/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19178586]

ESL here. Why is
>not unlike
seen as more highbrow than
>like
when they mean the same thing?

[Anonymous No.19178599]

>>19178586
because brainlets can't into double negatives

[Anonymous No.19178609]

>>19178586
They mean subtly different things, "not unlike" has a kind of "it's not not like it, and more than somewhat like it, but not quite entirely like it" connotation, but its really very slight, in many cases it just means "like".

It also sometimes has a meta-meaning like many double negatives of this sort that means "other people might usually claim it's not like this, but it is", its negting an implicit negation.

It might also be used for rhythmic purposes, not unlike presents a more distinct pause indicating a new idea, the comparison, giving time for the person to adjust.

it means none of these things, it just sounds fancier

[Anonymous No.19178621]

The double negative adds some distance. The phrasing captures a train of thought that approaches the similarity from a place of ostensible difference, rather than as something that ought to be similar. But also like the above guy says it just sounds fancier

[Anonymous No.19178631]

>>19178586
they do mean slightly different things when used in writing, even if they literally come out to the same answer. they have a different emphasis

[Anonymous No.19178634]

>>19178586
A little stylistic tip copied from the Romans.

An example

nōnnumquam = nōn + numquam = not never = sometimes

[Anonymous No.19178648]

>>19178634
When did double negative=positive in English even become fashionable? Its got to be one of those things that grammarians made up to sell books, right? They decided to just copy everything they could from Latin and declare it "correct" English.

[Anonymous No.19178685]

>>19178648
In the 16th ce, especially under Elizabeth, or the English Renaissance, there was a nationalistic phase during which the the upper classes (nobility) commissioned translators to take the best from Antiquity and render it into English, in order to democratize that knowledge and boost the literary prestige of English, by emulating Latin and ancient Greek works.
As a result, certain structures, word formations, and phrases, like the infamous "not only...but also" from Cicero, "non solum...sed etiam," made their way into English and became a staple. Moreover, the nobles and gentry were thoroughly educated in the classics so they would've had in mind those patterns anyway while writing in their native language.
Like the Italians, as demonstrated by the holy Trinity of Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, had done, and noted and copied by Chaucer, the English sought to make their vulgar language capable of expressing high thoughts in a "stately" manner.

[Anonymous No.19178709]

>>19178685
So english is a shitty non-language pidgin
Ok

[Anonymous No.19178719]

>>19178709
You dont even speak your own language well if you think another language is just intrinsically bad

[Anonymous No.19178757]

>>19178709
As are most languages, besides conlangs

[Anonymous No.19178762]

>>19178586
>like
same, alike

>not unlike
akin to, with little difference

[Anonymous No.19178769]

>>19178609
>>19178631
>>19178762
>double negation of the thesis is different from the thesis
Based Anglos intuitively grasping towards the divine intellect of Hegel (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.19178775]

>>19178769
Mange mon cul debil

[Anonymous No.19178784]

>>19178685
I suspected as much.
Double (or even triple or quadruple) negative being an emphasised negative was a feature of English as late as the 15th century, but I can't think of examples of that in the early modern english we associate with the Elizabethan era, so it must have changed fairly rapidly.

[Anonymous No.19178786]

>>19178586
ESL here.
Get off /lit/.

[Anonymous No.19178804]

>>19178757
No, English is just specially shitty
>>19178709
>t.projecting monolingual anglx saxonex tranny

[Anonymous No.19178805]

>>19178586
"like" is also commonly used to stall in language, almost like a stutter on the level of "uhh" or "umm". This contributes to it's status as an uncouth word.

[Anonymous No.19178809]

Second part of >>19178804 was meant for >>19178719

[Anonymous No.19178817]

>>19178809
no one cares ESL coper

[Anonymouṡ No.19178875]

>>19178586
First of all, they don't mean the same thing.

Two things can be definitely alike, or definitely unalike. But often there's a grey area in the middle where we aren't sure. To say A is "not unlike" B is less emphatic, more diffident. You're saying "it's not unlike it, so it's probably like it, but it might be in the grey area".

Sometimes you really do want this precise distinction. More often, when you say "A is not unlike B", you do indeed mean "A is like B". But saying it that way is more polite because you're allowing — even if only rhetorically — elbow-room for your being wrong. There are thousands of similar phrases in all areas of social intercourse. When you say "Perhaps you'd like to — ", often you mean "You need to do this." (I admit, this sort of thing isn't exactly in keeping with the 4chan ethos, which is to generally express oneself as violently and rudely as possible.)

One extra difficulty with English (especially for non-native speakers) is that a lot of this over-diplomatic phraseology is most commonly used ironically. e.g.

Person A: "Have you finished that report?"
Person B: "No, do you need it now?"
Person A: "Well, if you would be so kind."

A's second comment generally means "I want it right now if you want to keep your job."

[Anonymous No.19179068]

>>19178786
*get off of /lit/
if anything. Improve your English or else NGMI

[Anonymous No.19179077]

>>19178709
>shitty non-language pidgin is the most powerful language ever
Based English

[Anonymous No.19179088]

>>19179077
The slight increase in communicative efficiency comes at a cost of a loss of aesthetic value. That being said I wouldn't count myself among haters of English. I think it gets a lot of bad press on /lit/ due to American posts being of noticeably low quality, sheer contrarianism of 4channers and ESL cope

[Anonymous No.19179128]

>>19178586
Probably because it's conveying a nuance, a intermediate state of "likeness" in-between "like" and "unlike" which I think >>19178609 >>19178621 these anons expressed.
Sort of like when British people say "it's quite good", they don't want to be perceived as *dead common* by expressing unambiguous endorsement but a cold analytical distance. That analytical distance is commonly perceived as more highbrow. In the same way that stereotypical Doctors and Lawyers who are surgical and analytical are perceived. Curiously well into the 20th century the British still managed to hold a certain social cachet in America, so much so that you had the whole Mid-Atlantic affectation. How 'bout dat!?

[Anonymous No.19179131]

>>19179088
>comes at a cost of a loss of aesthetic value
prove it

[Anonymous No.19179146]

>>19179131
He can't; it's just a fashionable post-modern cliché.

[Anonymous No.19179346]

>>19179146
He be spittin fax tho

[Anonymous No.19179349]

>>19179346
prove it

[Anonymous No.19179353]

>>19179349
ain't nuttin to prove b you either know or you don't

[Anonymous No.19179356]

>>19179353
cope

[Anonymous No.19179370]

>>19179356
Just take the L and keep it movin bitch ass hoe

[Anonymous No.19180369]

>>19179068
* get off /lit/
get off of is ungrammatical.

[Anonymous No.19180412]

>>19179370
deadass

[Anonymous No.19180440]

>>19180412
not aliveass

[Anonymous No.19180493]

>>19179077
Meaningless in everyday speech. Speak ebonics by all means.

[Anonymous No.19180633]

>>19180440
no cap