4 ms·

Oddly enough, “never fails to disappoint” can have the meaning “never disappoints” as well as “routinely disappoints”. I’ve never thought about that one before

jrmann100 2y ago
Here's a StackExchange thread on this exact mix-up (a "misnegation"): https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fail-to-disappoint https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai...
heresie-dabord 2y ago
Native EN parser here. I would never consider this usage correct except as a rhetorical (facetious) insult. People may well repeat it without understanding the original nor their mistake. Although if enough people bust the syntax, it may attract descriptivist reporting, as with the widely observed malapropism "irregardless". https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fail-to-disappoint https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
- kazinator 2y ago
  I've never failed to win a game of mahjong against a bunch of grannies a Chinatown back room joint. I've never tried such a thing; therefore, I've never failed.
- barrell 2y ago
  It’s not a matter of correctness, but of understanding. OP definitely intended to imply the content does not disappoint, and used a colloquialism most native speakers would understand
  - slippy 2y ago
    I am a native speaker and got the gist and saw the paradox, and found the phrasing a bit tortured by the triple negative. Thank you for explaining that this was a colloquialism. Now I have to go look up the etymology... And upon further inspection, this usage is actually a misnegation. "It is a veiled insult: an ironic form of insult delivery which is misinterpreted as flattery to the buffoon who is targeted by it, much to the entertainment of anyone else within earshot who understands the true meaning."
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Only in the same sense that “could care less” is understandable but also means the opposite of the intention.
    - ftmch 2y ago
      There are East European languages, mostly Slavic ones, that have these weird double negatives which are grammatically correct and mean the opposite. A sentance such as: "I haven't never been there" means you've never been there.
- scubbo 2y ago
  Frankly, I could care less
- hinkley 2y ago
  I have only ever heard it used as a high brow burn, and a wickedly hard one at that.
reshlo 2y ago
> can have the meaning “never disappoints” How?
- kazinator 2y ago
  A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. This is an example of a vacuous truth. I've never failed an airliner landing. While that may sound like I'm boasting of being a good pilot, in fact I'm not a pilot at all, and I've never attempted such a thing. Another vacuous truth. Every crow in an empty set of crows is white. Also, every crow in an empty set of crows is black. Propositions universally quantified over an empty set are all vacuously true. Statements with always and never are universally quantified over some set of events. If that set is empty it leads to vacuous truths. "Every time I've seen a crow, it has always been white" is vacuously true if I've never seen a crow. I.e. the set of crows I've seen is empty, and consequently is a true statement that they're all white.
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    > A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. "never failed" != "never fails"
  - reshlo 2y ago
    > A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. Nobody who uses the phrase ever means it in this way. The point of using the statement is to convey that you are familiar with the person’s history. As another commenter has already pointed out, “has never failed to disappoint” is not the same statement as “never fails to disappoint”. The habitual present can’t refer to empty sets, as it is only used to refer to repeated actions.
ykonstant 2y ago
What a country!
jacknews 2y ago
Never heard that one, but maybe it's like 'could care less', which has acquired the opposite of it's actual meaning (the phrase should be 'could not care less') by repeated incorrect use.
- hinkley 2y ago
  I’d say that’s more tolerated than embraced. We know what you meant, you just didn’t say what you meant. Not everyone tolerates it.
Agingcoder 2y ago
This is the first time I come across this mistake / non-mistake so I misunderstood your comment. Are you sure it’s a common enough misnegation for people to understand what you meant ?
- barrell 2y ago
  I didn’t use the expression, I don’t think I would have myself, but it didn’t even strike me as odd until I read the comment by hinkley. Did you read the original comment and think BeetleB follows John and thinks all of his content is disappointing?

jrmann100 2y ago

Here's a StackExchange thread on this exact mix-up (a "misnegation"): https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fail-to-disappoint https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai...

heresie-dabord 2y ago

Native EN parser here. I would never consider this usage correct except as a rhetorical (facetious) insult. People may well repeat it without understanding the original nor their mistake. Although if enough people bust the syntax, it may attract descriptivist reporting, as with the widely observed malapropism "irregardless". https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fail-to-disappoint https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/139448/never-fai... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

kazinator 2y ago
I've never failed to win a game of mahjong against a bunch of grannies a Chinatown back room joint. I've never tried such a thing; therefore, I've never failed.
barrell 2y ago
It’s not a matter of correctness, but of understanding. OP definitely intended to imply the content does not disappoint, and used a colloquialism most native speakers would understand
- slippy 2y ago
  I am a native speaker and got the gist and saw the paradox, and found the phrasing a bit tortured by the triple negative. Thank you for explaining that this was a colloquialism. Now I have to go look up the etymology... And upon further inspection, this usage is actually a misnegation. "It is a veiled insult: an ironic form of insult delivery which is misinterpreted as flattery to the buffoon who is targeted by it, much to the entertainment of anyone else within earshot who understands the true meaning."
- hinkley 2y ago
  Only in the same sense that “could care less” is understandable but also means the opposite of the intention.
  - ftmch 2y ago
    There are East European languages, mostly Slavic ones, that have these weird double negatives which are grammatically correct and mean the opposite. A sentance such as: "I haven't never been there" means you've never been there.
scubbo 2y ago
Frankly, I could care less
hinkley 2y ago
I have only ever heard it used as a high brow burn, and a wickedly hard one at that.

reshlo 2y ago

> can have the meaning “never disappoints” How?

kazinator 2y ago
A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. This is an example of a vacuous truth. I've never failed an airliner landing. While that may sound like I'm boasting of being a good pilot, in fact I'm not a pilot at all, and I've never attempted such a thing. Another vacuous truth. Every crow in an empty set of crows is white. Also, every crow in an empty set of crows is black. Propositions universally quantified over an empty set are all vacuously true. Statements with always and never are universally quantified over some set of events. If that set is empty it leads to vacuous truths. "Every time I've seen a crow, it has always been white" is vacuously true if I've never seen a crow. I.e. the set of crows I've seen is empty, and consequently is a true statement that they're all white.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  > A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. "never failed" != "never fails"
- reshlo 2y ago
  > A complete stranger who has nothing whatsoever to do with you, who has never tried to do anything for you, nor has been expected to, has never disappointed you. They've also never failed to disappoint you, because they have not failed in any regard whatsoever. Nobody who uses the phrase ever means it in this way. The point of using the statement is to convey that you are familiar with the person’s history. As another commenter has already pointed out, “has never failed to disappoint” is not the same statement as “never fails to disappoint”. The habitual present can’t refer to empty sets, as it is only used to refer to repeated actions.

ykonstant 2y ago

What a country!

jacknews 2y ago

Never heard that one, but maybe it's like 'could care less', which has acquired the opposite of it's actual meaning (the phrase should be 'could not care less') by repeated incorrect use.

hinkley 2y ago
I’d say that’s more tolerated than embraced. We know what you meant, you just didn’t say what you meant. Not everyone tolerates it.

Agingcoder 2y ago

This is the first time I come across this mistake / non-mistake so I misunderstood your comment. Are you sure it’s a common enough misnegation for people to understand what you meant ?

barrell 2y ago
I didn’t use the expression, I don’t think I would have myself, but it didn’t even strike me as odd until I read the comment by hinkley. Did you read the original comment and think BeetleB follows John and thinks all of his content is disappointing?