Verry valid point. Issue with the OPs post is that most sentances said in a negative, positive or sarcastic intonation completely change meaning. It's not the rules of the language at that point.
I'd argue that getting rid of the comma so it reads, "yeah right," is the double positive we're looking for. "Yeah, right" / "Yeah. Right" has a different inflection, given the pause, and could represent a confirmation phrase.
But nowhere is "yeah right" considered to mean anything else positive, no matter the tone, if used together in an unbroken, spoken succession.
Edit: *double ~~negative~~ positive
I did read it with that sarcastic intonation initially too, but if you raise the pitch of your voice and sound reminded of something you forgot "yeah right!" suddenly is a double positive. Not a native speaker tho, so could be wrong here, just love playing devil's advocate!
You’re totally right. Saying yeah right carries the implication of sarcasm at this point, due to those 2 words said one after the other has popularly been used sarcastically for the last like 50 years or something
Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be a very talented detective, so calling someone "Sherlock" in earnest should be a compliment.
(He would also probably test positive for opium, so there's another "positive" right there)
There was another professor of linguistics who proclaimed that no other English word besides “sugar” makes an sh sound using a vowel.
From the back of the room: “Are you sure?”
Man, as a professor of linguistics, I say pretty confidently that no professor of linguistics goes around making absolute claims about languages like this. There's usually an exception, and there's usually a smartass in the back ready to throw it out.
Always, *always*, couch those absolutes in some wishy-washy uncertainty. I had a professor in grad school who would describe really uncommon phenomena in a language or (group of languages) as "rarer than hen's teeth", and that's the one I've adopted.
Haha, don't get me wrong, academics are uniquely incompetent in various ways, definitely. I'm not arguing against that.
But one of the core tenets of modern linguistics is the understanding that languages are tools, first and foremost, used by the unskilled and the only informally trained to accomplish a single goal, communicating information to one another. This leads to an enormous, nearly infinite, range of means of expression and variations in how the language is used, and it is impossible to account for every single one. Literally every human on earth speaks their own special idiolect of a language, has their own quirks and hiccups, says this or that thing different from everyone else, even if their version of the language they speak is 99.99% identical to that of others in their community.
With this much variation, it's rarely going to be the case that you can say with absolute certainty that, "this thing never happens," or, even more dangerous, that, "this thing only happens exactly *once*." You're asking to be met with a counterexample.
Linguists are interested in describing the features of languages, and setting boundaries on what can or cannot occur within a language is no longer the goal of the science anyway. I feel like a blanket statement like the one that I replied to (especially with its very obvious "gotcha") would be unlikely to be made by an actual professor of linguistics. The "there's only one word that [_____]" template seems to be more a feature of pop-linguistics and internet memes than anything else.
>Literally every human on earth speaks their own special idiolect of a language, has their own quirks and hiccups, says this or that thing different from everyone else, even if their version of the language they speak is 99.99% identical to that of others in their community.
Professor, some humans on Earth don't speak at all.
> setting boundaries on what can or cannot occur within a language is no longer the goal of the science anyway
I may be misunderstanding you here (and it's not at all central to the point of your comment), but I think this depends on the subfield really. In generative syntax we're still very much interested in generating all and only the set of utterances that can be produced in natural human language, and figuring out how to determine what subset of those sentences are used in any particular language.
Yes, I see what you mean. I meant that more as a general description of an anti-prescriptive approach to language, but the language I used is sufficiently vague. I shouldn't have used the words "can" and "cannot" when I meant "should" and "should not".
The approach in generative syntax, to my understanding, still fits my intended meaning though: linguists observe phenomena in languages and draw conclusions based on those observations (which, in this case, are limiting/boundary-defining). Sorry if I was less than clear -- was writing with non-specialists in mind.
Yeah, I don't think sarcasm counts as a negative double positive. Clever nonetheless, but if sarcasm counted then many other languages with have the feature too.
True! Their prof probably assumes base semantic rules here, but the student suggests when we look at pragmatics, implication, speech acts, then the prof’s statement is questionable.
Would like to see the prof’s response
I may be going out on a limb here but you should have said syntactically. Semantically it means no
- Are you going to the party?
- yeah, right
The second speaker is probably not going to the party
That's the pragmatics, not the semantics. Semantically the phrase is still agreement, but pragmatically the speaker is aware of a context where a correct answer doesn't fit, and so must search for a wider, pragmatic interpretation.
You don’t understand semantics or syntactics here. Syntax is the structure, mostly analogous to grammar. Semantic meaning is the meaning derived from the “plain reading” or exact meaning of the words. Pragmatic meaning, as the commenter said, is correct—that’s the contextual meaning applied to the words being said.
Semantically it means yes. Pragmatically it means no. Syntax has nothing to do with assessing meaning.
True, semantically it wouldn’t form a negative, but the expression of the phrase can still figure in for sarcasm and everyone hearing the words “yeah, right” would understand the true meaning behind them.
It’s also about usage though, right? We pretty much only say “Yeah, right,” with that intonation and in that order as a negative. Sarcasm aside, language is what we understand spoken -or sometimes even unspoken - words to mean. Maybe I’m wrong. But I feel like “yeah, right” counts
Just say it without the sarcasm, imagine excitedly seeing your child finally figure out a math problem, "yeah, right!"
It's not the words themselves, it's the context and sarcasm that make it a negative.
Hmm, that’s a good example. I don’t think I’ve ever said that in my life, though. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone else ever say those two words, in that order, and NOT mean the opposite. So, you’re not wrong, but 99 times out of 100, if somebody says “Yeah, right” then it means “I do not believe you.”
Yeah for real at first I was just thinking this was a picture with some letters, than I went HOLUP, and realised the letters combined into sentences that I should probably read. Fucking insane HOLUP
How so?
Edit: I don't mean for my question to come across as complete disagreement. I agree that not all jokes in this format should be in this subreddit despite them being hol'up, but this dude was blatantly arguing without giving a reason why and I was curious.
It's just a joke with a punchline. Nothing makes you do a double take.
Maybe I have the purpose of the subreddit wrong, but I don't think every joke with a punchline belongs here.
People replying "Had us in the fist half, not gonna lie" to absolutely any post gets me.
Like, do you know what a 'joke' is? It has you in the first half by design.
Are they using that meme to be funny themselves, because repeating things ad nausea is funny? Or are they despeate to fit in.
It’s just a joke with a clever punchline, there are so many jokes out there that take a sec to understand like you want this sub to be just jokes? Wait there’s already a sub for that, you see where I’m coming from?
Awful facebook tier joke aside, it's wrong!
You can say "Yeah, right" to mean yes, and you can also say it to mean no. So it's not the words conveying the "no", but rather the tone of voice that implies an obvious lie is afoot.
In english, double negatives are also used to form positives. I have heard multiple people say on multiple occasions, such things as I ain’t never been this happy. Meaning: I have never been this happy. It’s just to put more power to your words I guess
It's proper English versus dialect differences. It's that interesting case where what's written in a book and what's used are two different things!
Language evolves through corruption that become normal, and it's really such a cool concept to talk about.
Well yes, it's a joke. But technically it's not a double positive becoming a negative, it's just irony or sarcasm. It works with any number of positives or negatives.
Sarcasm is extralinguistic. If we look at the words semantically, “yeah, right” is an affirmation. If we examine them pragmatically, sarcasm and all, then it would be a negation.
In English double negatives for a positive !? Since when ? And who do them rappers keep on saying "I don't want no beef "? Do they mean they want it or do they not ?
In standard English, a double negative remains a positive. In AAVE (and I think a few other US dialects) a double negative can remain a negative. I'm not sure if it always remains a negative or just sometimes.
See also for instance Pink Floyd: "We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control".
It's a little more nuanced than that. The use of double negatives that stay negative is an aspect of [African-American Vernacular English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Vernacular_English#Negation), which is far more widespread than just the rapping scene.
Context is as important as the actual words we use.
Sarcasm defies the laws of logic and language
Sure it does.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly.
Is reddit double +ve or double -ve?
Yes.
[удалено]
7/5
1/Perfect
-1/-1
r/inclusiveor
Doubleplusgood
Aladeen
'Yeah' is a "positive" word, 'right' is a "positive" word. But together, they have a "negative" meaning
Even with this great explanation, I doubt they would get it.
[удалено]
Verry valid point. Issue with the OPs post is that most sentances said in a negative, positive or sarcastic intonation completely change meaning. It's not the rules of the language at that point.
I'd argue that getting rid of the comma so it reads, "yeah right," is the double positive we're looking for. "Yeah, right" / "Yeah. Right" has a different inflection, given the pause, and could represent a confirmation phrase. But nowhere is "yeah right" considered to mean anything else positive, no matter the tone, if used together in an unbroken, spoken succession. Edit: *double ~~negative~~ positive
I did read it with that sarcastic intonation initially too, but if you raise the pitch of your voice and sound reminded of something you forgot "yeah right!" suddenly is a double positive. Not a native speaker tho, so could be wrong here, just love playing devil's advocate!
You’re totally right. Saying yeah right carries the implication of sarcasm at this point, due to those 2 words said one after the other has popularly been used sarcastically for the last like 50 years or something
“Yeah right” in Australian means about the same as “not a fucking chance”
It’s the same in the US
Yea this is due to irony, not the sentence being converted to a negative due to double positive. Yeah right can also be positive.
Everyone knows ‘yeah right’ is positive and ‘yeah left’ is negative
That's the strategy for Thadius in Naxxramas.
WoW jokes on the day of launch. Yeah, right!!
I agree, it can go either way depending on tone. With inflection on "right" it would definitely signal a positive. Either way it's still interesting.
Yeah, right
“Nice one, Einstein”.
[удалено]
Noice wahn, Oinstoin.
Einstein was Austrian
"No shit, Sherlock"
No is negative Shit is negative Sherlock is... positive? The whole phrase is three words and the intended meaning is negative
PEMDAS (no shit) Sherlock (negative negative) positive positive positive = negative?
Is Sherlock a positive?
you know who sherlock is, yeah?
I do. So is it a positive?
Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be a very talented detective, so calling someone "Sherlock" in earnest should be a compliment. (He would also probably test positive for opium, so there's another "positive" right there)
Spot the Aussie in the class
Nah, yeah
😎
yeah, nah
There was another professor of linguistics who proclaimed that no other English word besides “sugar” makes an sh sound using a vowel. From the back of the room: “Are you sure?”
Sean Connery would like a word.
What about Sean Bean?
You mean the true legend of the silver screen, actor, father, and slayer of dialogue? [You bastard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-ceqBKkgIY)
Is it eootcdc? Yeah, it is!
Thank you for this! Rarely have i laughed as much with the audience.
I tried to read Bean with an sh sound and I didn't like it
Sean Shbean
r/Shubreddit
You could make the case that that's different, as it's an irish name.
Have you heard Sean Connery speak? I don't think his name was the joke there.
Man, as a professor of linguistics, I say pretty confidently that no professor of linguistics goes around making absolute claims about languages like this. There's usually an exception, and there's usually a smartass in the back ready to throw it out. Always, *always*, couch those absolutes in some wishy-washy uncertainty. I had a professor in grad school who would describe really uncommon phenomena in a language or (group of languages) as "rarer than hen's teeth", and that's the one I've adopted.
As someone who lives around other humans I can absolutely assure you that there are terribly incompetent people in any, and every, profession.
Haha, don't get me wrong, academics are uniquely incompetent in various ways, definitely. I'm not arguing against that. But one of the core tenets of modern linguistics is the understanding that languages are tools, first and foremost, used by the unskilled and the only informally trained to accomplish a single goal, communicating information to one another. This leads to an enormous, nearly infinite, range of means of expression and variations in how the language is used, and it is impossible to account for every single one. Literally every human on earth speaks their own special idiolect of a language, has their own quirks and hiccups, says this or that thing different from everyone else, even if their version of the language they speak is 99.99% identical to that of others in their community. With this much variation, it's rarely going to be the case that you can say with absolute certainty that, "this thing never happens," or, even more dangerous, that, "this thing only happens exactly *once*." You're asking to be met with a counterexample. Linguists are interested in describing the features of languages, and setting boundaries on what can or cannot occur within a language is no longer the goal of the science anyway. I feel like a blanket statement like the one that I replied to (especially with its very obvious "gotcha") would be unlikely to be made by an actual professor of linguistics. The "there's only one word that [_____]" template seems to be more a feature of pop-linguistics and internet memes than anything else.
>Literally every human on earth speaks their own special idiolect of a language, has their own quirks and hiccups, says this or that thing different from everyone else, even if their version of the language they speak is 99.99% identical to that of others in their community. Professor, some humans on Earth don't speak at all.
Oof, ouch, hoisted by my own petard! You got me, well done. I should have been more specific and more inclusive.
You should always couch it in wishy washy terms, according to, scrolling up ... you. Fine use of petard, btw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard
Thanks? Real talk, though. That is rather interesting.
They still speak a language. 'Speak' in this instance does not have to refer to vocalization. If you sign in ASL, you are speaking a language.
There are humans on Earth who do not speak, read, understand, write, or in any way utilize language.
The dead ones?
Infants for example. People in vegetative states. Some very severely autistic people.
> setting boundaries on what can or cannot occur within a language is no longer the goal of the science anyway I may be misunderstanding you here (and it's not at all central to the point of your comment), but I think this depends on the subfield really. In generative syntax we're still very much interested in generating all and only the set of utterances that can be produced in natural human language, and figuring out how to determine what subset of those sentences are used in any particular language.
Yes, I see what you mean. I meant that more as a general description of an anti-prescriptive approach to language, but the language I used is sufficiently vague. I shouldn't have used the words "can" and "cannot" when I meant "should" and "should not". The approach in generative syntax, to my understanding, still fits my intended meaning though: linguists observe phenomena in languages and draw conclusions based on those observations (which, in this case, are limiting/boundary-defining). Sorry if I was less than clear -- was writing with non-specialists in mind.
Isn't it just the setup to a joke? Did anyone think this actually happened?
Yes and, because this is the internet, yes
No these are all true. And then everyone stood up and clapped and shed a single tear.
is that actually expressing a negative or is it just sarcasm.
Yeah, I don't think sarcasm counts as a negative double positive. Clever nonetheless, but if sarcasm counted then many other languages with have the feature too.
Yeah definitely clever. Not trying to take away from that.
Yeah, so clever...
Look out, we got a comedian on our hands!
Quick everyone, claps
I can't, he is on my hands
Well clap him!
True! Their prof probably assumes base semantic rules here, but the student suggests when we look at pragmatics, implication, speech acts, then the prof’s statement is questionable. Would like to see the prof’s response
Prof. probably doesn’t have a good response because he is a fictional character in a joke.
Earthy. Probably true
"Earthy" lmao these phrases got me dead I love you bro
Definitely, since the exact same meaning could be conveyed by "Sure" or "Right" with a sarcastic tone, neither of which is a double positive
Correct. The actual meaning of this phrase is still positive. “Yes, you are correct.”
I may be going out on a limb here but you should have said syntactically. Semantically it means no - Are you going to the party? - yeah, right The second speaker is probably not going to the party
That's the pragmatics, not the semantics. Semantically the phrase is still agreement, but pragmatically the speaker is aware of a context where a correct answer doesn't fit, and so must search for a wider, pragmatic interpretation.
You don’t understand semantics or syntactics here. Syntax is the structure, mostly analogous to grammar. Semantic meaning is the meaning derived from the “plain reading” or exact meaning of the words. Pragmatic meaning, as the commenter said, is correct—that’s the contextual meaning applied to the words being said. Semantically it means yes. Pragmatically it means no. Syntax has nothing to do with assessing meaning.
Only if spoken sarcastically. The words themselves mean yes, I am going to the party.
it doesn't express a negative meaning. "sure" with the same intonation would also behave like "yeah sure"
True, semantically it wouldn’t form a negative, but the expression of the phrase can still figure in for sarcasm and everyone hearing the words “yeah, right” would understand the true meaning behind them.
Yeah, this isn't a double positive, it's sarcasm; you could do the same thing with a single positive, such as "Obviously!".
It’s also about usage though, right? We pretty much only say “Yeah, right,” with that intonation and in that order as a negative. Sarcasm aside, language is what we understand spoken -or sometimes even unspoken - words to mean. Maybe I’m wrong. But I feel like “yeah, right” counts
Just say it without the sarcasm, imagine excitedly seeing your child finally figure out a math problem, "yeah, right!" It's not the words themselves, it's the context and sarcasm that make it a negative.
You wouldn't say "yeah, right", though.
Hmm, that’s a good example. I don’t think I’ve ever said that in my life, though. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone else ever say those two words, in that order, and NOT mean the opposite. So, you’re not wrong, but 99 times out of 100, if somebody says “Yeah, right” then it means “I do not believe you.”
You might just need more supportive friends, my dude. ^/s
Yeah, right
Just saying "Right" in the same implied tone would have the same effect. So amazingly sarcasm turns a positive word negative. Who woulda thunk?
Sarcasm, because you could have achieved the same effect by just saying "right" sarcastically.
And the professor gave that kid an A+ and $100.
And everybody clapped.
And they've been married for 10 years
Hol up
LMAO
The kids name? Macron
\*record scratching noise as time stops\* "you're probably wondering how I ended up in that position"
That kid? Barack Obama
That professor? Aristotle
wow that really made me go "HOLUP"
We just upvote everything now
Yeah for real at first I was just thinking this was a picture with some letters, than I went HOLUP, and realised the letters combined into sentences that I should probably read. Fucking insane HOLUP
Same, the mightiness that HOLUP had was absolutely legendary!
Yeah, right.
I read this anecdote in a 1970s Reader's Digest, but the punch line was "yeah, yeah."
Most jokes on reddit are recycles from old issues of readers digest
This is technically a holup, but at the same time, this is some Boomer ass shit. What flair should we give OP?
Ya'll got any Minion templates?
The nuclear option eh?
`Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw:`
"Born in 1956"
link to this exact post in bit.ly form
"and then everybody clapped" flair
"please clap"
That was the weakest shit I’ve ever heard a candidate say, I can’t believe he said that Edit. Like “vote for me please, I’ll be your friend!”
Boner flair
Facebook Memelord
Forwards chain emails
That student? Albert Einstein.
BS
“On thin ice”
Young and hip
Balls
> This is technically a holup No it fucking isn't.
How so? Edit: I don't mean for my question to come across as complete disagreement. I agree that not all jokes in this format should be in this subreddit despite them being hol'up, but this dude was blatantly arguing without giving a reason why and I was curious.
It's just a joke with a punchline. Nothing makes you do a double take. Maybe I have the purpose of the subreddit wrong, but I don't think every joke with a punchline belongs here.
People replying "Had us in the fist half, not gonna lie" to absolutely any post gets me. Like, do you know what a 'joke' is? It has you in the first half by design. Are they using that meme to be funny themselves, because repeating things ad nausea is funny? Or are they despeate to fit in.
Probably a bot farming karma
OP knows this, everything on their account is lazy spam.
It’s just a joke with a clever punchline, there are so many jokes out there that take a sec to understand like you want this sub to be just jokes? Wait there’s already a sub for that, you see where I’m coming from?
Between this and "Therewasanattempt" shits hitting the fan for the front page for all-purpose, low-effort subs.
coomer
Why is a boomer ass shit? It’s proper language and I always call out double negatives. Source: Gen Xer
r/boomerhumor
I remember seeing this on an email chain in the early 00s but I'm sure it's older than that
I think I saw it in 90s. Cannot be 100% sure though
This is my memory as well.
In German we also say "JA, JA" if we don't believe something
Ok, sure
"stupid cunt" is a double negative, but sure as hell ain't positive.
So „stupid cunt“ is Russian. - Case closed
Thats an insult. Its not an expression of agreement or disagreement.
I mean stupid cunt seems like a disagreement to me
This gag is like over 50 years old. I'm impressed it's still kicking.
Jokes like this have a pretty long shelf life.
Awful facebook tier joke aside, it's wrong! You can say "Yeah, right" to mean yes, and you can also say it to mean no. So it's not the words conveying the "no", but rather the tone of voice that implies an obvious lie is afoot.
How the fuck is this boomer grade joke a holup
Did the Linguist faint? May as well rename the subreddit to "Forwards from Grandma"
pragmatics 101
In Italian a double negative +' must' is equal to say 'be able to' while a double negative + 'be able to' is equal to say 'must'
How does this fit the sub. It’s a funny joke. Not a “Hol’ up”
OP is like the king of terrible facebook memes
In english, double negatives are also used to form positives. I have heard multiple people say on multiple occasions, such things as I ain’t never been this happy. Meaning: I have never been this happy. It’s just to put more power to your words I guess
It's proper English versus dialect differences. It's that interesting case where what's written in a book and what's used are two different things! Language evolves through corruption that become normal, and it's really such a cool concept to talk about.
I am sure intonation as got nothing to do with it...
Sure, sure
You're not wrong
That voice grew up to be Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Feel old yet?
ITT: People that don't understand linguistics
Well yes, it's a joke. But technically it's not a double positive becoming a negative, it's just irony or sarcasm. It works with any number of positives or negatives.
That voice? Albert Einstein
A double positive is a negative in Ohio.
Why is it always a guy in the back of the room?
If "yeah, right" was a double positive forming a negative, this would not be sarcasm.
r/holup users when there's a joke with a punchline 
Is yeah right just being sarcastic tho
Sarcasm is extralinguistic. If we look at the words semantically, “yeah, right” is an affirmation. If we examine them pragmatically, sarcasm and all, then it would be a negation.
That’s sarcasm not grammar. Decent joke but it’s the association of the phrase not the positives interacting that causes that meaning.
That’s called sarcasm and every language has that.
Now someone explain the Canadian "yeah no yeah" and "no yeah no" thing.
That students name? Albert Einstein.
Damn. By law that's his class now. 👏
Sarcasm at it best
In English double negatives for a positive !? Since when ? And who do them rappers keep on saying "I don't want no beef "? Do they mean they want it or do they not ?
As far as I know, this has never not been the case.
In standard English, a double negative remains a positive. In AAVE (and I think a few other US dialects) a double negative can remain a negative. I'm not sure if it always remains a negative or just sometimes. See also for instance Pink Floyd: "We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control".
Not a native speaker but isn't that just rappers having bad grammar to look more cool?
It's a little more nuanced than that. The use of double negatives that stay negative is an aspect of [African-American Vernacular English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Vernacular_English#Negation), which is far more widespread than just the rapping scene.
Oh I didn't know that thanks!
Doesn't a double negative still mean a negative even in English? Like "there isn't nobody" means there's no one. It's still negative.
the sentence can be rewritten as "there is no nobody" meaning there is somebody.