what these really mean?

I'm so confused about these:

1. I ain't got no money
2. Don't shot nobody
3. It ain't right

:(

Thanks.

[Francois]

They are ungrammatical. Don't use them.
This is a very relaxed way of speaking; you will find occurences in lyrics for instance.
You understand the meaning, don't you?

FRC

I foun those in the movies.
for "i ain't got no money", i think it means "i don't have money" by the context.
but it supposed to be "I have money" grammatically because it has
2 negatives, ain't and no.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by phalkun

I foun those in the movies.
for "i ain't got no money", i think it means "i don't have money" by the context.
but it supposed to be "I have money" grammatically because it has
2 negatives, ain't and no.

First, there are dialects wherein double negatives are used regularly, and in those dialects, the function of double negatives is regular; double negatives have rules, and so, for those dialects, they are considered grammatical. :wink:

Second, "I ain't got no money" has two meanings:

Meaning #1: I don't have any money.
Meaning #2: I have money.

Consider the double negatives ain't and no:

I ain't got no money.

ain't and no each express a negative meaning, and so, together, they cancel each other out, like this,

I ain't got no money => I got money.

All the best, :D

So, how do we know which one the other wanna say? or the other know which one i wanna say?

Thanks

[Casiopea]

For the most part, speakers use double negatives to emphasize a negative:

Double Negative
I ain't got no money. ('no' is added for emphasis)

What it expresses
I don't have any money. (OK. That is what I meant.)
I have money. (Not OK. That is not what I meant.)

If someone thinks the negative statment, "I ain't got no money" means, "I have money", then they're just being overly picky about semantics, that's all. :wink:

In grammar, specifically semantics, using two negatives where just one will do seems rather inefficient, not to mention redundant, so using double negatives is not preferred by grammarians. But, in the real world where language is used to communicate our needs, using double negatives serves a purpose: emphasis.

1. I ain't got money.
(This is not a double negative. It means, I don't have money.)

2. I ain't got no money.
(This is a double negative. It means, I don't have money, which is the same meaning as 1. but slightly different because I added "no" for emphasis. Adding "no" for emphasis means something like, "I honestly/really don't have money. The more negatives I add, the more emphasis I give to not having money. Here's a triple negative:

EX: I do not have no money, none! :D

Now, if you wanted to state that you really didn't have any money whatsoever, which would you use, A. or B.?

A. I don't have any money.
B. I don't have no money, none.

Even though B. is ungrammatical in terms of semantics, the three negatives serve a communicative purpose by expressing that I truly, sincerely, really don't have any money at all.

Hope that helps.

All the best, :D