Only if they're operating together- here, look hereRandomGeekNamedBrent wrote:Psyke is saying that two negatives (a double negative) becomes a positive. add another negative(triple negative) and you've got yourself a plain old negative.CaptainPea wrote:There was a double negative in there I believe, unless I'm mistaken as to their definition, but you're right that I used mostly just plain old negatives. They were still just as unnecessarily complex.Psykeout wrote: Wouldn't that just be, "several negatives?"
I wasn't not happy about not exploding
The first two "nots" operate on "happy" and then "not happy", forming a double negative, but the third one applies to "exploding" so the double negative still stands.
As you know, I always try to be unnecessarily complex and sound like I know what I'm talking about (for example, read the above little paragraph type thing), especially in regards to English. An English teacher might be upset at the amount of clauses I try to cram into one sentence sometimes.
No, since "double negative" is a singular noun of its own right.Psykeout wrote:No, I'm saying the word "double" is redundant, having already referred to quantity with the word "several"