My first thought when I read that and similar terms in a headline is, Wait! That's not what you mean! Consider this:
- We have tax protesters, that is, those who oppose taxation.
- We have entitlement protesters, that is, those who oppose compensating certain classes and categories in an attempt to level the economic playing field.
- We have war protesters, that is, those who oppose involvement in armed conflict.
What, then, is an "anti-war protester"? One who opposes those who are opposed to involvement in armed conflict--so, a protester against the people of the anti-war cause?
And that's why, to my ear, anti-war protester strikes as a double-negative, a term that grammatically seems to fails itself because it implies the opposite of what it means by expressing negativity twice. If you think of language in mathematical terms, a double negative would appear to support this truth:
negative x negative = positive (ex: -5 x -5 = 25)while a single negative does the opposite:
negative x positive = negative (ex: -5 x 5 = -25)But of course we know the mathematical argument only applies in standard English. Double-negatives are common, acceptable, colorful, and altogether quite useful in some English dialects. In phrases like "ain't got no," "don't see none," or "never ate no," the extra negative serves to emphasize, not cancel out, the sense of the phrase.
In the day-to-day scheme, though, I have to be practical. I am not a linguist whose work is to study such things. And as a mostly non-fiction focused editor, I have little if any call for working with anything other than standard English. So I'm left with the question: When I edit around a term like anti-war protester, is it acceptable, or is it something I should change because it's potentially confusing or distracting? After all, substituting the simpler war protester would avoid the problem.
Readers, chime in. Does "anti-war protester" ring standard to you, or does it sound like a kind of double-negative? What about other, perhaps more obvious, double negatives? Do you have any examples or anecdotes to share? All contributions and opinions are welcome.
I agree!
ReplyDeleteIn guttural language we say a lot of things we might never say in an English class simply because what we hear everyday is considered "normal" even if we know it isn't proper.
I believe it is our duty to present our opinion/commentary in commonly accepted English regardless of how well that commentary might be accepted.
"When in doubt, choose proper English." is a great "rule of thumb." Even if nobody else understands, at least you will have placed a solid stake in the ground and it will be everyone else's obligation to challenge the point you have made.
American's appear to have a love affair with improper linguistics simply because they can get away with that revolutionary attitude. On closer observation, however, most young Americans have never been taught proper English or civil ethics. Their's cannot be accepted as a cultural norm. We have a common dialect and all who choose to call themselves American must accept that caveat.
English rules can be laborious and complicated but that is our only declared standard (thus far).
My personal message to anyone who disagrees is very simple; choose where you wish to live then live the life common to that place. Foreigners never define nationality until they adhere to their adopted nation.
Jerry
I find it similar to the difference between "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less." When used, the speaker/writer means they don't care, however...
ReplyDeleteThe literal meaning of the former is: "I do care, but I could care less."
The literal meaning of the latter is: "It is impossible for me to care less than I already do."
I try to always use correct English in this case, and I couldn't care less what others choose to use.
Hi AnnaLisa,
ReplyDeleteNice post! I had never considered that this could be a double negative, but I'm starting to think that you're right. Although in my day-to-day interactions with my students, the double negatives are much more obviously double negatives and thus much easier to identify as non-standard. I've found that the difficult part is when you explain that "You can't have a double negative in English, even if you can in Spanish," and then someone inevitably replies, "Why?"
"Because, um, well. Huh."
Haha!
Ryan
Thank you, everyone, for your comments! (And thank you also for keeping my blog alive when I abandon it for two weeks at a time, as I've done yet again.)
ReplyDelete@Jerry: I think you say a mouthful here: "English rules can be laborious and complicated but that is our only declared standard." And thank goodness for that, or I'd be out of a job. :)
@Ben: That is a fantastic example, and it's a good one to include here because it's far more common than "anti-war protester" and the like.
@Ryan: Hmm, good question on the students' part. But I guess it's perfectly acceptable for "Just because" to be the answer on yours! No one ever argued that all English rules make sense all the time.