|
|
|
|
|
by goodside
2286 days ago
|
|
This is known as “negative concord” and shows up often in colloquial English. While popularly associated with African American and Appalachian dialects, it actually occurs almost everywhere English is spoken. (E.g. Pink Floyd’s chorus, “We don’t need no education / We don’t need no thought control”.) Even in formal writing, double negatives are common using “nor”. Consider the sentence, “He is not satisfied at all with the recommendations of Mr. Trump, nor with those of Mrs. Clinton.” If you change “nor” to “or”, the meaning remains identical. This shows the negative “nor” reiterates rather inverts the prior negation. Note the “nor” version is no less formal or professional in tone because of its double negative. Negative concord even has precedent in Shakespeare: “I never was, nor never will be” from Richard III. Most would suggest avoiding negative concord in a formal writing (excepting “nor”), but colloquially it’s been part of the language for hundreds of years. In a conversational context, the line you quoted is standard English with or without the “don’t”. |
|
Most people would just accept it as getting confused about the number of negatives in a sentence - as indeed did the op.
Not everything is simply informal grammar; real fleshy human beings do get confused when they try complicated sentences like double negatives.