“To all y’all people asking why I would let me son ride the bus because I’m rich — being rich don’t got nothing to do with a child experiences,”

I saw the sentence from here. According to this previous post of ELL, this phenomenon has been explained as 'negative concord' or 'double negative', and it says in one of answers:

... ... It can be used as an emphasizer (instead of cancellation) or a required double negative that indicates a single negative.

So in that view, "They ain't got nothing to say." has been interpreted as "They don't have anything to say.".

By that analogy, "being rich don’t got nothing to do with a child experiences" should be interpreted as "being rich don’t have anything to do with a child experiences".

On the other hand, "being rich doesn’t got nothing to do with a child experiences" looks more correct to me.

How should we understand that sentence correctly? Grammatically and semantically.

1 Answer 1


The sentence can be understood as:

"To all of you who are asking me why I would let my son ride the bus even though I'm rich, let me tell you that being rich doesn't have anything to do with things that a child should experience."

In other words, he believes that riding a bus is an important childhood experience, and one that he wants his son to have even though it's not necessary from a financial perspective. (No doubt, being rich, he could afford to have a driver take his son to school and pick him up every day.)


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .