OT: Why do people use double negatives and add confusion?

I would say that most people do *not* interpret:

(a) "the supply is not limitless"

and

(b) "the supply is limited"

as meaning exactly the same thing.

In ordinary everyday English usage, if one is talking about the medium to longer term, (a) would convey that thought better than (b).

(b) suggests instead that there are, or may shortly be, short-term difficulties in supply.

You might indeed never have cause to say either of those things.

But one might well have cause to utter the sentence "the supply is not limitless" and by that, to mean something quite distinct from "the supply is limited".

If you want to be precise, you need numbers - "we only have 40 of those left, don't use so many". Otherwise it's just "not enough" or "enough".

Indeed, I'd say "the fuel tank is now full".

And make things generally irritating. 2 points if you can find that clip.

It's a rhetorical figure of speech called "litotes". Sometimes used for humorous effect, it tends to make speech/writing more varied and hence more interesting than simply confining yourself to positive statements (which may be OK in some registers).

The former is sort-of a form of emphasis, and might be used to firmly dispel the mistaken belief that the supply WAS unlimited / limitless.

It's not for no good reason.

This *corrects* an *erroneous* assumption.

This affirms a situation.

Only people who have never studied or been taught English at school would make that mistake. So basically everyone since Blair.

Probably because they do not use an alternative translation service to google translate? Brian

Being serious for a moment. One of my annoyances is the use in advertising of these terms. Up to 50meg upload speed, or, Buy our discount tyres from

I think it's okay to have a bit of adventure in writing style, depending on the audience and intended message of course. At one time I was involved in editing a newsletter and the agency had a theory that communications could be divided into 'Sun', 'Daily Mail' and ' 'Times' and you should pick one of these models depending on the audience. Double negatives probably fall into category 3 so can introduce a bit of erudition to otherwise plain text (which can be a not inconsiderable advantage at times). .

Says the imbelile who cant spell "countries".

Contrarywise. OCD people would find cancelling negatives easier.

You don't have to use a different word every time you say something.

If you need to be exact, you should be using percentages or something, not just words.

You have an extra O in there yourself.

I find Google translate very good, much better than what we used to use. I've even been accused of being fluent in Russian when using it.

Now you see.... "not inconsiderable" doesn't mean a thing to me. I have to convert it to considerable.

I've seen worse: "SALE: at least half price". Judging by the prices they meant half or more removed from the price.

Because I don't have OCD. I don't wish to use Maths to interpret English.

Fine, as long as it's not lots of extra pointless words.

The worst is when people say things like "he had had to go out".

You could say "there are three times more blackbirds than sparrows", or "blue t*ts are only seen about once a month by most people". Those give a much more precise amount.

OCD folk could convert it subconsciously.

"Half price or better" makes sense, we know "better" means "even cheaper than half price".

But my "at least half price" - so it could be more than half price?

It's perfect English, I'll add a comma to see if it helps you:

Judging by the prices, they meant half or more removed from the price.