1

This popped up during a conversation. My friend said (roughly):

Some vegetarians don't eat meat. Why not fish?

To me, this felt somewhat weird. Her intent was to ask, if some vegetarians refuse to eat meat, why are they okay eating fish? The part that felt weird was the "why not".

Suppose she had said instead:

Some vegetarians refuse to eat meat. Why not fish?

Then this would be equivalent to:

Some vegetarians refuse to eat meat. Why don't they refuse to eat fish?

But by saying:

Some vegetarians don't eat meat. Why not fish?

She's really saying:

Some vegetarians don't eat meat. Why don't they don't eat fish?

Which is a double negative. Am I right? Or am I completely crazy here?

Improve this question
2
  • Everything else aside, vegetarians don't eat fish.
    – user13141
    Apr 19, 2013 at 18:46
  • 1
    A little silly, but couldn't this also be read as, "Why don't fish refuse to eat meat?"
    – p.s.w.g
    Apr 19, 2013 at 19:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It is implicitly a double negative:

Vegetarians don’t eat meat. Why not fish?

Vegetarians do not eat meat. Why not not eat fish?

It may not be the clearest phrasing, but I don’t think it hampers understanding. You can think of “to not eat” as an affirmative verb meaning to choose not to eat, or to refuse to eat. To remove the double negative, if it bothers you, you can just phrase the question in the affirmative:

Vegetarians don’t eat meat. Why (do they) eat fish?

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.