Talk:I don't think so
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Chuck Entz in topic Reversal of meaning
Reversal of meaning[edit]
In recent years I hear, more often than not, this phrase used with a completely reversed meaning, creating a double negative.
An example from [[1]]
- Can a computerized telescope replace charts? Not for beginners, I don't think, and not on mounts and tripods that are less than top-quality mechanically (meaning heavy and expensive).
I would never have heard the expression used this way twenty years ago, but now it is commonplace on both side s of the Atlantic. I have even heard government ministers (including the PM) use it. The benefits of a private education, eh? Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's an example of "I don't think", not of "I don't think so". "I don't think so" doesn't seem to be as susceptible to being used in that kind of construction.
- Not that I'm worried about double negatives in any sentence bringing about the End Of Civilization As We Know It. It would be just as easy to criticize "I don't think" for not being the same as "I think not": after all, one could argue that "I don't think that's for beginners" could just as easily mean "I haven't thought about whether that's for beginners or not". Of course, it's a figure of speech- so you know what it means in spite of it being ambiguous, if analyzed literally. Double negatives are just another figure of speech, one that languages such as French have been using throughout their history with no ill effects. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)