not infrequently = frequently?

We have not infrequently overruled two or even three sceptical referees and published a paper. = We have frequently vetoed two or even three sceptical referees and published a paper?

Litotes is a form of understatement, always deliberate and with the intention of emphasis.[2] However, the interpretation of litotes can depend on context, including cultural context. In speech, it may also depend on intonation and emphasis; for example, the phrase "not bad" can be said in such a way as to mean anything from "mediocre" to "excellent".

though I can see how you might guess that, if you perceived a double negative.

Lingua
Franca

October 10, 1998

Giving Up on Double Negation

...

The mistake is in seeing a mistake. This kind of usage [double negatives/negative concord] is not a mistake. It's a form of words that is characteristic of many languages, including Spanish, Italian, Polish, Russian and Cockney, but not Standard English. Linguists call it Negative Concord.

The Cambridge Grammar of English, I have decided, is not going to hush this up with a blush and a mumble and pass on as if embarrassed. It's going to great it seriously. It's going to explain, of course, that Negative Concord is not used in formal writing and should be avoided in all contexts where keeping up appearances is an issue.

But it is also going to explain how Negative Concord works, which is something like this: Everywhere you would get an 'any' word, like 'anything', 'anyone', 'anybody, 'anywhere', 'any', or the indefinite article 'a', Negative Concord languages require that you use the appropriate 'no' word instead. It doesn't matter how many there are in the sentence, this applies to all of them. So if you take

'I don't want a linguist with a grammar book giving me any lectures about a proper way to speak to anybody',

it comes out in Cockney or in a Negative Concord language, as

'I don't want no linguist with no grammar book giving me no lectures about no proper way to speak to nobody'.

That's not a sextuple negation, it's an ordinary single negation. But there are five indefinite words like 'a' and 'anybody' in there, and they all get pronounced in Cockney the same as the negative words 'no' and 'nobody'.

You have to learn this if you're going to make any claim to knowing English. Because if you believe that when the Rolling Stones play 'Satisfaction' and Mick Jagger sings 'I Can't Get No Satisfaction' he is singing about how it is impossible for him not to be satisfied, you can't even understand rock 'n' roll.

A fully competent speaker of English knows how to work out the meaning of both 'I am unable to obtain any satisfaction' and 'I Can't Get No Satisfaction', and knows that the first of those would be suitable in a business letter and the second would be appropriate in personal conversation in a pub in Spitalfields or Pentonville.

A person who cannot understand Mick Jagger's lyrics, even if they are written out on a sheet of paper (nobody can understand much of it when he's singing, of course, is not a better English speaker, but a worse one.

The way I see it, real class in being an English speaker involves understanding both the Queen saying, 'My husband and I cannot imagine anything nicer', and a Cockney speaker saying, 'Me old man and me can't fink of nuffink nicer'. Real class is being knowledgeable about the diversity of English as well as sensitive to the nuances of the different varieties. The status-obsessed grumblers who complain about other people's double negations do not have class. There is nothing classy about insensitivity to the complexity of the linguistic world around us. If you pay attention to linguistic diversity and appreciate the variety in your language, you'll find you can't get no satisfaction.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/lf981010.htm

Hiya JTT.

Um...ok, I'll add to it:

“Not infrequently” stresses the point that the occurrence is not a rare event, but it doesn’t necessarily = “frequently,” though I can see how you might guess that, if you perceive a double negative as meaning the opposite.

Is that better?

Do you believe that “not infrequently” = “frequently?”

On the contrary, I think the idea that two negatives make a positive, is not an uncommon assumption at all. I’m truly surprised that you think “no one” perceives them as such.

But, I do now see that it was a presumption on my part, however innocuous an aside I thought I was making, and for that reason alone I’ll thank you for your comments though I believe you’re wrong about that generally, if not specifically.

I see we DO agree that “not infrequently” does not = “frequently.”

It was an assumption when the "rule" was concocted by Bishop Robert Lowth round about 17??, and, I have to allow, that many have seized upon that errant assumption and promulgated it, Joe...

To continue a discussion on this topic, you're going to have to provide a clearer framework for what you're saying here because there are examples in English where double negation can indeed, resolve to a positive.

Quote:

I see we DO agree that “not infrequently” does not = “frequently.”

Indubitably. Isn't there some degree of contradiction between your conjecture/belief, above, and your stance here?

There, I see it. An acknowledgement of my point. And a complete about face, too.

Quote:

Do you believe that “not infrequently” = “frequently?”

Nope, I don't think that.

I'm not even at all sure that it's an example of litotes...