Well, well, JTT. Who's being pedantic now. Actually, it's the sound of the language that makes it appeal; the feel of the sound that's easy to wield
As a sword or a plowshare, we find it unique that each says his own thing
whatever the speak.
I'd like to throw something out for discussion.
I had an Creative Writing class, where, in a story I'd written, I often used some sort of double negative.
For example, "Not without a backward glance." The professor always marked me down, saying it should simply be "With a backward glance," to remove conflicting negatives.
To me this seems perfectly acceptable, since it has a completely different feel in many cases. The point of writing is the feeling of the words. For example, I can say red, scarlet, ruby, or crimson to describe the same object, but they won't create the same impression.
What do you think? Is it appropriate to say, "it wasn't impossible," or must I say "it was possible."
SCoates, those are not double nagatives. Saying "not without a backward glance" instead of "with a backward glance" is a mode of expression known as a litote. It is quite common in some British writing. Many American professors, however, feel it is cumbersome, lugubrious and pretentious. What your writing coach was objecting to was not any grammatical error, but, rather, your writing style.
It is perfectly all right to say"it wasn't impossible." It all depends on what tone you want to employ, what linguistic mood you want to set.
That's what I would have assumed, and could agree with (it was unconsciously pretentious), but she actually said it was a "double negative," and was "incorrect."
Have her look up 'litote' in her Funk&Wagnall's.
UhOh! Now I have to look up litote, Andrew. Damn, this is fun
Heh!Heh! Noddy, for the want of an "s" a meaning was lost.
Yes, I couldn't find it online without the 's.'
Is litote an acceptable singular?
I don't think there is a singular form of "litotes"--I suspect we rented it from the Greeks with the "s" attached and keeping the "s" attached is in the linguistic lease.
Letty wrote:Well, well, JTT. Who's being pedantic now. Actually, it's the sound of the language that makes it appeal; the feel of the sound that's easy to wield
As a sword or a plowshare, we find it unique that each says his own thing
whatever the speak.
Could you be a wee bit more specific, Letty?
kitchenpete wrote:Welcome, Bekaboo and (if I haven't done so already) to JTT.
I'm pretty flexible on the use of who/whom - "who should I give this to?" is not something which makes my hair stand on end.
Nonetheless, I'm not quite as laissez-faire as JTT.
Great to have you both on board, to keep us from getting stuck on our same hobby-horses.
KP
That's for the welcome, KP.
Sorry about the missing 's', folks. I couldn't find the singular form anywhere, either, and was begining to doubt my own sanity (or, at least, memory). Thx, Noddy.
I couldn't find the singular form either, in english.
But french has this singular form.
'Litote' is listed in the O E D as obsolete and rare. They have one reference from the 17th century. The original Greek word is litotes.
Bekaboo wrote:
My pet hate: the misuse of who
To whom should i give this?
NOT TO WHO!!!!!!!
I'm not quite as bad as one of my friends, who will cheerfully leap across a room to strangle somebody when they use "who" rather than the dative case 
CGEL: The earlier case system of English distinguished ... dative. The loss of inflectional endings has resulted in this case dropping out of the system. ... traditional school grammars often analyse [object pronouns] as a dative case, ... but ... an analysis that is valid for Latin (or Old English) has been inappropriately carried over to Present-day English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"to who" is nonstandard but it may well be that one day it will be standard. 'who' has become fully grammatical as both a nominative and accusative form and 'whom' is making inroads into subject use.
Will 'whom' go totally the way of the dinosaurs or will its functions simply be further reduced? Only time will tell.
Clary wrote:'Litote' is listed in the O E D as obsolete and rare. They have one reference from the 17th century. The original Greek word is litotes.
Not so rare at all, Clary. Here is a recent quote from Andrew.
"Saying "not without a backward glance" instead of "with a backward glance" is a mode of expression known as a litote."
Maybe he's just obsolete...
