Didn't do Nothing

[THE Bigzoman]

Many of you seem to need a homework assignment -- go study up on AAVE.

Nooooooooooooooo

We're talking logical structure here Bungee.

[Kuntantee]

Depends.
Is there an authority that has the power to decide what the correct form is?
I know that in the Netherlands we only have a group that decides how you spell words.
It's how language evolves.

The problem is two negatives making a positive statement there and when you use it as a sole negative, in this case, to imply that you didn't do anything, then there is a problem. If you just go by pure grammar and semantics, ignoring how it is used, then "I didn't do nothing" means I did something. That's why used the term "correct form".

[Elim Garak]

The worst thing is when someone with any British accent says it.


"I wOooOuld OFFF done it!!!"

How do you know they are saying "would of" and not "would've"? It's only visible in writing.

[Deleted]

How do you know they are saying "would of" and not "would've"? It's only visible in writing.

You can hear it most of the time. The O and especially F are pronounced clearly.

[Felya]

It was cool in the 90s courtesy of Bart, these people are late to the trend

Beat me to it...

[shadowmouse]

We're talking logical structure here Bungee.

You're doin' it wrong then. How can you assess logical values without understanding the intended use of the language first?

[Elim Garak]

You can hear it most of the time. The O and especially F are pronounced clearly.

Contraction of "would have" to "would've" removes the sound "H" changes "ae" sound of "ave" to "ə" making it sound like "əv" which is the exact sound of "of" (hence the writing mistake), look it up.

[Vanyali]

It sounds better?

No, it sounds fucking stupid.

You're talking grammatically.

I'm talking syllabically, which has zero to do with content and everything to do with how the sounds are produced.

[Deleted]

Contraction of "would have" to "would've" removes the sound "H" changes "ae" sound of "ave" to "ə" making it sound like "əv" which is the exact sound of "of" (hence the writing mistake), look it up.

I know what it sounds like when you make a contraction. I don't need a lesson, thank you very much.

But, I know how to make a distinction in certain cases too. I also know that people saying "would of" is pretty likely when they also happen to write it.

[Elim Garak]

I know what it sounds like when you make a contraction. I don't need a lesson, thank you very much.

But, I know how to make a distinction in certain cases too. I also know that people saying "would of" is pretty likely when they also happen to write it.

There's no audible distinction. Would've is pronounced as would of. And no surprise that people who say would've a lot tend to make the mistake in writing. They are thinking "would've" as it is pronounced "would of" and they write it down as "would of", the only problem is they don't notice it and thus it remains uncorrected.

[Tzalix]

It's called a double negative. You may very well find it irritating, I do as well. But it is common in many languages and it's one of those things that you must learn to accept. Usage dictates correctness. If enough people use double negatives, they become a part of the language.

Other examples include:

"can't find it nowhere"
"ain't got no time"
"won't allow it no more"

In some languages, double negatives are actually mandatory, a core part of the language. Afrikaans works that way, apparently.

[Spectral]

I assume people have already linked this, but African American Vernacular English uses negation in this fashion:

Negatives are formed differently from most other varieties of English:[58]

Use of ain't as a general negative indicator. As in other dialects, it can be used where most other dialects would use am not, isn't, aren't, haven't and hasn't. However, in marked contrast to other varieties of English in the U.S., some speakers of AAVE also use ain't instead of don't, doesn't, or didn't (e.g., I ain't know that).[59] Ain't had its origins in common English, but became increasingly stigmatized since the 19th century. See also amn't.
Negative concord, popularly called "double negation", as in I didn't go nowhere; if the sentence is negative, all negatable forms are negated. This contrasts with standard written English conventions, which have traditionally prescribed that a double negative is considered incorrect to mean anything other than a positive (although this wasn't always so; see double negative).
In a negative construction, an indefinite pronoun such as nobody or nothing can be inverted with the negative verb particle for emphasis (e.g. Don't nobody know the answer, Ain't nothing going on.)
While these are features that AAVE has in common with Creole languages,[60] Howe & Walker (2000) use data from early recordings of African Nova Scotian English, Samaná English, and the recordings of former slaves to demonstrate that negation was inherited from nonstandard colonial English.[58]

[nextormento]

You're talking grammatically.

I'm talking syllabically, which has zero to do with content and everything to do with how the sounds are produced.

I'm really skeptical of your suggestion.
There is a syllabic break in both versions. "Anything" simply has more syllables than "nothing". Take the example already provided: if anything, I can appreciate a merger on the other words "didn'tdo", not quite on the following "nothing".
If it was becoming something of the "I didn't donything" sort, in the manner that "yall" exists, it'd sound more plausible.

I'm betting on people being more comfortable with negative concord. AAVE uses it extensively already, and so do several languages around the globe, no surprise people are picking up on it.

[breadisfunny]

Doesn't "didn't do nothing" mean you did something? Two negations make a truth.

you saying i bumped uglies with a draenei?

[Vanyali]

I'm really skeptical of your suggestion.
There is a syllabic break in both versions. "Anything" simply has more syllables than "nothing". Take the example already provided: if anything, I can appreciate a merger on the other words "didn'tdo", not quite on the following "nothing".
If it was becoming something of the "I didn't donything", in the manner that "yall" exists, it'd sound more plausible.

I'm betting on people being more comfortable with negative concord. AAVE uses it extensively already, and so do several languages around the globe, no surprise people are picking up on it.

It has nothing to do with number of syllables. I was quite clear in my first post - going from o to a is a far harsher break than o to n. That's why it sounds better than the harsher break (and why the g is often dropped).

[Kraenen]

Wrong.
In many countries double negatives are used to enhance the negative.
It was even used in English!

What? Oh that's true. Rednecks don't speak English And it's not like we're talking about the american context either. And it's not like my statement said it only came from one source. lawl.

[OperationFerret]

Who's to say that double negatives HAVE to cancel each other out? Why can't they multiply?

You'd be taken extra seriously by the cops.

[Kraenen]

But you did say: "They just don't think logically I guess - if they did they'd see the double negative."
"No no" doesn't suddenly mean yes.

It has nothing to do with logic, it has more to do with what people are being used to in language.
You might be referring to the rule in mathematics where a double negative becomes a positive, but that has nothing to do with language.

Didn't do nothing means they did something. That's the logical double negative.

[caervek]

It's a type of statement called an oxymoron, (a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction) it is self contradictory but still used as most people understand what it means (Similar to how Apple can run their Mac vs PC advertisements despite Macs being PCs).

Another example would be the mobster favourite "I didn't see nuffin".

[nextormento]

I was quite clear in my first post - going from o to a is a far harsher break than o to n.

Not seeing it.
Not able to track any similar linguistic development either. Those things don't develop on pairs of sounds, but on anticipation or trailing from the following or preceding sounds: syllables are important. do-a do-no sound about as harsh transitions *to me*.
I'll note that phonetically the o in "do" is [u:], and the a in "anything" is [ɛ]. That is a pretty common diphthong in other languages. Though English typically doesn't have rising diphthongs (as [ue] is), the construction of flow between those two sounds is common, whereas "do no" needs a break.