

Strangely you quoted everything from andy1867's post at#50 except his final sentence which was:

"I would honestly like to see where Pierre is going with it, but its just pratting about with semantics isn't it?"

Are you pratting about with semantics my dear boy?

[Pierre]

I'm going to mark your work now, my dear boy, and, oh dear, I find it very lacking in any academic quality and can only give it an E minus. The lack of source references (i.e. post numbers) and poster IDs for each of the supposed "examples" of poster responses is very poor scholarship. In fact, you seem to have been reading a different thread to the one on this forum.

There was a very consistent response to your OP in the subsequent posts which is that you were wasting everyone's time. That hasn't been mentioned for some reason.

Let me take your purported responses about "not for nothing" individually:

"Has nothing to do with the Ripper case" - Now that is perfectly correct so why are we actually discussing it?

"Comes from literature" - Oh my dear boy, there seems to be some confusion on your part. It was you who gave examples of this phrase from literature. I don't recall anyone else saying anything about it.

"Is not only cockney" - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, my dear, dear boy. You have misunderstood again. You can actually read English I take it? You were told that "not for nothing" is not a cockney expression at all. I told you that in #21 (i.e."No-one is saying, or has said, that the expression "not for nothing" is "pure and simple cockney from the street in Victorian Whitechapel""). Steve told you the same thing in #40 (i.e. "the term "not for nothing" which Pierre as strangely introduced is neither cockney or general London in usage or history.") When you posted strangely in #18: "you may see why I am puzzled when some people say that the expression was spoken cockney from the East End", GUT directly replied to you in #20 saying "Please show us where anyone has said that, about the phrase that you can't even link to the ripper case." So no-one, my dear boy, no-one, is saying it is "not only cockney" they are saying it is not cockney, comprendo?

"Is a bit similar to another expression which is cockney and a double negative" - Well they have the words "not" and "nothing" in them so there is some element of similarity.

"But still completely different" - Yes my dear boy, because they are not the same thing.

"Double negatives seem to date back to Old English usage" - Yes my dear boy. What conclusion do you draw from that?

Is there any difference between using or speaking a double negative? - Now my dear boy it is correct that Scott Nelson asked in #23: "Would someone be lees inclined to write a sentence with a double negative as opposed to speaking one?" to which GUT replied in #24 "Possibly vary be education and context of the writing.". But Scott was not suggesting that there was difference between using (i.e. writing) or speaking a double negative, he was just asking if it would be less common to write it rather than speak it.

"That depends on education and context" - As I have just explained my dear boy, that was the answer given by GUT to a different question than the one you have summarised. He was only referring to the likelihood (i.e. inclination) of it being spoken as opposed to written.

"Not for nothing is good for nothing" - I think someone might have been speaking about you there my dear boy.

""Not for nothing" is a claim or statement that something has been done or said with good reason" - That was the dictionary definition supplied by Pcdunn in #8.

"The term "not for nothing" is neither cockney or general London in usage or history." - Yes my dear boy, that was Steve, as I have already mentioned, and what he said was consistent with everything you have been told.

Are they not just sort of everyday expressions though? - That was andy1867 my dear boy in #50 responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

"They all simply mean that there is a price involved in a particular circumstance" - That was andy1867 in #50 again, responding to a list of three expressions posted by Harry in #45.

Hardly "Victorian".. - And once again, you are quoting andy1867 in #50 replying to Harry.

Strangely you quoted everything from andy1867's post at#50 except his final sentence which was:

"I would honestly like to see where Pierre is going with it, but its just pratting about with semantics isn't it?"

Are you pratting about with semantics my dear boy?

You are wasting your time, David. You did not manage to answer the questions but instead you write this incoherent post.

[David Orsam]

You are wasting your time, David. You did not manage to answer the questions but instead you write this incoherent post.

Oh my dear boy, there were no questions in your post, merely an unintelligible purported "Conclusion II".

It was the absence of any questions which explains why I did not answer them.

[Abby Normal]

You are wasting your time, David. You did not manage to answer the questions but instead you write this incoherent post.

Give it up Pier. Time to cut your loses.

Or is that lodges?

[GUT]

Oh my dear boy, there were no questions in your post, merely an unintelligible purported "Conclusion II".

It was the absence of any questions which explains why I did not answer them.

As usual you're meant to guess what he means

[Henry Flower]

It is in his responses to David that Pierre usually seems to let his mask slip, and we can all see that he is not a scholar, and more importantly, (or at least it SHOULD be more important to the moderators of this site) he is not an honest contributor.

Pierre is not an honest contributor. He is deceitful, and when his twisting and artifice is dissected in irrefutable detail he resorts to more lies, bluster, and name-calling.

I don't know why he's still here. Is he hoping that perhaps David Orsam will at some point die, so that he can post more of his baseless time-wasting bull without having it so thoroughly exposed for what it is?

[Henry Flower]

David's post was thoroughly coherent, Pierre. It was calm and considered, took its structure from your own post, and I had no trouble following it.

If you found it incoherent I can only suggest you come back to the boards when you have completed some remedial classes in basic English, as you're evidently having trouble reading structured arguments in very clear, concise prose.

Good luck! We'll see you back here next year, yes? Happy learning!

HF

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, there were no questions in your post, merely an unintelligible purported "Conclusion II".

It was the absence of any questions which explains why I did not answer them.

If we take a true double negative like "I’m not doing nothing", the speaker here is trying to convey the impression that they are not doing anything and thus should have said "I’m not doing anything".

Could you please tell us what sort of syntactic function you are trying to describe here?

That’s because it has a distinct meaning unconnected to the double negatives.

Can you explain to us the syntactic definition of your idea here?

There you are again, the two questions. They are in the post. No absence.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

There you are again, the two questions. They are in the post. No absence.

But, my dear boy, I was (in my #81) replying to your #73, in which there were no questions posed by you at all. You are now referring to your #79. At the time I started typing my #81, your #79 didn't even exist and even I, with all my abilities, am not able to anticipate questions that haven't yet been asked.

[Pierre]

But, my dear boy, I was (in my #81) replying to your #73, in which there were no questions posed by you at all. You are now referring to your #79. At the time I started typing my #81, your #79 didn't even exist and even I, with all my abilities, am not able to anticipate questions that haven't yet been asked.

Dear David,

Amusing as it may be to read your posts about posts, I have other things to do and the exercise of this thread is finished. The reflections you have posted in connection to my conclusions are just reflections on earlier statements with very varying opinions about this and that, where nothing of it has any relevance for the question about the idiom "Not for nothing" except from the pure reflecting of people on that expression, in the same way people in 1888 reflected on the GSG. The conclusions are there. Thanks for participating my dear David.

All the best, Pierre