Grammar question (double negatives)

Okay, we're having a fight here. I said:

"Don't think I don't agree with you!"

And I got flak for using a double negative. I don't think it *is* technically a double-negative. "Don't think" is an imperative. The
"Don't" modifies the think and is entirely separate from the "agree." I say it's okay. "Don't think I disagree with you" might be better but if mine is a double negative then this one is as well.

Grammar experts: what's the official word?

I agree with you?

But your version is not an imperative. It's not a command. So you haven't come up with an equivalent statement. What if I were an all-powerful king, ordering his jester to never say he disagrees with me? Some grovelling king I would be!

You, as king: "Servant boy."

Servant boy: "Yes'r Mr. King"

King: "Don't disagree with anything I say."

Servant boy: "Yes'r Mr. King."

I think. I think the "dis" counts as a negative. But now that I think about it, if we cancelled the two out, "Agree with everything I say," that's not quite the same.

How about if I phrased it like this?

"I command you not to think I disagree with you."

But "I command you to think I agree with you" is not the same thing either.

I ain't got no idea, though. :evilgrin:

It's like saying, "Don't think I won't." "I'm going to eat that last piece of chocolate, and don't you think I won't." I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

You're conveying two different issues, actually. A real double negative uses two negative words that should cancel one another out, yet the speaker doesn't mean it to be so.

Ain't nothing wrong with what you said. ;)

Think and Agree

each one has its own negative.

It's a double negative if one verb or verb/object pair has 2 negatives.

...in the sense the other person obviously meant.

By the way, it's worth knowing that this whole concept of the double negative--e.g., "I ain't no fool"--being an error is actually an effect of the "latinization" of English and is entirely arbitrary. Analyzed logically, the negatives cancel out, but before the early prescriptivist grammarians decided English must be made to follow Latin rules insofar as possible, that's not how English worked. In earlier forms, double (or triple or quadruple) negatives were intensifiers--the more of 'em you used, the more negative you were being. They were analyzed additively rather than logically, a perfectly coherent rule.

;)

A double negative is any construction that employs two negatives, especially to express a single negation.

Exceptions to the rule: The ban on using double negatives to convey emphasis does not apply when the second negative appears in a separate phrase or clause, as in I will not surrender, not today, not ever or He does not seek money, no more than he seeks fame. You must use commas to separate the negative phrases in these examples. Thus the sentence He does not seek money no more than he seeks fame is unacceptable, whereas the equivalent sentence with any is perfectly acceptable and requires no comma: He does not seek money any more than he seeks fame.

It is in a separate clause.

"(You) don't think (that) I don't agree with you."

The second half is in an independent clause. "I don't agree with you" completes a full thought.

On second thought, the first clause is dependent on the second. "You don't think" does not make a complete thought (at least not in this instance). However, both negatives are in separate clauses.

Read the links I provided further down in the thread.

The second link would seem to support that a double negative is incorrect even if in differenct clauses. Read sentance number 3.

Something like: "they decided not to run the tests again because the results were hardly reliable."

The negatives appear in different clauses and this is listed as an incorrect use. Again, it is similiar to our example in this post in that a correction is to make one of the words negative instead of using a negative in front of the positive word. (i.e.: use "unreliable" instead of "hardly reliable" and use "I disagree" instead of "I don't agree")

IMHO :D

If it isn't a double negative, then it is a poorly worded sentence at best.

"Don't think" is not an imperative. An imperative would be "No, I do not agree with you." This is not a double negative because "no" is an imperative.

In your sentence, "don't think" is actually "(You) don't think"
So, you is the subject. Do think is the verb.

The second half of the sentence is an independent clause. The word "that" is understood in the clause. I is the subject. Do agree is the verb.

The question then is whether the "nots" in the sentence and in the clause create a double negative. Because the cluse appears indpendent (a full thought in its own right), I do not think that they do create a double negative; however, I am not certain on that rule. Certainly, the meaning in your statement is understood which is the important thing. A better way to state it may have been "Don't think I disagree with you" or even "You don't think I agree with you?" Asked reflexively, the listener would hear in your voice that you meant the opposite. (This doesn't work well in writing, of course.)

I'm only thinking formally, but if want to retain nuance then this is what was going on. A colleague was blaming me for something that wasn't under my control. She kept insisting I do something about it. When I tried to convey this, that there wasn't anything I could do, she kept hearing that as me saying I wouldn't try to do anything about it because I didn't think it was important.

Now, in fact I wasn't sure whether I agreed with her, that it was important. I didn't *disagree* with her, but I wasn't sure if I agreed with her either. So I didn't want to say "I agree with you." That wasn't true. I tried to stay somewhat neutral but convey the sense that my agreement had nothing to do with it. "Don't think I disagree with you" would certainly have worked. "Don't think I don't agree with you," seemed better, but, yes, also somewhat awkward.

Of course this all came up because pointing out grammar errors (and spelling errors) is the last resort of a failed argument.

Now these arguments about two independent clauses--particularly if one inserts the implied "that"--is not something I had considered. I like it. I think it's the answer. So, second question: are they truly two separate clauses? "Don't think!" is independent. And so is "I don't agree with you7." I disregarded this at first because I didn't see any place to insert an implied comma. Inserting "that" hadn't occurred to me.

You guys are fun!

I haven't quit laughing yet.

because the issue of clauses does not bear in determining the double negative. A double negative is any two negatives employed in the same construct.

However, double negatives are not improper usage. They may be frowned upon, but they're not improper.

In my second post on this thread I provided some internet grammar resources. Give them a look, it can't hurt.

independent, I was not thinking about the first clause.

The first clause is not depedent IMO. "You don't think" does not convey a full thought. While it could, it certainly does not here. Look at Soteric's post with the links a little lower. It looks like the statement was technicallt incorrect; however, it would have been considered ok in spoken language because the meaning was not lost.

sheesh -- "think I don't agree with you" is a single action -- you're just saying don't do that

is any construction that employs two negatives, especially to express a single negation.

the first negation is of the verb "think" the second negation is of the verb "agree" -- it's awkward, sure

:evilgrin:

http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/confusion.htm#double_negatives

and this:

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html

I, myself, am far from uncomfortable offering my not insignificant knowledge on the subject. I'd say you are not incorrect in your usage, but then I'm no English teacher.

I'm a former English teacher, if that's any reassurance.

I personally use "I don't disagree with you" in discussion.

In both cases, I believe we're trying for something subtler than "I agree with you" but that distinction is lost on a black-and-white world.

One reason that English has become such a popular language is because of its richness and flexibility of usage. The French made a huge mistake "locking in" their language - which used to be the language of diplomacy.

Failing to see the distinction is a logical fallacy. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

(on edit, I suppose I should actually answer the question)

Don't think I don't agree with you.

What you're saying is not a double-negative. That would be "Don't not think I agree with you", which is not what you're saying/implying.

This knot is useful for tying things to posts.

Pass the line around the post. Double back across the line and go over the post in the opposite direction. When you cross the line, double back again. Repeat as necessary for strength then tie off.

Now I gotta go loking for my mind...thanks. :)