Re: Negations

Ron Hardin wrote:

phoglund@xxxxxx wrote:

Ron Hardin wrote:
Wall Street Journal editorial

``There wasn't a shooting victim that didn't have less than three
bullet wounds in them,'' one of the doctors on the scene told CNN.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009956


On the other hand it's easy to understand as intended, so apparently
unnegating both clauses and taking it as a negation of the original
is just as natural.

Well, how is it actually intended? I am trying to get some sense out
of it, but I find it rather confusing.

He's saying every victim had three or more bullet wounds.

``There wasn't a shooting victim that had less than three bullet wounds in them,''
would be the logically correct negation.

But negating also the subordinate clause seems to be natural if not logical.

I don't see any such syntactic impulse. I think he's just merged two
equally natural completions:
"...that had less than three.."
"...that didn't have at least three..."

Ross Clark
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Negations
    ... Ron Hardin wrote: ... He's saying every victim had three or more bullet wounds. ... ``There wasn't a shooting victim that had less than three bullet wounds in them,'' ... would be the logically correct negation. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Negations
    ... bullet wounds in them,'' one of the doctors on the scene told CNN. ... 1.A shooting victim had fewer than three wounds. ... I agree with you and the original poster that the intended meaning was ...
    (sci.lang)