0

As taught by our English language teacher back home who are not native speakers, we learn that "too...to do" contains the negative implication which means the opposite to the face meaning, as in "he is too young to visit adult sites= he is not old enough to do so."

While the above example is very simple and easy to understand, the following one is a little longer and much harder:

"The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth."

From "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton and his forefathers

And I notice there is a "not" before "to", that means, it is a double negative? The plan is complicated enough so we must do what? Perhaps the sentence is too long to be understood.

0

there is a "not" before "to", that means, it is a double negative?

No, a double negative would be something like this:

We ain't going to no party.

Which is really saying "we are not going to no party" which, according to the sentence, means they are going to a party. See this Youtube video for additional examples of double negatives.

The plan is complicated enough so we must do what?

The plan is complicated enough so that we must involve the "interests" and "local institutions" that were previously mentioned.

The long-winded sentence is basically saying that if we do not involve the people and institutions that will be affected by the plan, it will be a bad thing since the plan will affect so many others.

  • You're confusing double negative with negative concordance, which is a feature of some English dialect. "We ain't going to no party" means "We aren't going to a party." – Robusto Oct 6 '17 at 3:00
  • 1
    @Robusto - That's wrong. "We ain't going to no party" is a double negative and is grammatically incorrect, although anyone who actually says that does mean they aren't going to a party...however it is technically incorrect English. – user63211 Oct 6 '17 at 3:35
  • 2
    Nobody uses a double negative to mean a positive unless they're being arch. And as for ungrammatical, as I said, negative concord is a feature of some dialects of English. There is no one grammar that works for all dialects. – Robusto Oct 6 '17 at 3:47
  • 1
    @Robusto - There is a correct way to say things in English, and you will get marked wrong in any English grammar class for using a double negative. The 'dialects' you keep referencing that use double negatives are saying it wrong. We know what they really mean when they say it, but it is still grammatically incorrect, and calling it a "negative concord" is not going to make it correct. – user63211 Oct 6 '17 at 4:16
  • 3
    I've got to agree with @Robusto, here. You've chosen a bad example of a double negative. When people say "we ain't going to no party" they always mean we aren't going to any party. The debate about whether this feature of some English dialects is "correct" isn't going to be resolved until you settle on a definition of "correct" (do you take a descriptive or proscriptive view of grammar?). Meanwhile, if you simply chose an unambiguously incorrect double negative, e.g. "We never don't like English" your answer would be improved. – Juhasz Oct 19 '18 at 14:44
0

Actually, this is a double negative.

Let's simplify to a more modern but still complex restatement.

The plan being considered affects too many interests and local institutions to prevent technically unrelated diversions and emotional appeals from being raised.

This can easily be interpreted according to the rule that you have been taught.

The plan being considered affects so many interests and local institutions that the raising of technically unrelated diversions and emotional appeals cannot be prevented.

The two restatements mean the same thing. So far, so good.

Now let's substitute "not involve" for "prevent."

The plan being considered affects too many interests and local institutions not to involve the raising of technically unrelated diversions and emotional appeals.

So following your rule that equates to

The plan being considered affects so many interests and local institutions that technically unrelated diversions and emotional appeals cannot not be involved.

which can, under the double negative rule, be restated as

The plan being considered affects so many interests and local institutions that technically unrelated diversions and emotional appeals must be involved.

The high style of 18th century English prose takes some getting used to.

  • Is the content not more along the lines of: ' This plan affects so many topics and people that the discussion will involve people and arguments that will not be good for the discussion.' Compare: 'This trap is too enticing to not work' - meaning it will work. – bukwyrm Jul 13 '18 at 5:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.