Timeline for "I give nothing to no-one" or "I do not give anything to anyone"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
Mar 1, 2012 at 0:31 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @John Lawler: Aargh! - spare me from "I could care less", please! | |
Mar 1, 2012 at 0:18 | comment | added | John Lawler | dõ'wəriəbauɾiʔ -- as I've said many times, wrapping one's head around negation is really a bizarre experience, especially if one has to deal with strange notational conventions at the same time. The NPI list started out typed and grew into a handout over many years, and I was at pains to keep it on one page. At that, there's plenty more to say. | |
Feb 29, 2012 at 23:32 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @John Lawler: oic - neat trick! Intuitive enough once I know what I'm looking for (in computer syntax we often use [square] brackets for elements that might not be present). I feel a bit silly now though - having gone back and looked at the page again, I've just realised you did provide that information. My screen dimensions are such that the ruled line at the end of the list just came at the bottom of the display, and I never thought to scroll below it. Der! | |
Feb 29, 2012 at 22:29 | vote | accept | Pietro | ||
Feb 29, 2012 at 20:17 | comment | added | John Lawler | It's a standard way to save space when presenting multiple examples. Parentheses surround optional elements. Asterisk outside parentheses means that deleting the parenthesized element produces ungrammaticality. Asterisk inside parentheses means that inserting (i.e, not deleting) the parenthesized element produces ungrammaticality. In the case of I *(don’t) have any, that indicates that *I have any is ungrammatical. | |
Feb 29, 2012 at 17:52 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @John Lawler: Not sure I understand the typographic conventions in your link, within which the very first entry says "I *(don’t) have any". Surely that asterisk isn't intended to signify the construction is "marked", and by implication not acceptable to the average native speaker? | |
Feb 29, 2012 at 17:39 | comment | added | John Lawler | Constructions with any are prototypical Negative Polarity Items. The OP is not the only one who has a problem with negatives; they're probably the most complex portion of English semantics and the weirdest part of its syntax. | |
Feb 29, 2012 at 15:19 | history | answered | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |