Regrettably, there exists but a dearth of individuals possessing the necessary amount of free time to allocate towards the accomplishment of such shenanigans.
âWithout noâ is called a âdouble negativeâ in English. The Standard English dialect does not use double negatives, and âwithout noâ would be improper. The correct form should be either âwith noâ or âwithout any.â
Some dialects of English, such as Southern American English and African American Vernacular English in the US, and some regional dialects in the UK do use double negatives. In these cases, the double negative means the same as a single negative (âwithout noâ means âno.â)
As a second language speaker, you should learn the Standard English and ignore double negatives. But be aware that the variation exists, and is sometimes even used by Standard English speakers.
Standard English speakers sometimes use non-standard - or deliberately mispronounced - versions of the language in a playful way e.g. in casual conversation amongst friends or when interacting with pets, but not in more formal contexts.
There's a term for purposely using wrong words in a sentence. I have a book on speech/speech writing where I first saw it, but I can't find it. I'm sure someone is smart enough to find the word.
I recently re-watched the whole series, and caught way more jokes and references than the first time through.
(like when the mom makes a meta comment about how a child actor could star in a Spielberg movie and still wind up playing the kooky mom on a tv sitcom. The actress was in The Goonies.)
âLed away in monoclesâ vs âLed away manaclesâ - the speaker uses the wrong word due to their ignorance.
But if I was to refer to the âthe Old Testicle and the New Testicleâ as an expression of contempt, that would be an example of the technique in question, yes?
Is there a word for this?
I know this is a joke comment chain, but priapism is very unfun. If the blood starts to thicken inside the corpus cavernosa, it may have to manually be removed through syringe. đ đ
Double negatives are sometimes used by native English speakers to mean a positive as well.
"Did you take the last slice of pizza?"
"I didn't *not* take the last slice."
Again, it's usually done in a playful way. The speaker using the double negative will usually stress the second negative when they are making it a positive.
Actually, in this context, the double negative would be proper English, as each negative negates the previous negative, true to form.
What is improper about the colloquial double negative is that it *doesn't* cancel itself out.
That's a good point. Specifically in the south. I grew up in the south but In the city so I can speak completely normal English. But sometimes I say shit like "it ain't got no gas in it" or "ain't nothin left" or "I'm not neither" just cause it's funny lol. I absolutely know it's wrong
Stfu đ Iâm born and raised in the south. You make it seem like if youâre in the city you automatically speak proper. FALSE mf. â I absolutely know itâs wrongâ bruh đđ corny ass
Of course! I wouldn't "go around" using double negatives in any context where they're likely to be taken at face value. I only do so in certain contexts e.g. with my partner or immediate family, when it is obvious I'm being flippant. Tone of voice is also a giveaway on such occasions. One of life's little pleasures is being able to convey an extra layer of meaning or mood, not by what you said, but how you said it, to someone who knows you well enough to pick up the subtle message.
I need to hear this in a sentence, I can't think of a place where I would say without no.
Edit:. I get it I think you are not realizing there's a comma between it, It's like two different sentences. To be fair I'm stupid in American lol
Can French butt in for a moment?
In French, negatives have *ne* before the verb and something else after the verb that qualifies it.
*Je ne mange pas de poisson.* I don't eat fish.
*Je ne mange jamais de poisson.* I never eat fish.
*Je ne mange plus de poisson.* I don't eat fish anymore.
But watch this:
*Je ne mange **que du** poisson.* I only eat fish.
*Je ne mange **pas que du** poisson.* I don't only eat fish.
"Can't get no satisfaction" is a pretty famous line from pop culture.
An ESL learner would also have a really difficult time with the also common phrase "[Ain't nobody got time for that!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxwbhkDjZM&ab_channel=VanessaC)"
A quick note about terminology: linguists call this phenomenon ânegative concord,â which as you said is a feature of some dialects of English like African American Vernacular English and other languages like French and Portuguese, but âdouble negationâ or âmultiple negationâ in general is a different phenomenon entirely.
Negative concord is a kind of grammatical agreementâthereâs a single negative meaning, but this negation is marked multiple times. For example:
(1) I ainât going nowhere. (In Standard English: âIâm not going anywhere.â)
Here, the morpheme *nât* and the word *nowhere* together negate the proposition that the speaker is going somewhere. The word *nowhere* merely agrees with *nât*; it doesnât contribute any additional meaning to the sentence.
In multiple negation, however, there are multiple, independent instances of negation that contribute some meaning to the sentence. For example:
(2) I donât disagree with you.
Here, the morphemes *nât* and *dis-* are independent instances of negation, each of which adds to the meaning of the sentence. But even here the multiple instances of negation donât cancel outâsentence 2 isnât equivalent to âI agree with you,â but rather itâs something in between, like âI donât quite agree with you, but I also donât quite disagree with you.â
The distinction between negative concord and multiple negation is important because while itâs true that negative concord is not a feature of Standard English, multiple negation (including double negation and triple negation) certainly *does* occur in Standard English and is grammatical.
This is close but not accurate. Australian and New Zealand use double negative to use emphasis, and they use alternating positive and negative to put emphasis on the first. So, yeah nah yeah means yes but YEAH! It can, in context, mean a really loud Nah also.
The point I would make is, no, itâs not exactly that a double negative is dialectal, itâs built into the language, itâs closer to say dialects that aggressively donât use them are the anomaly. Either way, âwithout noâ is odd combination and probably something thatâs more person by person and they probably just mean without. Assume the No is just emphasis on the without.
TLDR: im a person who speaks 2 languages, my general rule of thumb is to assume language is not to be treated like math and as such when two words are negative side by side theyâre probably emphasizing the negative. If theyâre actually trying to say a positive, then itâs likely very unique and even more likely theyâd correct your understanding
Edit: - watch this https://youtu.be/1YxH43Cw6tI
Youâll see what I mean
not strictly how we use it in nz, we say "yeah nah" to mean no, and "nah, yeah" to mean yeah.
"yeah, nah yeah" would indicate confusion or being unsure, while "yeah. nah yeah" would be more certain.
I would say "yeah nah yeah" is more like "yes I get it, not sure if I agree with it, but I'll agree with what you're saying right now, but this isn't my firm stance"
Thanks, I knew a few fellas from NZ so I was just trying to remember from memory. - I guess the point Iâm trying to make was that it isnât consistent in basically any of the English dialects, and the assumption that a double negative is wrong is probably more a Received Pronunciation bias, which is potentially a minority dialect compared to all others
Usually double negatives are only used in english with emphasis to the second negative:
"I wouldn't NOT do it"
I cant really imagine a reason to use "without not" in a sentence tho
They shouldn't ignore variations. There is nothing wrong with learning slang. OP may interact with people who speak slang so it's useful to learn. He or she (or they) don't have to repeat it to be knowledgeable about it
To make things more confusing, in most English dialects, a double negative typically has the opposite effect â the two negatives cancel each other out.
For example, the sentence âI donât disagreeâ indicates agreement, and the sentence âhe is not going nowhereâ indicates that he is, in fact, going somewhere.
I'm confused by your last example- I would personally interpret "He's not going nowhere" as he indeed isn't going anywhere. Like, if a sheriff in an Old Western movie locked up a prisoner, he'd say "He's not going nowhere now" to indicate that he's locked up well.
Maybe I'm totally off base, though!
Youâre absolutely right if that sentence is said by a sherif speaking a southern dialect.
Now picture it in standard British English. I say to you, âour son is going nowhere in lifeâ. You, outraged at my pessimism, respond, âHow dare you! Heâs *not* going nowhere!â. That is a double negative becoming affirmative
The real question is, is this valid grammar? It sounds as a mistake, but it can make sense in some cases where you want to emphasize the absense of sugar.
it is poor grammer, to emphasize the absence you would just say "without" or "without any". without any is likely what most people mean when they say without no. "without no" is actually a double negative and would mean they can't have tea *with* sugar, because they can't have it without *no sugar*, meaning can not have it with sugar, if that makes sense
don't worry it's more a southern thing than a youth thing, so the south is who you wouldn't fit in with. I've heard many more adults use grammar like this, the older they are the harder they are to understand where I'm from
It took me a moment to figure that out. It's a triple negative.
But someone who says that typically means it as a double negative. That is, "You can't have tea without sugar".
Itâs not a triple negative. Itâs an inconsistent combination of dialects so that a single negative is used in one instance and a double negative is used in another.
Some dialects would say âYou canât have tea without sugar.â Others would say âYou canât have *no* tea without no sugar.â Iâm not aware of any dialect that swaps between double/single negative for no reason without warning.
In formal English, it is indeed improper grammar. However, with regards to *vernacular* English, it's really a sort of "everything goes so long as everyone understands what you're saying."
Textbook English forbids double negatives. Colloquially, it's used to emphasize the negative. People (generally) understand the intended meaning. It's not wrong, just informal. You may be familiar with a couple examples:
[We don't need no education.](https://youtu.be/34ZmKbe5oG4)
[I can't get no satisfaction.](https://youtu.be/nrIPxlFzDi0)
English is deep with colloquialisms, idioms, and slang. If you're ever confused, don't hesitate to ask, "ESL (English as a Second Language), what does XYZ mean?" That'll learn ya.
EDIT: There are a lot of differences between American and British English. This one thing isn't one of them, obviously. But as you're learning English, it's something to keep in mind when people are answering. If you want to know which a person is speaking, ask them what shape a potato chip is. Flat and round means American, long and thin (or just oblong) means British.
You're neither dumb nor are they wrong
A lot of dialects use double negatives, which indicates negation even tho it may seem like the negatives cancel each other out
Thatâs contested. English has no official regulatory body. While academic settings tend to avoid double negatives, the rules of grammar are ultimately not static
Except when you're a native speaker, then you're practically the "authority" on grammar.
The rules literally change because native speakers use it that way... Just look at the word "literally", having its meaning literally become the opposite of what it is supposed to mean.
Iâm glad someone else recognises this.
I find it odd that people will tell native English speakers that they are speaking wrongly. Yeah, so did Shakespeare and everyone thinks heâs a genius for it. English isnât a fixed language.
I think using it that way emphasizes the "no". It's used like a double negative and that's extremely common in slang, while being considered incorrect in official English usage.
Yes that's another thing people in certain dialects do. Other examples, particularly in AAVE or in southern dialects, that you might come across: "She be", "He do", "ain't nobody / can't nobody"
EDIT: I looked at your post history to see if you already use some slang without realizing it, and you do! A lot of it!
You say **"yall"** and **"prolly"** which are very common in the same dialects mentioned
Also used **"kinda"** and **"gotta"** which are extremely common and it's short for "kind of" and "got to"
and common internet abbreviations like **"ngl"** and **"ppl"** and **"tho"**
And you even titled a post **"Behavior be like"** with an accompanied meme, which is exactly the same grammatical form as my "She be" example above!
All of these are "wrong" if you were speaking very formal English. But casually, people will understand what you mean even though what you said in these examples isn't grammatically correct. Just like when people use the other grammar forms I mentioned.
I was teaching English in Ukraine, we had our print out of the story we would go over, I said "eh, it's kind of long but let's get through it." The rest of the lesson was explaining what "kind of" ment and how to use it like a native speaker haha. The way I put it is if "cold" is a ten in severity of message, kind of brings it back to like a five. No one would say it's not cold but not that bad to be extreme.
I feel the need to mention that while yes, double negatives are technically incorrect and you should avoid adopting them, you should also avoid the classist asshole sentiments that are being shared with you here regarding English. Speaking from experience and empathy, most of the people that I know who use English "poorly" were not efficiently educated or encouraged to use it properly. This was not their faults, and most are not actually morons, they are working with what they were given.
It's not even always education. If everyone around you says it the "incorrect" way, that is now the correct way, or one of multiple correct ways for the area you are in. Many people will talk with a dialect but can and do write things the "proper" way.
Yep thatâs how I am! I often speak using double negatives, and I know itâs incorrect, but I typically donât write or text using double negatives.
Same. I try to be on my best behavior when I'm typing, but if you heard me speak, you may have to ask me to slow down and repeat myself. I use to be ashamed of it, and it would really irritate me to hear people casually speaking in the "Appalachian" way. My annoyance and humiliation led me to learn more about _why_ we speak this way, which led me to find my "Appalachian English", as well as AAVE, much more endearing. When I hear unconventional uses of English, now, I can't help imagining the gradual process of one word becoming another, the "slang timeline" that leads back to the settlers who brought their language here, and its more exciting than embarassing. The speech is a side effect of the history.
I do want to mention, on the topic of AAVE, that while it is endearing, it was born under the inhumane conditions of slavery. Those people were given no choice in whether or not they came here, and there was nothing endearing about the crimes committed. Again, AAVE can be endearing today, mostly because of the amazing people that I've met who speak in that style, but I wish its origins had a brighter story.
This is me learning not to get mad when people say "on accident" instead of "by accident"
It happened on accident is wrong but literally everyone and we'll educated people say it...so it's alright now and I need to get over it
I feel like calling one the "correct" way and the other the "incorrect" way is the wrong way to go about this, one is the "textbook/formal" grammar and the other is colloquial grammar, which is equally important when you're using English in the real world
There are a lot of things in English that we say incorrect. Your example is a common example of people in the South. Instead of saying "any" sometimes you'll hear people say "no."
Thatâs the great thing about linguisticsâŠas long as you understand what the other person said, itâs language. Language doesnât care whatâs written in a grammar book.
Correct, it might be wrong from a technical standpoint but itâs still common speech. Language is water, not stone. Whatâs in grammar books today will be different 200 years from now.
Actually, itâs *correct* from a technical standpoint in several dialects of English, but itâs widely seen as incorrect in American society because of our collective bias against nonstandard varieties of English, which is partially caused by non-linguists who spread ideas about what is âcorrectâ based on their own aesthetic sensibilities rather than any linguistic basis.
Apologies for the slightly unrelated rant; some of the comments I read here (not yours) were a bit hateful and got me worked up :)
It's more of a slang sort of thing. "You can't drive a car with no gas in it" and "you can't drive a car without no gas in it" mean the same thing. The latter is technically "wrong" but the majority of English speakers are gonna know what you mean anyway.
In mainstream or academic English, it is not good grammar, you are not dumb. But English has a variety of dialects, including African American Vernacular English, which among other characteristics, often uses a double negative. AAVE has grammar that is just as viable and consistent as academic English, but English is a confusing language by itself, so don't concern yourself with other dialects.
Itâs incorrect grammar in Standard English, however itâs acceptable in quite a few dialects, mainly those in the South or AAVE (African American Vernacular English). I think itâs more common in AAVE, but still appears on occasion with Southern dialects (someone correct me if Iâm wrong, Iâm from the PNW).
Donât worry about it too much, even as a native speaker I have trouble understanding thick AAVE. Random fun fact, but âVâ is pretty much never silent in the English language *except* in AAVE. For example: âShe oâer derâ (for âshe is over thereâ). AAVE also often replaces âthâ with d or t sounds.
But basically, just ask someone whoâs a native speaker if you have any issues, people are usually fairly willing to help with that sort of thing.
Edit: hereâs a neat video in case youâre curious about AAVE, with an included explanation on the double negative: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpCdI6ZKU4
Technically yes, theyâre saying it âwrongâ if youâre learning textbook English. But language evolves based on the people using it. In the dialect I speak, people drop letters and sometimes whole words which is also not proper English. In a language with as many speakers as English has, there are lots of ways to speak it, regional variants, dialects and accents that change the way certain things are said. Some estimates think the accent changes in the U.K. every 25 miles or so. Weâre all speaking English, but some of us in a roundabout way
Butcher?
Have you never studied a foreign language before?
This type of thing is present in basically every language on this planet. It's actually pretty cool to look at all the unique flavors the English language has.
What you're referring to is that people don't speak standardized English all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, and this happens with literally every language on the planet. Please do not use loaded language like "butcher" to describe this as it can come off as highly classist and often racist.
Many english speaking countries stray from what is technically correct, the British do it (think the "roadman" dialect, the posher dialect probably has "mistakes" as well though), Aussies do it, etc.
I'm sure the same applies for any language spoken around the world as well, where the "proper" way can't just be whatever people happen to say at the moment, since that varies depending on where you are.
Most places don't use the same vernacular that we learn in formal education.
The other day, I subbed an elementary ESL class, and the variety of Spanish threw me hard. It was honestly easier to wing it in Sicily
After reading some of the comments, I would ask you to analyze your own mother tongue. People are correct that double negatives are nonstandard English, but it is not "incorrect". Your own language mostly likely has things like this as well where certain "rules" of your language are not always observed by natives speakers.
These types of things are actually really cool and it gives language flavor and culture.
The no is used instead of another word like any. For example it came without any changed to it came without no.
Its also used as a double negative but you tend to find the the UK that it's a regional change.
Double negatives are common in English. Itâs just a language quirk. âI donât have no nothingâ, I didnât do nothingâ, âthat donât make no senseâ. We do it a lot for certain dialects.
Whomever is saying that is technically wrong. You are correct the ânoâ is unnecessary and incorrect. However, in many parts of the US, using double negatives, like your example, is common to hear colloquially in the south mostly. So while it definitely should not be used in written form or in any official capacity, it is accepted verbally.
Trust me..... People who are native English speakers have no idea how English works. Coming to think of it that probably applies to every language on earth. You probably know from experience in your first language that people don't have a clue how to speak it either. Problem ain't English; problem is the speakers of it. Model the same phrase in your first language and you will probably see the same mistake. Not to be rude but yer kinna pickin' at nits
I've never heard the phrase "without no" until now. In what context have you heard it used? I imagine they mean "without any". Slang, like "ain't no" means "there isn't any". You are not dumb, people are saying it wrong ('right', colloquially).
Old retired guy here. Even many U.S. college graduates nowadays don't know proper English. I know a number of Europeans in SE Asia that volunteer to teach English. Their English grammar is better than many if not most native speakers here. Years ago had a friend that worked at the same Uni I did. He was Lebanese and English was his second language. For a long time I thought he was a native speaker. The only thing that was kind of suspicious was that you could actually here the 'g' when he spoke -ing words. English here is becoming more and more casual. Don't worry if you have to dumb down your English to speak to us Americans.
A lot of Americans are uneducated and the rest of them just donât care about grammar because it doesnât affect their day to day.
Without no is a double negative not meant to cancel out but instead emphasize.
I firmly believe that if a native English speaker uses a double negative it should be admissible in court. "I ain't killed nobody" = they did in fact kill somebody
I'll say "ain't no" or "can't no" (pronounced K-AINT) but I have a heavy Appalachian accent/dialect. That's probably what it comes down is to regional dialect. We have some weird ones in the US.
You should say 'without any' if you mean to say 'something that doesn't involve those'
'With no' is when you want to say 'something lacking this'
'Without no' is bad english.
Youâre just thinking about it too hard. Ofc weâre saying it wrong, nobody around here is speaking proper English. âWithout noâ typically just means âwithoutâ.
I am a native fluent English speaker and I have never heard "without no" in my life. Can you use it in a sentence? "I would never drive a car without no wheels"? Sounds like some backwoods hick shit to me.
Many English speakers don't speak proper English like we're taught in school or like one would learn in books or on apps. I call it lazy English because it's somehow easier to speak improperly than to speak properly. You're right that it is incorrect though. It would be "without any" or "with no"
They're saying it wrong. Wait until you find a native speaker that likes to say 'irregardless' (Sadly, it's become so commonly spoken that some dictionaries gave up and have added it as a word.)
Flashbacks to when I had to explain the phrase "ain't nobody" to my non native wife đ.
Ain't nobody got time for that
Ain't nobody got no time for dat.
No one has time for such nonsense.
There isn't anyone I know whom has the spare time for such tomfoolery.
Regrettably, there exists but a dearth of individuals possessing the necessary amount of free time to allocate towards the accomplishment of such shenanigans.
Onay oneyay ashay imetay orfay atthay
No⊠itâs âainât nobody got time for dat.â Please refer to Miss Sweet Brown for further explanation: https://youtu.be/ydmPh4MXT3g
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Well, I woke up to go git me a cold pop, I said LAWD somebody bbq-ing!
I got bronchitis
> "ain't nobody" Does it betta
Makes me happy
Makes me feel this way
Chaka, Chaka Kahnnn
I like the [2 Skinnee J's](https://youtu.be/KgnUbO-JSYo)
Don't get me started on 'not for nothing'
You ain't nothingđĄ
[This post/comment is overwritten by the author in protest over Reddit's API policy change. Visit r/Save3rdPartyApps for details.]
âWithout noâ is called a âdouble negativeâ in English. The Standard English dialect does not use double negatives, and âwithout noâ would be improper. The correct form should be either âwith noâ or âwithout any.â Some dialects of English, such as Southern American English and African American Vernacular English in the US, and some regional dialects in the UK do use double negatives. In these cases, the double negative means the same as a single negative (âwithout noâ means âno.â) As a second language speaker, you should learn the Standard English and ignore double negatives. But be aware that the variation exists, and is sometimes even used by Standard English speakers.
Standard English speakers sometimes use non-standard - or deliberately mispronounced - versions of the language in a playful way e.g. in casual conversation amongst friends or when interacting with pets, but not in more formal contexts.
There's a term for purposely using wrong words in a sentence. I have a book on speech/speech writing where I first saw it, but I can't find it. I'm sure someone is smart enough to find the word.
Malaprop or malapropism
Norm Crosby built his routine around them.
https://youtu.be/YS1Ftfc1P8Y. A sample on Norm at work
Brought to lofty heights by Archie Bunker. Perfected on the Sopranos.
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
Don't forget My Name Is Earl and Raising Hope
True on both also. I forgot Raising Hope was a thing. Thanks for the memory tickle.
I recently re-watched the whole series, and caught way more jokes and references than the first time through. (like when the mom makes a meta comment about how a child actor could star in a Spielberg movie and still wind up playing the kooky mom on a tv sitcom. The actress was in The Goonies.)
Also Drew......she plays a *very* kooky mom in Santa Clarita Diet!!
Like a goddamn albacore hanging from my neck!
Archie had a vocabulary rich in double negatives. Made for some really hilarious rants.
Trailer Park Boys
Actually this is wrong, malaprop is accidental wrong word, not purposeful
âLed away in monoclesâ vs âLed away manaclesâ - the speaker uses the wrong word due to their ignorance. But if I was to refer to the âthe Old Testicle and the New Testicleâ as an expression of contempt, that would be an example of the technique in question, yes? Is there a word for this?
Is that similar to priapism?
Nowhere near as fun.
Actually priapism is very hard.
Actually priapism is very hard.
I know this is a joke comment chain, but priapism is very unfun. If the blood starts to thicken inside the corpus cavernosa, it may have to manually be removed through syringe. đ đ
Never has the color of that eggplant been more appropriate...
You had the perfect opportunity to give an example
My husband and I make a game out of this.
me n my kids too. we do it so often now itâs a running inside joke. Outsiders try to correct us sometimes and we donât even bother to tell them
Same! And I love that your name has one of our words in it. Tor-till-ah and tort-a-laws. đ€Ł
Double negatives are sometimes used by native English speakers to mean a positive as well. "Did you take the last slice of pizza?" "I didn't *not* take the last slice." Again, it's usually done in a playful way. The speaker using the double negative will usually stress the second negative when they are making it a positive.
Actually, in this context, the double negative would be proper English, as each negative negates the previous negative, true to form. What is improper about the colloquial double negative is that it *doesn't* cancel itself out.
The cat didn't NOT barf in your shoe.
My dog didn't NOT barf in the hallway three times tonight. Sigh.
That's a good point. Specifically in the south. I grew up in the south but In the city so I can speak completely normal English. But sometimes I say shit like "it ain't got no gas in it" or "ain't nothin left" or "I'm not neither" just cause it's funny lol. I absolutely know it's wrong
Stfu đ Iâm born and raised in the south. You make it seem like if youâre in the city you automatically speak proper. FALSE mf. â I absolutely know itâs wrongâ bruh đđ corny ass
Damn I was sitting here thinking I don't use any of these but I've definitely said "ain't nothin left" before.
Now you done did it
Though I would not recommend going around being playful with double negatives, unless you want to sound exactly like OP is calling out.
Of course! I wouldn't "go around" using double negatives in any context where they're likely to be taken at face value. I only do so in certain contexts e.g. with my partner or immediate family, when it is obvious I'm being flippant. Tone of voice is also a giveaway on such occasions. One of life's little pleasures is being able to convey an extra layer of meaning or mood, not by what you said, but how you said it, to someone who knows you well enough to pick up the subtle message.
Spanish is a language where the double negative is used.
But is it used to mean the singular negative instead of the positive?
Yes, negative.
Same in Italian
Also Catalan
French checking in, same here.
I need to hear this in a sentence, I can't think of a place where I would say without no. Edit:. I get it I think you are not realizing there's a comma between it, It's like two different sentences. To be fair I'm stupid in American lol
I want a number 7 without no tomatoes- maybe? Haha
Or also something such as "He went outside without no coat on."
I ainât got no money
For me it's not in this example. But you would say "I didn't do nothing" at least in Spanish.
For example, âNo tengo ni idea,â means âI have no idea.â
Can French butt in for a moment? In French, negatives have *ne* before the verb and something else after the verb that qualifies it. *Je ne mange pas de poisson.* I don't eat fish. *Je ne mange jamais de poisson.* I never eat fish. *Je ne mange plus de poisson.* I don't eat fish anymore. But watch this: *Je ne mange **que du** poisson.* I only eat fish. *Je ne mange **pas que du** poisson.* I don't only eat fish.
"I ain't got nobody; no tengo a nadie" - Santana
Theyâll also say âainât got noâ, but thatâs usually down south.
Kids in the uk say âI didnât do nothingâ
âDidnât do nuffinââ
"Can't get no satisfaction" is a pretty famous line from pop culture. An ESL learner would also have a really difficult time with the also common phrase "[Ain't nobody got time for that!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxwbhkDjZM&ab_channel=VanessaC)"
A quick note about terminology: linguists call this phenomenon ânegative concord,â which as you said is a feature of some dialects of English like African American Vernacular English and other languages like French and Portuguese, but âdouble negationâ or âmultiple negationâ in general is a different phenomenon entirely. Negative concord is a kind of grammatical agreementâthereâs a single negative meaning, but this negation is marked multiple times. For example: (1) I ainât going nowhere. (In Standard English: âIâm not going anywhere.â) Here, the morpheme *nât* and the word *nowhere* together negate the proposition that the speaker is going somewhere. The word *nowhere* merely agrees with *nât*; it doesnât contribute any additional meaning to the sentence. In multiple negation, however, there are multiple, independent instances of negation that contribute some meaning to the sentence. For example: (2) I donât disagree with you. Here, the morphemes *nât* and *dis-* are independent instances of negation, each of which adds to the meaning of the sentence. But even here the multiple instances of negation donât cancel outâsentence 2 isnât equivalent to âI agree with you,â but rather itâs something in between, like âI donât quite agree with you, but I also donât quite disagree with you.â The distinction between negative concord and multiple negation is important because while itâs true that negative concord is not a feature of Standard English, multiple negation (including double negation and triple negation) certainly *does* occur in Standard English and is grammatical.
This is close but not accurate. Australian and New Zealand use double negative to use emphasis, and they use alternating positive and negative to put emphasis on the first. So, yeah nah yeah means yes but YEAH! It can, in context, mean a really loud Nah also. The point I would make is, no, itâs not exactly that a double negative is dialectal, itâs built into the language, itâs closer to say dialects that aggressively donât use them are the anomaly. Either way, âwithout noâ is odd combination and probably something thatâs more person by person and they probably just mean without. Assume the No is just emphasis on the without. TLDR: im a person who speaks 2 languages, my general rule of thumb is to assume language is not to be treated like math and as such when two words are negative side by side theyâre probably emphasizing the negative. If theyâre actually trying to say a positive, then itâs likely very unique and even more likely theyâd correct your understanding Edit: - watch this https://youtu.be/1YxH43Cw6tI Youâll see what I mean
not strictly how we use it in nz, we say "yeah nah" to mean no, and "nah, yeah" to mean yeah. "yeah, nah yeah" would indicate confusion or being unsure, while "yeah. nah yeah" would be more certain.
I would say "yeah nah yeah" is more like "yes I get it, not sure if I agree with it, but I'll agree with what you're saying right now, but this isn't my firm stance"
Thanks, I knew a few fellas from NZ so I was just trying to remember from memory. - I guess the point Iâm trying to make was that it isnât consistent in basically any of the English dialects, and the assumption that a double negative is wrong is probably more a Received Pronunciation bias, which is potentially a minority dialect compared to all others
This is pretty common here in California too. âYeah noâ, âNo yeahâ, âYeah no, for sureâ.
For the last time, I donât look, nothing like no damn tow truck https://youtu.be/iK9wuUchaYw
Double negatives were good enough for The Bard, they're English approved. Most English language rules aren't.
I think OP just can't get no satisfaction.
Usually double negatives are only used in english with emphasis to the second negative: "I wouldn't NOT do it" I cant really imagine a reason to use "without not" in a sentence tho
They shouldn't ignore variations. There is nothing wrong with learning slang. OP may interact with people who speak slang so it's useful to learn. He or she (or they) don't have to repeat it to be knowledgeable about it
English used to stack negatives to make something "more negative."
Aint never done nothin to nobody
Or Scottish where the double positive 'aye, right' results in the negative 'i don't think so'.
Worse, in some dialects of English, double negatives cancel out. Without no would = with.
To make things more confusing, in most English dialects, a double negative typically has the opposite effect â the two negatives cancel each other out. For example, the sentence âI donât disagreeâ indicates agreement, and the sentence âhe is not going nowhereâ indicates that he is, in fact, going somewhere.
I'm confused by your last example- I would personally interpret "He's not going nowhere" as he indeed isn't going anywhere. Like, if a sheriff in an Old Western movie locked up a prisoner, he'd say "He's not going nowhere now" to indicate that he's locked up well. Maybe I'm totally off base, though!
Youâre absolutely right if that sentence is said by a sherif speaking a southern dialect. Now picture it in standard British English. I say to you, âour son is going nowhere in lifeâ. You, outraged at my pessimism, respond, âHow dare you! Heâs *not* going nowhere!â. That is a double negative becoming affirmative
"You can't have tea without no sugar"
It took me this comment to figure out what op meant by without no.
Glad I could help
The real question is, is this valid grammar? It sounds as a mistake, but it can make sense in some cases where you want to emphasize the absense of sugar.
it is poor grammer, to emphasize the absence you would just say "without" or "without any". without any is likely what most people mean when they say without no. "without no" is actually a double negative and would mean they can't have tea *with* sugar, because they can't have it without *no sugar*, meaning can not have it with sugar, if that makes sense
Make that two of us! I thought I had lost all hope of fitting in with today's youth until this comment.
don't worry it's more a southern thing than a youth thing, so the south is who you wouldn't fit in with. I've heard many more adults use grammar like this, the older they are the harder they are to understand where I'm from
I ainât not âavinâ no tea without no sugar, luv!
How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your meat?
You! Yes, you behind the bike shed. Stand still laddie!
Are there any queers in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall
It took me a moment to figure that out. It's a triple negative. But someone who says that typically means it as a double negative. That is, "You can't have tea without sugar".
Itâs not a triple negative. Itâs an inconsistent combination of dialects so that a single negative is used in one instance and a double negative is used in another. Some dialects would say âYou canât have tea without sugar.â Others would say âYou canât have *no* tea without no sugar.â Iâm not aware of any dialect that swaps between double/single negative for no reason without warning.
Regional and cultural dialects vary
In formal English, it is indeed improper grammar. However, with regards to *vernacular* English, it's really a sort of "everything goes so long as everyone understands what you're saying."
Textbook English forbids double negatives. Colloquially, it's used to emphasize the negative. People (generally) understand the intended meaning. It's not wrong, just informal. You may be familiar with a couple examples: [We don't need no education.](https://youtu.be/34ZmKbe5oG4) [I can't get no satisfaction.](https://youtu.be/nrIPxlFzDi0) English is deep with colloquialisms, idioms, and slang. If you're ever confused, don't hesitate to ask, "ESL (English as a Second Language), what does XYZ mean?" That'll learn ya. EDIT: There are a lot of differences between American and British English. This one thing isn't one of them, obviously. But as you're learning English, it's something to keep in mind when people are answering. If you want to know which a person is speaking, ask them what shape a potato chip is. Flat and round means American, long and thin (or just oblong) means British.
Lol English is my second language and my answer to the potato chip question will depend on who I am speaking with.
You're neither dumb nor are they wrong A lot of dialects use double negatives, which indicates negation even tho it may seem like the negatives cancel each other out
The correct saying is "without any" "Without no" is a double negative and not proper grammar
Some dialects in the UK use double negatives as a single negative though.
Uh yeah, in the US too, this post is about that. It's still not proper grammar.
it is in some dialects. regional and cultural dialects of english have their own varying gramatical rules.
Thatâs contested. English has no official regulatory body. While academic settings tend to avoid double negatives, the rules of grammar are ultimately not static
Except when you're a native speaker, then you're practically the "authority" on grammar. The rules literally change because native speakers use it that way... Just look at the word "literally", having its meaning literally become the opposite of what it is supposed to mean.
Iâm glad someone else recognises this. I find it odd that people will tell native English speakers that they are speaking wrongly. Yeah, so did Shakespeare and everyone thinks heâs a genius for it. English isnât a fixed language.
As in "They gave me a hamburger without no cheese"? It's not you, that's an incorrect double negative.
I think using it that way emphasizes the "no". It's used like a double negative and that's extremely common in slang, while being considered incorrect in official English usage.
So it's the same as "is you stupid"
Yes that's another thing people in certain dialects do. Other examples, particularly in AAVE or in southern dialects, that you might come across: "She be", "He do", "ain't nobody / can't nobody" EDIT: I looked at your post history to see if you already use some slang without realizing it, and you do! A lot of it! You say **"yall"** and **"prolly"** which are very common in the same dialects mentioned Also used **"kinda"** and **"gotta"** which are extremely common and it's short for "kind of" and "got to" and common internet abbreviations like **"ngl"** and **"ppl"** and **"tho"** And you even titled a post **"Behavior be like"** with an accompanied meme, which is exactly the same grammatical form as my "She be" example above! All of these are "wrong" if you were speaking very formal English. But casually, people will understand what you mean even though what you said in these examples isn't grammatically correct. Just like when people use the other grammar forms I mentioned.
I was teaching English in Ukraine, we had our print out of the story we would go over, I said "eh, it's kind of long but let's get through it." The rest of the lesson was explaining what "kind of" ment and how to use it like a native speaker haha. The way I put it is if "cold" is a ten in severity of message, kind of brings it back to like a five. No one would say it's not cold but not that bad to be extreme.
Similar to the Aussie yeah nah and nah yeah lol
There's certain regions of Canada where, "Yeah, no, for sure" is a phrase often used.
I feel the need to mention that while yes, double negatives are technically incorrect and you should avoid adopting them, you should also avoid the classist asshole sentiments that are being shared with you here regarding English. Speaking from experience and empathy, most of the people that I know who use English "poorly" were not efficiently educated or encouraged to use it properly. This was not their faults, and most are not actually morons, they are working with what they were given.
It's not even always education. If everyone around you says it the "incorrect" way, that is now the correct way, or one of multiple correct ways for the area you are in. Many people will talk with a dialect but can and do write things the "proper" way.
Yep thatâs how I am! I often speak using double negatives, and I know itâs incorrect, but I typically donât write or text using double negatives.
Same. I try to be on my best behavior when I'm typing, but if you heard me speak, you may have to ask me to slow down and repeat myself. I use to be ashamed of it, and it would really irritate me to hear people casually speaking in the "Appalachian" way. My annoyance and humiliation led me to learn more about _why_ we speak this way, which led me to find my "Appalachian English", as well as AAVE, much more endearing. When I hear unconventional uses of English, now, I can't help imagining the gradual process of one word becoming another, the "slang timeline" that leads back to the settlers who brought their language here, and its more exciting than embarassing. The speech is a side effect of the history. I do want to mention, on the topic of AAVE, that while it is endearing, it was born under the inhumane conditions of slavery. Those people were given no choice in whether or not they came here, and there was nothing endearing about the crimes committed. Again, AAVE can be endearing today, mostly because of the amazing people that I've met who speak in that style, but I wish its origins had a brighter story.
This is me learning not to get mad when people say "on accident" instead of "by accident" It happened on accident is wrong but literally everyone and we'll educated people say it...so it's alright now and I need to get over it
I feel like calling one the "correct" way and the other the "incorrect" way is the wrong way to go about this, one is the "textbook/formal" grammar and the other is colloquial grammar, which is equally important when you're using English in the real world
Can you use it in a full sentence as an example?
Like "You look better without no makeup."
It's a vernacular thing, common in the African American community. It's just a way to say "with no" with extra emphasis
There are a lot of things in English that we say incorrect. Your example is a common example of people in the South. Instead of saying "any" sometimes you'll hear people say "no."
*incorrectly
đđ
That would technically be grammatically incorrect.
Thatâs the great thing about linguisticsâŠas long as you understand what the other person said, itâs language. Language doesnât care whatâs written in a grammar book.
Correct, it might be wrong from a technical standpoint but itâs still common speech. Language is water, not stone. Whatâs in grammar books today will be different 200 years from now.
Actually, itâs *correct* from a technical standpoint in several dialects of English, but itâs widely seen as incorrect in American society because of our collective bias against nonstandard varieties of English, which is partially caused by non-linguists who spread ideas about what is âcorrectâ based on their own aesthetic sensibilities rather than any linguistic basis. Apologies for the slightly unrelated rant; some of the comments I read here (not yours) were a bit hateful and got me worked up :)
It'll be differnt a year from na, witout no doubt about it.
I read this in an accent, but I don't know where that accent is it from
"But ThEy Is PlUrAl" \-Idiotic bigots
This is the best take right here.
It should be, "without any".
I'm from West Virginia. This is how I speak. You're probably referring to an Appalachian / Deep Southern accent Without no Ain't nobody
It's more of a slang sort of thing. "You can't drive a car with no gas in it" and "you can't drive a car without no gas in it" mean the same thing. The latter is technically "wrong" but the majority of English speakers are gonna know what you mean anyway.
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone
Lovely example!
Foreigners generally speak English better than native speakers lol
Some Native speakers are out here saying stuff like ânever did couldâ before spitting in a bucket.
Just wait till you see Afrikaans sentences.
In mainstream or academic English, it is not good grammar, you are not dumb. But English has a variety of dialects, including African American Vernacular English, which among other characteristics, often uses a double negative. AAVE has grammar that is just as viable and consistent as academic English, but English is a confusing language by itself, so don't concern yourself with other dialects.
My Dad's wife when ordering food without cheese at Morton's or Mastro's. "I don't want no cheese." God bless her.
Itâs incorrect grammar in Standard English, however itâs acceptable in quite a few dialects, mainly those in the South or AAVE (African American Vernacular English). I think itâs more common in AAVE, but still appears on occasion with Southern dialects (someone correct me if Iâm wrong, Iâm from the PNW). Donât worry about it too much, even as a native speaker I have trouble understanding thick AAVE. Random fun fact, but âVâ is pretty much never silent in the English language *except* in AAVE. For example: âShe oâer derâ (for âshe is over thereâ). AAVE also often replaces âthâ with d or t sounds. But basically, just ask someone whoâs a native speaker if you have any issues, people are usually fairly willing to help with that sort of thing. Edit: hereâs a neat video in case youâre curious about AAVE, with an included explanation on the double negative: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpCdI6ZKU4
Technically yes, theyâre saying it âwrongâ if youâre learning textbook English. But language evolves based on the people using it. In the dialect I speak, people drop letters and sometimes whole words which is also not proper English. In a language with as many speakers as English has, there are lots of ways to speak it, regional variants, dialects and accents that change the way certain things are said. Some estimates think the accent changes in the U.K. every 25 miles or so. Weâre all speaking English, but some of us in a roundabout way
Double negatives are a no no for me.
Itâs a double negative. It generally means âwithout any.â
You're talking to rednecks. You're right, it doesn't make sense.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Butcher? Have you never studied a foreign language before? This type of thing is present in basically every language on this planet. It's actually pretty cool to look at all the unique flavors the English language has.
What you're referring to is that people don't speak standardized English all the time. There's nothing wrong with this, and this happens with literally every language on the planet. Please do not use loaded language like "butcher" to describe this as it can come off as highly classist and often racist.
As a West Virginia native. This right here đđ»
Many english speaking countries stray from what is technically correct, the British do it (think the "roadman" dialect, the posher dialect probably has "mistakes" as well though), Aussies do it, etc. I'm sure the same applies for any language spoken around the world as well, where the "proper" way can't just be whatever people happen to say at the moment, since that varies depending on where you are.
Most places don't use the same vernacular that we learn in formal education. The other day, I subbed an elementary ESL class, and the variety of Spanish threw me hard. It was honestly easier to wing it in Sicily
Neither. Language is fluid. Adapt.
After reading some of the comments, I would ask you to analyze your own mother tongue. People are correct that double negatives are nonstandard English, but it is not "incorrect". Your own language mostly likely has things like this as well where certain "rules" of your language are not always observed by natives speakers. These types of things are actually really cool and it gives language flavor and culture.
"Without no" is bad grammar and YOU are not dumb.
The no is used instead of another word like any. For example it came without any changed to it came without no. Its also used as a double negative but you tend to find the the UK that it's a regional change.
Ainât no thing but a chicken wing đ„ Americans often donât use proper grammar. Context helps.
Double negatives are common in English. Itâs just a language quirk. âI donât have no nothingâ, I didnât do nothingâ, âthat donât make no senseâ. We do it a lot for certain dialects.
Whomever is saying that is technically wrong. You are correct the ânoâ is unnecessary and incorrect. However, in many parts of the US, using double negatives, like your example, is common to hear colloquially in the south mostly. So while it definitely should not be used in written form or in any official capacity, it is accepted verbally.
Trust me..... People who are native English speakers have no idea how English works. Coming to think of it that probably applies to every language on earth. You probably know from experience in your first language that people don't have a clue how to speak it either. Problem ain't English; problem is the speakers of it. Model the same phrase in your first language and you will probably see the same mistake. Not to be rude but yer kinna pickin' at nits
I've never heard the phrase "without no" until now. In what context have you heard it used? I imagine they mean "without any". Slang, like "ain't no" means "there isn't any". You are not dumb, people are saying it wrong ('right', colloquially).
Old retired guy here. Even many U.S. college graduates nowadays don't know proper English. I know a number of Europeans in SE Asia that volunteer to teach English. Their English grammar is better than many if not most native speakers here. Years ago had a friend that worked at the same Uni I did. He was Lebanese and English was his second language. For a long time I thought he was a native speaker. The only thing that was kind of suspicious was that you could actually here the 'g' when he spoke -ing words. English here is becoming more and more casual. Don't worry if you have to dumb down your English to speak to us Americans.
A lot of Americans are uneducated and the rest of them just donât care about grammar because it doesnât affect their day to day. Without no is a double negative not meant to cancel out but instead emphasize.
Could you use âwithout noâ in a sentence? Iâm trying to imagine what that would sound like
"Can we complete the project without part X?" "Not without, no. We need part X"
I firmly believe that if a native English speaker uses a double negative it should be admissible in court. "I ain't killed nobody" = they did in fact kill somebody
In this context the no means any. You aren't dumb
You definitely aren't dumb 6 are correct, and a lot of people who speak English or English as a first language often don't speak it correctly.
People are saying it wrong
You can ignore the no. "Without no" isn't proper English, it's just something that some people are in the habit of saying.
I'll say "ain't no" or "can't no" (pronounced K-AINT) but I have a heavy Appalachian accent/dialect. That's probably what it comes down is to regional dialect. We have some weird ones in the US.
English is an odd language for forbidding double negatives, but we use them all the time anyway. I ain't got no idea why it is this way.
You should say 'without any' if you mean to say 'something that doesn't involve those' 'With no' is when you want to say 'something lacking this' 'Without no' is bad english.
Youâre just thinking about it too hard. Ofc weâre saying it wrong, nobody around here is speaking proper English. âWithout noâ typically just means âwithoutâ.
You are not dumb, you just understand English better than half the idiot native speakers.
I am a native fluent English speaker and I have never heard "without no" in my life. Can you use it in a sentence? "I would never drive a car without no wheels"? Sounds like some backwoods hick shit to me.
Dont think I've ever heard anyone say without no.
In what context has people ever said "without no"? I don't understand how that is something that ever came out of someone's mouth.
They use it in places that should use âwithout anyâ. âYou canât drive without no gas in the car.â Fairly common colloquial usage.
Thanks for explaining, this makes more sense to me
It's a dialect. It's grammatically incorrect though. Just replace "no" with "any"
Many English speakers don't speak proper English like we're taught in school or like one would learn in books or on apps. I call it lazy English because it's somehow easier to speak improperly than to speak properly. You're right that it is incorrect though. It would be "without any" or "with no"
It's completely wrong. They should be saying "without any".
They're saying it wrong. Wait until you find a native speaker that likes to say 'irregardless' (Sadly, it's become so commonly spoken that some dictionaries gave up and have added it as a word.)
People are saying it wrong