nothing = anything?

In what, and how exactly, were we lead astray?

That's not something that would take a rocket scientist, Infra.

Let's try this. Tell me a rule that you remember being taught.

One rule is that double negatives are nonstandard.

Language isn't rocket science, JTT. We're talking about language, English specifically.

By and large, the proof that is necessary for standardization is learned consenus.

But nonstandard doesn't mean wrong, bad, incorrect or ignorant.

Language is indeed rocket science, Infra. There's this mistaken notion that all there is to learn about language has already been discovered. That is far far from the truth.

Don't confuse 'learned consensus' with the crap that you were taught in school, with the simplistic grammar/English books that you used.

A person who uses double negation without being aware of the standard is necessarily ignorant of the standard.

A person who uses double negation while being aware of the standard is most likely obstinate.

You illustrate your ignorance of the meanings of standard English/nonstandard English, by using 'the standard'. It most assuredly is NOT 'the standard'. There is a huge difference between that particular choice of words and 'standard English'.

Does that mean that we are all obstinate?

I believe that you simply can't get this nonsense that you were taught out of your head.

We have choices in language and many of those choices are of the nonstandard variety.

You have to admit that a person who allows that this is simply nonstandard English but goes on to decide with no actual proof that this sounds bad but other nonstandard English doesn't sound bad is merely expressing an opinion.

From what I've shown you, you would also have to agree that it is an opinion that is misinformed.

You still haven't provided the proof that you taught to show you why this was ignorant.

No, merely, you're confusing the way I'm using the word standard, i.e. widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence, not in the sense of "commonly used." But I suspect you knew that and are only being disingenuous which serves to further your obdurateness.

Levels of Usage
In this book we use a number of terms to indicate different levels of usage to give you an idea under what circumstances a given usage will be appropriate. 9

Standard English Standard English is the language we use for public discourse. It is the working language of our social institutions. The news media, the government, the legal profession, and the teachers in our schools and universities all aim at Standard English as a norm of communication, primarily in expository and argumentative writing, but also in public speaking. Standard English is thus different from what we normally think of as speech in that Standard English must be taught, whereas children learn to speak naturally without being taught. Of course, Standard English shares with spoken English certain features common to all forms of language. It has rules for making grammatical sentences, and it changes over time. The issues of pronunciation discussed in this book mainly involve how to pronounce specific written words or written letters, such as ch or g, in different words. The guidance to pronunciation is not meant to standardize or correct anyone’s naturally acquired form of spoken English. 10

The name Standard English is perhaps not the best, since it implies a standard against which various kinds of spoken English are to be measured, and this is hardly a fair comparison. A better name might be Institutional English, Conventional English, Commercial English, or Standardized English for Writing and Public Speaking, but these names all have their own negative connotations and shortcomings. So, since Standard is what this brand of English has been called for generations, we use the name here. 11

Nonstandard English There are many expressions and grammatical constructions that are not normally used in Standard English. These include regional expressions, such as might could, and other usages, such as ain’t and it don’t, that are typically associated with dialects used by people belonging to less prestigious social groups. These nonstandard varieties of English are no less logical or systematic than Standard English. In this book an expression labeled nonstandard is not wrong; it is merely inappropriate for ordinary usage in Standard English. 12

Formal English On some occasions it is important to adhere to the conventions that characterize serious public discourse and to avoid expressions that we might use in more casual situations. Formal writing and speaking are characterized by the tendency to give full treatment to all the elements that are required for grammatical sentences. Thus in formal English you might hear May I suggest that we reexamine the problem? where both clauses have a subject and verb and the subordinate clause is introduced by the conjunction that. Of course, formal English has many other features. Among these are the careful explanation of background information, complexity in sentence structure, explicit transitions between thoughts, and the use of certain words such as may that are reserved chiefly for creating a formal tone. Situations that normally require formal usage would include an article discussing a serious matter submitted to a respected journal, an official report by a group of researchers to a government body, a talk presented to a professional organization, and a letter of job application. 13

Informal English This is a broad category applied to situations in which it is not necessary, and in many cases not even desirable, to use the conventions of formal discourse. Informal language incorporates many of the familiar features of spoken English, especially the tendency to use contractions and to abbreviate sentences by omitting certain elements. Where formal English has May I suggest that we reexamine the manuscript? in informal English you might get Want to look this over again? Informal English tends to assume that the audience shares basic assumptions and background knowledge with the writer or speaker, who therefore alludes to or even omits reference to this information, rather than carefully explaining it as formal discourse requires. Typical informal situations would include a casual conversation with classmates, a letter to a close friend, or an article on a light topic written for a newspaper or magazine whose readership shares certain interests of the writer. 14

Of course, these functional categories are not hard and fast divisions of language; rather they are general tendencies of usage. People use language over a spectrum that shifts from intimate situations to public discourse, and a given piece of writing may have a mixture of formal and informal elements. We use the labels formal and informal in this book as guideposts to give you a clearer notion about when it is appropriate to use a particular usage. 15

It is important to remember that formal and informal refer to styles of expression, not standards of correctness. Informal English has its own rules of grammar and is just as logical as formal English. You can be serious using informal English, just as you can be comical using formal English. The two styles are simply used for different occasions.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/13.html

This straw man argument doesn't negate that fact that those choices in language that are nonstandard aren't standard, i.e. widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence.

So, you're hung up on the fact that I expressed an opinion about the way certain expressions sound?

It's pretty simple. The use of double negatives is ignorant if the user is unknowing of the standard English. Standard English has been established by learned consensus.

It's ironic that you try to introduce other languages to support this argument of yours, when other times you preclude the use of other languages as a means to re-enforce certain gramatical rules (e.g. ruling out the example of Latin to in regard to the use of split infinitives in English).

A little understanding is a dangerous thing.

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.

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

a Cockney speaker saying, 'Me old man and me can't fink of nuffink nicer'.

This thread just confirms me in my opinion that nothing JTT writes is worth reading.

You have to admit that a person who allows that this is simply nonstandard English but goes on to decide with no actual proof that this sounds bad but other nonstandard English doesn't sound bad is merely expressing an opinion.

From what I've shown you, you would also have to agree that it is an opinion that is misinformed.