I iz haz good grammar. (Hang)

~~The Unfan~~ · 10-25-2008, 09:32 AM

So this was brought up in another thread but didn't come to a resolve due to the thread closing for unrelated purposes. Also, it was off topic in the thread which it came up in so moving this topic here would be preferred.

Specifically, what we're looking at it as how the prefix dis works in context of the double negative. Words like dislodge, dislodged, and disagree do not necessarily fall into the "double negative rule" because "dis" does not always make a word a negative or definitively opposing. It makes a new word that means "not in direct agreement with [word]", "contrarilly to [word]", "to un-[word]", and sometimes "in direct opposition of [word]".

For instance disagree does not always necessitate the definitive opposition, it necessitates being unconvinced of the given stance. If I disagree that My Dog Skip is a good movie it doesn't have to mean I think its a terrible movie, it could just mean I haven't been convinced that its good. It could very well mean I have not seen My Dog Skip and thus hold no opinion one way or the other.

In the case of "dislodge" it does mean "to unlodge" something if that makes sense. If you dislodge something you are moving out of its intended location or position. The word isn't in direct opposition to be it being lodged, in fact dislodging requires it being lodged in the first place. After is dislodge something it is then "dislodged" or in direct opposition to being lodged. Also of note: it is also grammatically correct to say "After something has been dislodged it is dislodged and in direct opposition to being lodged." because of the ed suffix changing the tense of the word.

Back to the point of my rant. When Trauma said he didn't disagree with WendyCal I am fairly certain Trauma either meant "I am not certain that the opposite is true." or "I hold no stance one way or the other." Apparently, WendyCal has a problem with looking at words in context.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-25-2008, 09:47 AM

And they're not likely to be opened again while idiotic threads like this one are being started.

10-25-2008, 09:32 AM	#1 (permalink)
~~The Unfan~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Methville Posts: 2,116	I iz haz good grammar. So this was brought up in another thread but didn't come to a resolve due to the thread closing for unrelated purposes. Also, it was off topic in the thread which it came up in so moving this topic here would be preferred. Specifically, what we're looking at it as how the prefix dis works in context of the double negative. Words like dislodge, dislodged, and disagree do not necessarily fall into the "double negative rule" because "dis" does not always make a word a negative or definitively opposing. It makes a new word that means "not in direct agreement with [word]", "contrarilly to [word]", "to un-[word]", and sometimes "in direct opposition of [word]". For instance disagree does not always necessitate the definitive opposition, it necessitates being unconvinced of the given stance. If I disagree that My Dog Skip is a good movie it doesn't have to mean I think its a terrible movie, it could just mean I haven't been convinced that its good. It could very well mean I have not seen My Dog Skip and thus hold no opinion one way or the other. In the case of "dislodge" it does mean "to unlodge" something if that makes sense. If you dislodge something you are moving out of its intended location or position. The word isn't in direct opposition to be it being lodged, in fact dislodging requires it being lodged in the first place. After is dislodge something it is then "dislodged" or in direct opposition to being lodged. Also of note: it is also grammatically correct to say "After something has been dislodged it is dislodged and in direct opposition to being lodged." because of the ed suffix changing the tense of the word. Back to the point of my rant. When Trauma said he didn't disagree with WendyCal I am fairly certain Trauma either meant "I am not certain that the opposite is true." or "I hold no stance one way or the other." Apparently, WendyCal has a problem with looking at words in context.

10-25-2008, 09:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	And they're not likely to be opened again while idiotic threads like this one are being started. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.