Looking for a grammar nazi - double negatives

I can't figure out what your question is. You refer to your friend's argument, but you don't say what it is, or how you differ. My opinion would be:

1. It's not a "double negative" in the ungrammatical sense.
2. The phrasing is awkward and uncommon, but grammatically correct, as far as I can see.

Most people would just say never been without (rather than "not had").

The Brits, perhaps thinking they are engaging in understatement, while actually being inconcise and somewhat obscure, will often use stilted prhases like "not without" to mean "has."

"He is not without food" meaning he has food. But that's not enough for them. Next thing they're throwing another unnecessary world in like "altogether." "He is not altogether without food" suggesting that what he does have may be a meager supply.

I should have added that they are probably more likely to phrase it that way if they are referring to someone who has a 15-year supply of canned goods stored all over his house than if they were referring to someone who only had a few slices of bread.

I'd call that possible, but less likely.

You may be right, Rog, I don't really know. I aint no damn limey. But they do love understatement, even to the point of extreme hyperbole.

It's like us when we assign the nickname of "Tiny" to a guy who weighs 350 pounds.

For that matter, there's nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence:

"I don't have no shoes." Read literally, it's just a way of saying "I have *some* shoes."

The problem arises when people are trying to say (their intended meaning is) "I have no shoes" or "I don't have any shoes."

Someone says to me (erroneously) "You have no shoes." How do I deny it?

Well, obviously, I just say "I don't have no shoes."

It's a non-standard useage that seems be becoming more common recently. It's used for emphasis. It is much more emphatic to say "I have never not had food to eat" than to say "I always have food to eat," especially when the word "not" is strongly emphasized.

It's not what is usually meant by " double negative" which is two negatives which are meant to have the sme sense as a single negative, like the Stones- "I can't get no satisfction", which MEANS "I can't get satisfaction. Thee are languages. Ike Spanish which regularly have two part negative as stsndar' but in english it's not stndr' but mosty native spanissh speakers or some african-americn speakers or songwriters. In the exsmple, it's two negatives which in fact mean a positive, which is logicaly corrct but te direct antithesis of a double negative, so you won't find that usage in any list of double negatives.

Your request for a "Grammar Nazi" is a bit dated. Concepts of English grammar have shifted from a prescriptive mode 'utilized to teach the working classes to talk properly' , to a descriptive mode in which equal weight can be given to dialectical variations such as the double negative (common in other languages as already noted above).
Language performance is like 'dress codes'. There are appropriate and inappropriate modes according to social context That is really all that can be said provided that meaning is clear.

I should perhaps als have mentioned that 'real time performance' in which spoken statements are constructed in the moment for a particular audience, should be considered differently to written performance constructed within a context allowing for revision for a more general audience. So, as soon as you put a sample up for discussion, you have lost the original context in which the sample was produced. That is why there tends to be a free- for-all of responses on discussion forums.

I think it's misleading to call that a double negative. If someone says: "Give me a cigarette," and their interlocutor responds "I ain't got none." That's a double negative--the second person means they have none. The prohibition against double negatives is predicated on a claim that logically, saying "I ain't got none" is the equivalent of having some. In this particular case, saying "I have never not had . . ." has no such putative logical inconsistency--the number of time when i have not had enough to eat is none, therefore, i have never not had enough food to eat.

Yeah, that's what I done said, long-ass time back, eh?

"Never been without" sounds good.
Can't think of nothin gooder.

@everyone

You've all pretty well denoted my side of the argument, and have also raised some interesting points (analysis of something spoken in the moment loses its spontaneity, etc.).

He likes to poke and did so in gest, but I felt that the sentence was not grammatically incorrect, so challenged him to define his argument. He could only reply with posts regarding basic double negatives, which did not satisfy my challenge. What you all (y'all in my native tongue, though I rarely write in southern colloquialisms) have commented is in line with my way of thinking.

And by grammar nazi, I meant no offense. I'm an engineer, but pride myself in using correct grammar in writing. I find that many engineers are quite lacking in this department. I don't find myself correcting other people's grammar, unless I am speaking with someone who actively and admittedly wants to improve their grammar, but do get 'brain pain' when I hear certain misuses.

My English grammar learnings were in excess of two decades ago. Because it was a pairing of words I find myself using more frequently, I wanted to gain an understanding of how it is perceived by those who are well versed in grammar across a broad range of learning and social experience. I can honestly say that I am quite satisfied. Thank you all.

Which "Brits" do you mean? Posh ones from about 1955? Sure sounds that way. Lots of different registers and varieties of expression in British English, as in all varieties. Believe me, I know, I've worked there.

Quite an interesting set of replies on this thread, well done to all.
You seem to have quite a reasonable grasp of the language.

HA!

Or perhaps, you mean that "they do not have an unreasonably limited grasp of the language"

I luvta start me day wi a smile

That is actually bollocks.

Also, there is a difference between "We have not ever been without food" and "We've always had enough to eat."

It all goes to the precision within language