Double Negatives?

Research Not Producing Any Desired Results.....





Never been this fun

“WITH Compaq, staying home has never been this fun.”

The above is a sentence taken from a print media advertisement.

Shouldn’t the intended meaning have been rendered this way: “Without Compaq, staying home has never been this fun”?

– Kengt, Penang

The expression “staying home has never been this fun” is not a negative one. The emphasis is on the present “this fun” – a high degree of fun! It is a more emphatic way of saying “staying home is most fun”. So, the sentence from the advertisement – “With Compaq, staying home has never been this fun.” – does convey its intended meaning, that Compaq makes staying at home so much fun.

A negative version of “staying home has never been this fun” would be “staying home was never much fun”. This can go with “Without Compaq, staying home was never much fun.”, where you get the double negative from “without” and “never”.

The above question and answer are taken from The Star's MIND OUR ENGLISH dated April 10.

The question is posted by me, but I am not quite satisfied with the answer; and I have done a little research trying to convince myself of the answer given.

Instead, I have found that in standard English, "never" is used for a period of time but not a specific occasion.

I hope to chance upon or be directed to an authoritative source which can confirm the usage as explained in the answer.

Extra Verb

Why two? One is enough!







What right has the newly elected Mentri Besar or Chief Minister have to dispense such generosity at the expense of the tax/rate payers?

The sentence/question is taken from a letter in VIEWS of SUNDAY STAR of March 23 under the caption of No authorisation for fines-waiver policy.

If you are asked verbally the above question, you may not find anything wrong with it; but if you examine it again carefully, you will find that the sentence/question is not grammatically correct.

The long subject, "the newly elected Mentri Besar or Chief Minister" (which may obscure your detection of the mistake), is a singular subject which requires a singular verb "has". The other verb "have" is, therefore, redundant.

Figures of Speech

Too many of a kind?








Have you noticed that The Star's MIND OUR ENGLISH has been publishing periodically articles which invariably contain figures of speech (mostly similes and methaphors) abundantly, the most recent one of such articles being dated April 9 titled Shuffle off this mortal coil?

If you fancy and think of adopting such style of writing, perhaps you should take a look at the book, "HOW TO WRITE AND SPEAK BETTER" (compiled/edited by more than ten experts and published by The Reader's Digest) which has advised in its section on Style and Structure, "A succession of metaphors or similes drawn from different fields of comparison sometimes produces a laughably clashing effect...... Beware of overspicing......Overuse is an obvious danger, then, but it is not the only one."

Dr Mahathir or Pak Lah?

Trying to figure out?









The Star's MIND OUR ENGLISH contains an article (reproduced below) in its April 2 issue.

The article shows a very common error committed by writers.

Wednesday April 2, 2008
Ambiguous pronoun reference
By OH TEIK THEAM
LOOK at these little “stories” and see if you can find a mistake in each:

The credit card

Steve called David one evening while he was on vacation.

After they had talked awhile, Steve said, “My wife’s credit card was stolen.”

“Did you report the theft?” David asked.

“No,” said Steve. “Unlike my wife, the thief is not good at spending.”

The antecedent of a pronoun must be unambiguous. In the first sentence of the story, the pronoun “he” has two possible antecedents – “Steve” and “David”.

Rewrite: When Steve was on vacation, he called David one evening.

Muddy shoes

“Remove your muddy shoes before you enter the house,” the mother said to her son. “Yesterday the maid removed the carpet from the living room and cleaned it.”

The little boy, who had been playing football with his friends, replied, “Mum, I’m not wearing any shoes!”

The pronoun “it” in the story has two possible antecedents – “carpet” and “living room”. To prevent ambiguity, the sentence can be recast in one of two ways (depending on which meaning is intended):

Yesterday the maid cleaned the carpet after removing it from the living room.

Yesterday the maid cleaned the living room after removing the carpet from it.

Now, look at the following paragraph taken from a letter in VIEWS of The Star of April 3.

Although Pak Lah is perceived as a weak leader and has much to be blamed for the fiasco at the last election, he must be given another chance to redeem himself even though Dr Mahathir has constantly called for his resignation. He is not playing the game fairly.

The He in the last sentence is referring to Dr Mahathir or Pak Lah? Only the writer knows for sure.

To improve the situation, "former" or "latter" can be used or the name of the person playing the game be mentioned.