Double Negative

[tbonestake]

http://www.buffalone...ticle172414.ece

 

Now I don't want to be Johnny Language Arts here but isn't the title of this article a Double Negative? Forgive me if I expect a professional journalist to adhere to the rules of proper grammar. I'll afford some artistic license from time to time but this is just ignorance. Don't beat around the bush! Say that the little punks WERE justified instead of dancing around the subject. Why didn't he just title it, "Fans don't like not winning"...Come on Bob, you're better than that.

Edited August 26, 2010 by tbonestake

[GOBILLS78]

http://www.buffalone...ticle172414.ece

 

Now I don't want to be Johnny Language Arts here but isn't the title of this article a Double Negative? Forgive me if I expect a professional journalist to adhere to the rules of proper grammar. I'll afford some artistic license but this is just ignorance.. Why didn't he just title it, "Fans don't like not winning"...Come on Bob:thumbdown:

 

The writers don't write the headlines.

Also, the headline is fine.

[tbonestake]

The writers don't write the headlines.

Also, the headline is fine.

 

Two questions:

 

1. Who writes the headlines?

2. How is this NOT a double negative?

[Doc]

It's called "litotes." Using a double negative to emphasize a point.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Doc

[tbonestake]

It's called "litotes." Using a double negative to emphasize a point.

 

 

A figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite. See also:

 

here is the definition of litote. this headline does not apply. it just sounds wrong

 

 

 

[Maddog69]

It isn't a double negative at all.

The Not is referring to "totally"

It is not referring to "unjustified"

saying that they are "not unjustified" would be a double negative. Saying that they are "not totally unjustified" is simply a qualifier for the amount to which they are unjustified.

[GOBILLS78]

Two questions:

 

1. Who writes the headlines?

2. How is this NOT a double negative?

 

1.) Newspapers, even the small ones, typically have copy editors and designers who take the text of the column/story and write the headlines. Sometimes, writers will give suggested headlines, but those are rarely used because of space constraints or because the copy editors are the professional headline writers, not the writers.

2.) See prior response. Using your logic, it would be incorrect to say "the headline isn't incorrect."

[Gugny]

I don't think it's a double negative. I think "totally not unjustified" would be equal to saying "totally justified." I think the headline - "not totally unjustified" is equal to saying "unjustified, but not completely."

[tbonestake]

It isn't a double negative at all.

The Not is referring to "totally"

It is not referring to "unjustified"

saying that they are "not unjustified" would be a double negative. Saying that they are "not totally unjustified" is simply a qualifier for the amount to which they are unjustified.

 

 

So its not a double negative...just a garbled mess to hide behind what it should actually read, "Bills fans taunts justifed"

[Doc]

A figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite. See also:

 

here is the definition of litote. this headline does not apply. it just sounds wrong

The headline most definitely is litotes. The headline-maker could have just said "Bills fans' taunts somewhat justified."

Edited August 26, 2010 by Doc

[tbonestake]

1.) Newspapers, even the small ones, typically have copy editors and designers who take the text of the column/story and write the headlines. Sometimes, writers will give suggested headlines, but those are rarely used because of space constraints or because the copy editors are the professional headline writers, not the writers.

2.) See prior response. Using your logic, it would be incorrect to say "the headline isn't incorrect."

 

1.) Thank you-sorry Bob

 

2.) I still think it's wrong

[Cash]

Two questions:

 

1. Who writes the headlines?

2. How is this NOT a double negative?

 

1. Editors write headlines, because headlines have to fit the layout of the page, and editors are the ones who arrange stories on newspaper pages. Reporters hand in completed articles, but don't find out what gets edited (or what the headline is) until the articles appear in the newspaper. Even though we're reading the article on a web page, where space/layout is no longer a consideration for the headline, the same headline will typically be used for both web and print.

 

2. Depends on your interpretation. I interpret it as saying "the remarks were somewhat unjustified, but not totally." One could argue that the proper way to express such a statement would be "the remarks were not fully justified," but my counter to that would be that emphasis and implication matter. And by phrasing the headline in that way, the editor is emphasizing the lack of justification. In other words, starting from the assumption that most observers consider the remarks not justified, rather than starting from the opposite viewpoint. Grammatically, I have no problem with the headline, particularly since it's in sports journalism, where all style rules get relaxed to an extent. Good sports writing usually won't have as formal a tone as good political or economic writing.

[GOBILLS78]

Lori!

[Maddog69]

So its not a double negative...just a garbled mess to hide behind what it should actually read, "Bills fans taunts justifed"

 

No. Its not garbled at all. He is not saying the taunts are justified and he is not saying that they are completely unjustified either. He clearly expressed that the taunts are somewhat justified.

 

And by the way, who cares? I think this is clearly a statement of just how bad our team is. Rather than discussing the team, it's players or their prospects for the upcoming seasons. We are here arguing over the grammatical correctness of an editorial piece by a washed up columnist working for an obsolete and nearly extinct news organization.

[Gabe Northern]

Two questions:

 

1. Who writes the headlines?

2. How is this NOT a double negative?

 

I get your point, but sometimes double negatives work when the language seeks to be mildly evasive.

 

Here, the clear intent is to show some empathy for the taunters' frustration without actually embracing the taunters or their taunts.

[tbonestake]

The headline most definitely is litotes. The headline-maker could have just said "Bills fans' taunts somewhat justified."

 

 

SHOULD have...I'm such a nerd

 

1. Editors write headlines, because headlines have to fit the layout of the page, and editors are the ones who arrange stories on newspaper pages. Reporters hand in completed articles, but don't find out what gets edited (or what the headline is) until the articles appear in the newspaper. Even though we're reading the article on a web page, where space/layout is no longer a consideration for the headline, the same headline will typically be used for both web and print.

 

2. Depends on your interpretation. I interpret it as saying "the remarks were somewhat unjustified, but not totally." One could argue that the proper way to express such a statement would be "the remarks were not fully justified," but my counter to that would be that emphasis and implication matter. And by phrasing the headline in that way, the editor is emphasizing the lack of justification. In other words, starting from the assumption that most observers consider the remarks not justified, rather than starting from the opposite viewpoint. Grammatically, I have no problem with the headline, particularly since it's in sports journalism, where all style rules get relaxed to an extent. Good sports writing usually won't have as formal a tone as good political or economic writing.

 

 

I get your point, but sometimes double negatives work when the language seeks to be mildly evasive.

 

Here, the clear intent is to show some empathy for the taunters' frustration without actually embracing the taunters or their taunts.

 

Thanks to both of you guys. I feel better now.

 

No. Its not garbled at all. He is not saying the taunts are justified and he is not saying that they are completely unjustified either. He clearly expressed that the taunts are somewhat justified.

 

And by the way, who cares? I think this is clearly a statement of just how bad our team is. Rather than discussing the team, it's players or their prospects for the upcoming seasons. We are here arguing over the grammatical correctness of an editorial piece by a washed up columnist working for an obsolete and nearly extinct news organization.

 

 

Well Played

Edited August 26, 2010 by tbonestake

[Doc]

SHOULD have...I'm such a nerd

No, the headline was fine the way it was written. Or should I say, it was not written poorly.

 

I'm a big fan of litotes.

[Leonidas]

Why is this a thread?

[tbonestake]

Why is this a thread?

 

Why would you come into a thread to ask that or are you just frustrated that you don't have a real comment?

[GOBILLS78]

an obsolete and nearly extinct news organization.

 

I know a lot of people hate that paper, but in its defense, in journalism circles, it is very well respected. Also, I recently read a story that said it was on solid financial footing. It has one of the best ownership entities in the world, and although the industry itself might be nearly extinct, the News isn't going anywhere any time soon.