I live in New York, Usa
here and in some other northern states people say:
I don't have no problem instead of I don't have any problem,
I don't have no money instead of I don't have any money,
which in some people eyes is wrong,
but anyway like i said,
it's used in this part of US,
Well i like Radiohead,
if you don't know them,
their a band from england,
One of their songs ,
"Anyone can play guitar", says:
**I DON'T see NO confusion anywhere**,
it's that grammatically right in England?
It's a double negative....if you think it out it means the opposite. I don't have NO money means "I do NOT have NO money, therefore I have SOME money". You can't have a NOT and a NO together as it means the opposite to what you intend to say...your intended negative becomes a positive. So get rid of the second negative (NO) and substitute "any". You quoted the correct form yourself so obvuiously you are aware that the double negative is wrong. It even sounds wrong, you must agree.
Don't worry.....double negatives are used here in the UK as well, not just in the USA.
typo: obviously* I type too fast
The double negative is used everywhere and correct nowhere. It's not a regional thing.
That would probably be said, "I don't see no confusion nowhere." The reason the double or triple negative is used in the first place is to emphasize the negative quality of the sentence, so it would be most likely be emphasized even more by using a triple negative.
"Napoplexie shente nat hir heed.
No wyn ne drank she, neither whit ne reed;"
What a terrible mess those Eighteenth Century grammatical pedants make of our notions of "correct" English.
Some languages require a double negative.
For example, it is grammatically correct Russian to say "ya nichevo ne znayu" for "I don't know anything" ('nichevo' = 'nothing' (genitive) and 'ne'='not'). The double negative has to be there.
Natural language cannot be interpreted in the context of symbolic logic (such as a programming language). As Samual Hayakawa (remember him?) pointed out, when a young boy says "I don't see no dog", he is emphatically telling you he sees no dog. Trying to convince him by a logical construct that (object_seen != !dog) is that same as (object_seen == dog) isn't going to work.
I guess my point is that although the double negative is ungrammatical (in English at least), the *meaning* it conveys is still truly a negative.
In french most of the people say : "J'ai pas d'argent" but it should be "Je n'ai pas d'argent" : translation I have no money and it must be I do not have any money (if i am correct.
Every languages have some rules but the people do not especially correct it when they talk.
That's the difference between to write and to speak.