4 ms·

"but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." I wish I had something else to contribute, but I think you misused a double-negative there.

by fezzl 16y ago

kls 16y ago
I don't see where but I will give you that grammar, writing and English where not my strong suits when I was in school. I have dyslexia, so I will assume that it is an error on my part. In saying that, what I do have a mastery of is logic. and if I break it out logically, I do not see how it becomes a double negative. So for example, if I say: I do not think x is unreasonable. (I do not think) flips the meaning of (x is unreasonable) and makes it !(x is unreasonable) or (x is reasonable) so conditional: if (x < 100,000 !(x is unreasonable)) else (x is unreasonable). it can be also be expressed as: if (x < 100,000 (x is reasonable)) else !(x is reasonable) Works for me! even if it is incorrect English, it is correct logic.
- rick_2047 16y ago
  Bravo for logical reasoning.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  Your logic is impeccable. The problem is that most idiomatic English usage is very peccable. Many people will misunderstand you, even if you are logically unassailable. You meant that anything under 100K seems reasonable to you. I would recommend that where possible you should stick to the positive form, as it is less likely to be misunderstood. I think that's a shame, but it's my experience.
- fezzl 16y ago
  Your logic is correct. It really depends on what you meant: whether you wanted to mean that 100K is 1) reasonable or 2) unreasonable. You said: "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate, but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate" --- (1) "but" --- (2) "I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." --- (3) (1) implies that you think that he shouldn't overpay himself, and you followed that with a "but" (i.e. (2)), which suggested that the ensuing clause was going to be of the "you shouldn't underpay yourself either" nature/implication. Naturally, the next clause should be explaining what exactly you meant by underpaying. So that means you should either be setting a lower bound and saying that it's reasonable, i.e. "I think that anything above 100K is reasonable," or be setting an upper bound and saying that it's unreasonable, i.e. "I think that anything below 100K is unreasonable".

"but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." I wish I had something else to contribute, but I think you misused a double-negative there.

by fezzl 16y ago

"but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." I wish I had something else to contribute, but I think you misused a double-negative there.

kls 16y ago

I don't see where but I will give you that grammar, writing and English where not my strong suits when I was in school. I have dyslexia, so I will assume that it is an error on my part. In saying that, what I do have a mastery of is logic. and if I break it out logically, I do not see how it becomes a double negative. So for example, if I say: I do not think x is unreasonable. (I do not think) flips the meaning of (x is unreasonable) and makes it !(x is unreasonable) or (x is reasonable) so conditional: if (x < 100,000 !(x is unreasonable)) else (x is unreasonable). it can be also be expressed as: if (x < 100,000 (x is reasonable)) else !(x is reasonable) Works for me! even if it is incorrect English, it is correct logic.

rick_2047 16y ago
Bravo for logical reasoning.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Your logic is impeccable. The problem is that most idiomatic English usage is very peccable. Many people will misunderstand you, even if you are logically unassailable. You meant that anything under 100K seems reasonable to you. I would recommend that where possible you should stick to the positive form, as it is less likely to be misunderstood. I think that's a shame, but it's my experience.
fezzl 16y ago
Your logic is correct. It really depends on what you meant: whether you wanted to mean that 100K is 1) reasonable or 2) unreasonable. You said: "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate, but I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." "Now I am not saying that you should be paying yourself 200K a year out of the gate" --- (1) "but" --- (2) "I do not think anything under 100K is unreasonable." --- (3) (1) implies that you think that he shouldn't overpay himself, and you followed that with a "but" (i.e. (2)), which suggested that the ensuing clause was going to be of the "you shouldn't underpay yourself either" nature/implication. Naturally, the next clause should be explaining what exactly you meant by underpaying. So that means you should either be setting a lower bound and saying that it's reasonable, i.e. "I think that anything above 100K is reasonable," or be setting an upper bound and saying that it's unreasonable, i.e. "I think that anything below 100K is unreasonable".