Double negatives

When you get it worked out would you please let me know?

They throw me, too. Like you, I prefer direct, positive and clear communication.
These examples though I can manage.

i) If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.


Meaning: If the only activity/thing that you are doing is writing, and you are being paid for this, then the money you are earning from this is sufficient so that you can pay your bills. Therefore, you do not then have to worry about money.

ii) If you are doing nothing other than writing but not being paid then you do have to worry about the bills.

Meaning: If the only activity/thing that you are doing is writing, and you are not being paid for this, then you have no income, and so can not pay your bills. Therefore, you then have to worry about money.

Ain't not no reason to be stressed, Sharon!

I don't think they're double negatives... but I don't know nothing.

If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.

If you're paid only for your writing and you don't have to do anything else (no day jobs), you don't have to worry about the bills.


If you are doing nothing other than writing but not being paid then you do have to worry about the bills.

If you are only writing, but you're not getting paid for doing that, you have to worry about the bills.

"Can't get no dissatisfaction!"

Yep, that pair of sentences took me no less than 4 reads to figure out ! My eyes are still blurred.

I don't think they're double negatives either. Neither do I think the first staement is a valid one.

If you are being paid for .......writing ....you don't have to worry about the bills.

If you are ...not being paid...you have to worry about the bills.

maestrowork said:

I don't think they're double negatives... but I don't know nothing.

If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.

If you're paid only for your writing and you don't have to do anything else (no day jobs), you don't have to worry about the bills.


If you are doing nothing other than writing but not being paid then you do have to worry about the bills.

If you are only writing, but you're not getting paid for doing that, you have to worry about the bills.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

I don't think they're double negatives either. Neither do I think the first staement is a valid one.

If you are being paid for .......writing ....you don't have to worry about the bills.

If you are ...not being paid...you have to worry about the bills.

Click to expand...

I don't think the first sentence means that literally. I think it implies that someone is making lots of money writing only (e.g. JK Rowling).

If you are being paid for writing (ONLY) and you don't have to do anything else (no day jobs needed), you are set. You don't have to worry about the bills.

I know, it was only shortened for simplicity. But I think it's still an invalid statement. It may apply to JKR but as a general statement, it's nonsense.

The assumption (and you don't have to do anything else) was not in the original post.

Ha!

Those aren't double negatives.

Here's a master at piling up the negatives:

Chaucer said:

He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde
In al his lyf unto no maner wight.

Click to expand...

Ah, but at least

Chaucer makes sense.

double

aruna said:

... and their friends. I hate them. What's more, I can never figure them out. They tie my brain in knots. There's this sentence in the Novels forum. Please explain it to me:

Click to expand...

If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.

This isn't a double negative, it just needs a comma after "writing."

It's plain enough. It means if you're being paid enough for you're writing to make a second job unnecessary, then you shouldn't have to worry about paying your bills.

I agree the meaning you've attached to it is clear. The italicised statement itself, in my view, is not.

Jamesaritchie said:

If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.
This isn't a double negative, it just needs a comma after "writing."

It's plain enough. It means if you're being paid enough for you're writing to make a second job unnecessary, then you shouldn't have to worry about paying your bills.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

I know, it was only shortened for simplicity. But I think it's still an invalid statement. It may apply to JKR but as a general statement, it's nonsense.

The assumption (and you don't have to do anything else) was not in the original post.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

If you are being paid for doing nothing other than writing then you don't have to worry about the bills.

There's nothing convoluted about this sentence, and nothing wrong with it gramattically, other than a missing comma.

I'm really surprised people haven't seen the phrase for doing nothing other than a hundred times.

It could certainly be rewritten to say, If you're making enough money from writing so that no other income is required, you shouldn't have to worry about paying your bills.

But the sentence isn't convoluted, isn't a double negative, uses common phraseology, and should be easily understood.

Its original context was in a thread about giving up everything to do writing full time, and being able to live off that income. In context it was a shade off being clear.

Well, just remember:

There ain't no mountain high enough
Ain't no valley low enough
Ain't no river wide enough
To keep me from getting to you

Or:

A woman without her man is nothing.

(A woman. Without her, man is nothing.)

maestrowork said:

(A woman. Without her, man is nothing.)

Click to expand...

¨

maestrowork that´s cheating, nobody ain´t said nothing about no full-stops ...

maestrowork said:

(A woman. Without her, man is nothing.)

Click to expand...

Not only proper punctuation, but cold, hard fact, eh?