rather - Page 2

jiang · #11 (**permalink**) 22-Nov-2006, 23:08

&

Dear Mike,
Sorry to have made you think hard as to how to make me understand the point.
Thank you so much for your explanation. I have been thinking hard and I think I begin to understand it. Still I am trying to see if I understand your explanations. Could you please see if I really understand them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

Sorry that it confusing.

A problematic double negative occurs within one clause:

I didn't see nothing.
I understand this part. That means I saw something.

It is not a double negative when two negative phrases are connected.

I didn't see anything and I didn't hear anything.

There is nothing at all wrong with that.

I understand this because it is not a double negative.

It isn't a double negative when the negatives are in different clauses.

[I didn't say] [he wasn't coming].

There is nothing wrong with that.

We can't turn that last one into "I said he was coming". That is not the intended meaning.

Is the intended meaning is ' he wasn't coming' but the news wasn't coming from my mouth. Is that right?

Putting those two concepts together, it is correct to say:

[That is not to say] [there is no problem] and [no need for a solution].

Now I think this means 'There is no problem and there is no need for a solution'. But the fact was not said by 'that' .
The problem with this is that this sentence and the paragraphs I cited are not logical because if there had had no problem and no need for a solution people would not have sought to control a few unwanted species. Is that right?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you in advance.

Jiang

Is that any clearer?

MikeNewYork · #12 (**permalink**) 22-Nov-2006, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiang

&

Dear Mike,
Sorry to have made you think hard as to how to make me understand the point.
Thank you so much for your explanation. I have been thinking hard and I think I begin to understand it. Still I am trying to see if I understand your explanations. Could you please see if I really understand them?

OK. We are getting closer. You understand my post down through the second point. I'll start with the rest.

It isn't a double negative when the negatives are in different clauses.

[I didn't say] [he wasn't coming].

There is nothing wrong with that.

We can't turn that last one into "I said he was coming". That is not the intended meaning.

Is the intended meaning is ' he wasn't coming' but the news wasn't coming from my mouth. Is that right?

That is one interpretation. In that case a speaker would emphasize the word "I".

Another possibility is that he is correcting the assumption of another person.

A: Jim called. He is having car trouble.
B: Oh, it's too bad that he won't be coming.
A: I didn't say that he wasn't coming. If he can get the car started, he might show up.

Putting those two concepts together, it is correct to say:

[That is not to say] [there is no problem] and [no need for a solution].

Now I think this means 'There is no problem and there is no need for a solution'. But the fact was not said by 'that' .
The problem with this is that this sentence and the paragraphs I cited are not logical because if there had had no problem and no need for a solution people would not have sought to control a few unwanted species. Is that right?

No. And this is tough. In the first part of the paragraph, the writer is complaining about the use of toxins to control insects. He states his reasons for the objection. That might lead the reader to assume that he doesn't think there is a problem and he doesn't think anything should be done. But he doesn't believe that. He recognizes that there is a problem and that something needs to be done. So he transitions to that (and probably a safer strategy) by writing "that is not to say that there is no problem...." By doing that he clarifies his approach to the issue.

1. The current approach is wrong.
2. The fact that the current approach is wrong doesn't mean that an approach isn't needed.
3. Here is my suggestion.

jiang · #13 (**permalink**) 22-Nov-2006, 23:57

&

Dear Mike,
Thank you so much for your explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

OK. We are getting closer. You understand my post down through the second point. I'll start with the rest.

It isn't a double negative when the negatives are in different clauses.

[I didn't say] [he wasn't coming].

There is nothing wrong with that.

We can't turn that last one into "I said he was coming". That is not the intended meaning.

Is the intended meaning is ' he wasn't coming' but the news wasn't coming from my mouth. Is that right?

That is one interpretation. In that case a speaker would emphasize the word "I".

Another possibility is that he is correcting the assumption of another person.

A: Jim called. He is having car trouble.
B: Oh, it's too bad that he won't be coming.
A: I didn't say that he wasn't coming. If he can get the car started, he might show up.

I understand this perfectly. I am sure.

Putting those two concepts together, it is correct to say:

[That is not to say] [there is no problem] and [no need for a solution].

Now I think this means 'There is no problem and there is no need for a solution'. But the fact was not said by 'that' .
The problem with this is that this sentence and the paragraphs I cited are not logical because if there had had no problem and no need for a solution people would not have sought to control a few unwanted species. Is that right?

&

No. And this is tough. In the first part of the paragraph, the writer is complaining about the use of toxins to control insects. He states his reasons for the objection. That might lead the reader to assume that he doesn't think there is a problem and he doesn't think anything should be done. But he doesn't believe that. He recognizes that there is a problem and that something needs to be done. So he transitions to that (and probably a safer strategy) by writing "that is not to say that there is no problem...." By doing that he clarifies his approach to the issue.

1. The current approach is wrong.
2. The fact that the current approach is wrong doesn't mean that an approach isn't needed.
3. Here is my suggestion.

I think I understand it now. It means ' By fighting against the approach I don't deny the fact that there is problem and we need to do something to solve the problem. But not this approach.' Actually she is talking about two things: approach and problem and need for control.
Is that so?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you in advance.

Jiang

MikeNewYork · #14 (**permalink**) 23-Nov-2006, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiang

&

Dear Mike,
Thank you so much for your explanation.

Yes. By golly, I think you've got it!

Phew!

jiang · #15 (**permalink**) 23-Nov-2006, 00:21

Dear Mike,

Many many thanks!

Jiang

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

Yes. By golly, I think you've got it!

Phew!

BobK · #16 (**permalink**) 23-Nov-2006, 10:18

Are you still waiting for an answer from me jiang? I thought I'd stay

out of it because Mike was doing a better job than I could.

b

Rincewind · #17 (**permalink**) 23-Nov-2006, 10:49

Quote:

The problem with understanding the line is more likely the bad grammar of the passage than your skills. There is another grammar error in the sentence; "All this is not to say there is no insect problem and no need of control." This contains double negatives. So the sentence has an ambiguous meaning.

I think I caused a bit of confusion. By "This contains double negatives" I didn't mean it contains "The double negative" error; though I can see that could be inferred. I simply meant it contains several negative terms, which can create confusion.

jiang · #18 (**permalink**) 23-Nov-2006, 11:06

Dear Rincewind,

Thank you very much for pointing it out. Otherwise I would understand it in the wrong way. Now I understand the problem after Mike explained it to me. Since it is so difficult to understand Mike was made to make great efforts to make me understand it.

Jiang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I think I caused a bit of confusion. By "This contains double negatives" I didn't mean it contains "The double negative" error; though I can see that could be inferred. I simply meant it contains several negative terms, which can create confusion.