On multiple negation marking in English.
<<<<They may be missing something.>>
No. They lack it but they don't need it. >>
Double negatives enrich the language by adding another level of complexity to it. That is, people who say "I didn't do nothing" still often do say "I didn't do anything". It is possible that for them there is a difference between them, maybe the latter is more formal?
<It is possible that for them there is a difference between them, maybe the latter is more formal? >
Or they're simply code-switching. Maybe such people are bidialectal.
<<No. They lack it but they don't need it>>
<<Really? And how do you know that?>>
You probably don't understand what "need" means. If there isn't a problem to solve or a wish to fulfill, then nothing is "needed".
<If there isn't a problem to solve or a wish to fulfill, then nothing is "needed". >
The meaning is not at question, but your assertion is. Again, how do you know that all, or the majority, of Standard English speakers do not need double-negative marking?
<<The meaning is not at question, but your assertion is. Again, how do you know that all, or the majority, of Standard English speakers do not need double-negative marking?>>
Because all or the majority of Standard English speakers don't complain about not having double negatives. They don't even think of it. When you think somebody needs something, but they have never even thought of it, you are trying to introduce an artificial need.
Another Guest is right - there's no point in trying to pretend that it's acceptable in English, becauce it's not, it's grammatically incorrect.
<When you think somebody needs something, but they have never even thought of it, you are trying to introduce an artificial need.>
So Standard English lacks nothing, IYO, does it?
Language concepts like double negatives - or grammatical gender - or verb conjugations - aren't based on "need" (whatever "need" is supposed to mean in this context).
Travis, I based my statements on actual English usage. Besides not actually explicitly explaining WHAT is wrong with my position, what you have provided as far as WHY it is wrong is the assertion that my position is not fashionable among "respectable" linguistic circles, and the assertion that the usage on which I base my position has not existed from the dawn of English. Hmmm. Actual usage, versus arguments from authority and clinging to the grammar of long-past eras. Which, exactly, is better described by the term "prescriptivist"? Your post reeked of arrogance, even without the "I refuse to defend my position because I've pre-emptively declared you unreasonable" foolishness. Given how you're conducted yourself so far, it is not surprising that no one you have argued with has been convinced of your position. It's difficult to advance a successful argument when you don't even know what the dispute is about. It is not prescriptivism versus descriptivism, it's reality versus ivory-tower elitism. The origin of a usage is irrelevant to its nature. If prescriptivists played a large role in a usage coming to dominate a language, that does not make current observations that it is standard usage "prescriptivism".
Fizz, asking silly questions and then asking six hours later where I am isn't an argument. And, as I have already stated, Standard English does have double negative marking.
toilet, the issue isn't whether double negatives are allowed, but whether they mean what they logically should mean, or whether it's acceptable to say the exact opposite of what you mean and expect people to understand you. I don't see how allowing people to say the opposite of what they mean enriches the language.
<(whatever "need" is supposed to mean in this context). >
I have a need to give emphasis to my statement, for example.
<I don't see how allowing people to say the opposite of what they mean enriches the language. >
But those who canonically use double-negatives are not saying the opposite of what they mean. The problem lies with those who interpret double-negatives as stating the opposite of what one means. If you analyse everything by your standards/Standard, Another Guest, it's not surprising that you can't understand the use of the double-negative in non-standard English forms.
<Fizz, asking silly questions and then asking six hours later where I am isn't an argument.>
What's silly about this question, AG?
<< So what does "nada" mean here, AG?
A: Gracias.
B: De nada.>>
Can you answer it?
<and saying that MNM is a perfectly valid grammatical variant. Except that it's not MNM, it's a double negative.>
I think we, including you, Another Guest, may be using the wrong terminology.
"Something similar is true of the multiple marking of negation, misleadingly termed "double negation," and treated as an illogicality. This feature is also found in Romance languages. There is a direct analogy between AAE "Ain't nobody called" with the equivalent Italian "Non ha telefonata nessuno," literally "not has telephoned no one." Both mean "No one has telephoned." It is a rule in both languages that under certain conditions indefinite words with meanings like "someone" or "anyone" "must" be replaced by their negative counterparts when they occur in a negated clause. No grammatical or logical mistakes are involved; multiple negation marking is a grammatical requirement like number or gender agreement.>
http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-03-31/ebonics.htm
<When you think somebody needs something, but they have never even thought of it, you are trying to introduce an artificial need.>
So, introducing Standard English to millions of native-English students world over is creating an artificial need, is it?