Illusion 3: Language must be logical

A. We are often taught that “proper” language is logical in the sense of mathematics. But this is unrealistic: all languages are full of wrinkles that do not make strict logical sense, but whose meaning is clear nevertheless. The influence of such grammarians as Lowth and Murray has sometimes shunted Standard English into unnatural detours.

B. Double negatives. Double negatives, such as She ain’t seen nobody, are common worldwide: the Spaniard says Nunca he visto nada (“never have I seen nothing”) for I have never seen anything.

1. Old English had double negatives:

Ic ne can noht singan.

I no can nothing sing

“I can’t sing anything.”

2. But in the region where Standard English happened to be developing, there was an alternative construction using forms with any, such as I haven’t seen anything. Even here, though, double negatives could still be used for emphasis, even in Shakespeare, where Falstaff in Henry IV (II) says, “There’s never none of these demure boys come to any proof” (IV.iii.97).

3. Lowth, Murray and others, however, decided that “two negatives make a positive,” and gave double negatives an air of slovenliness that has been permanent. But notice that every single nonstandard dialect of English uses double negatives worldwide, as do thousands of languages!

C. You was. In other cases, applying logic of one sort even works against speakers trying to iron out a wrinkle in the grammar themselves.

1. There is a wrinkle in how Standard English treats you with the verb “to be.” Why is the plural form were used even when you is singular?

I was                    we were

you were             you were

he/she was            they were

2. Many nonstandard English dialects iron this out by using the singular form was when you refers to one person. This makes for a tidier chart:

I was                 we were

you was            you were

he/she was       they were

3. Well into the 1800s, this was even a common construction in Standard American English. Here is a letter written by a man to his lady friend in the 1830s; the elegance of the language makes it clear that his you was is not a mistake, and he uses it often.

Indeed, I know not one word you did say, for I was so perfectly astonished in the first place, to see you going home without appearing even to think of me, and then when I met you at the door to find out that you was angry with me, I knew not what to make of it. There were many people looking at us, and I knew it.

4. But Lowth and Murray considered this to be using you with the “wrong” form; thus, English speakers are taught out of being logical!

D. Languages simply do not make perfect sense: if we say I am, then why do we say aren’t I instead of amn’t I?