lefthandedscrewdriver
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2018
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- United States
- Current Location
- Cambodia
I have searched high and low for a rule or set of rules that specifically addresses a couple grammar issues I have seen.
My question is with regard to the negation of a verb, typically transitive and intransitive verbs.
The dispute:
Side 1 believes that negating a verb also negates the action, the other side believes negation does not negate the action.
as an example; talking v not talking, thinking v not thinking, believing v disbelieving, or believing v not believing.
Side 2 believes they are all verbs therefore in every case describe a negative or positive action, but an action nonetheless.
Side 1 believes that, for instance, 'not believing/belief' (negating believing/belief) has three modes a negative such as disbelieving, a positive such as believing, and a null belief.
So that set me on a mission to try and find a rule or devise a rule that specifically applies to get to the bottom of it all and googled my fingers raw and turned up nothing substantial.
Is there an applicable rule or understanding that would iron this out?
--------------------------------------------------
Then lastly, part 2, I read this and my mind instantly crashed turning into a pretzel;
"Inanimate objects such as stones are able to not talk despite their inability to talk."
"stones are able to not talk"? This strikes me as a contradiction how does it look to you folks? Is that kind of sentence structure valid construction?
Maybe more rules? I'd be very interested in knowing the rules that cover especially problem one and also opinions or rules regarding problem two would be nice as well.
My question is with regard to the negation of a verb, typically transitive and intransitive verbs.
The dispute:
Side 1 believes that negating a verb also negates the action, the other side believes negation does not negate the action.
as an example; talking v not talking, thinking v not thinking, believing v disbelieving, or believing v not believing.
Side 2 believes they are all verbs therefore in every case describe a negative or positive action, but an action nonetheless.
Side 1 believes that, for instance, 'not believing/belief' (negating believing/belief) has three modes a negative such as disbelieving, a positive such as believing, and a null belief.
So that set me on a mission to try and find a rule or devise a rule that specifically applies to get to the bottom of it all and googled my fingers raw and turned up nothing substantial.
Is there an applicable rule or understanding that would iron this out?
--------------------------------------------------
Then lastly, part 2, I read this and my mind instantly crashed turning into a pretzel;
"Inanimate objects such as stones are able to not talk despite their inability to talk."
"stones are able to not talk"? This strikes me as a contradiction how does it look to you folks? Is that kind of sentence structure valid construction?
Maybe more rules? I'd be very interested in knowing the rules that cover especially problem one and also opinions or rules regarding problem two would be nice as well.