A matter of expression
-
So, is it better to say (what gets the true meaning across better?) "I don't think you <whatever>" OR "I think you don't <whatever>" As in, "I don't think we'll agree" or "I think we won't agree"? I think the second relays the true sense, since the first, even though it is more often used, is saying "I don't think" which is clearly incorrect.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunIt is still correct. It is a matter of what is the subject. In the first case you are stating the subject as "I do not have the thought, belief, opinion, etc. of ", said object. The second is stating the subject as "I have the thought, belief, opion of" said object. And in particular you are adding a negative to this case so they are equivilent (and both correct). Neither is necessarily better as both have the same meaning. In some cases a person may take more offence to the other but I would guess it is purely contextual and also would vary from person to person. "I don't think you are a good person" (maybe less offensive) vs. "I think you are a bad person" (than this) "I don't think you should do that" (maybe more authoritative) vs. "I think you should not do that" (than this)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
So, is it better to say (what gets the true meaning across better?) "I don't think you <whatever>" OR "I think you don't <whatever>" As in, "I don't think we'll agree" or "I think we won't agree"? I think the second relays the true sense, since the first, even though it is more often used, is saying "I don't think" which is clearly incorrect.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunboth are correct, but they say slightly different things. in the first, i'm telling you i have no reason to assume you will X, but i am giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you will X. if you do, then i was mistaken out of my own ignorance. please correct me! the second, simply tells you that i assume you will not X. the indirection in the first makes it a bit more polite.
-
So, is it better to say (what gets the true meaning across better?) "I don't think you <whatever>" OR "I think you don't <whatever>" As in, "I don't think we'll agree" or "I think we won't agree"? I think the second relays the true sense, since the first, even though it is more often used, is saying "I don't think" which is clearly incorrect.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunTo a native speaker of English, I would say "I don't think ...". In Britain, saying the other one is too direct, confrontational. But I deal with Germans a lot in my daily work, so I like to be more direct so that there is less chance for misunderstanding. So with a German correspondent I might well use something like the second. In fact I would use "disagree" because it's the most tightly-coupled way of inverting "agree".
-
So, is it better to say (what gets the true meaning across better?) "I don't think you <whatever>" OR "I think you don't <whatever>" As in, "I don't think we'll agree" or "I think we won't agree"? I think the second relays the true sense, since the first, even though it is more often used, is saying "I don't think" which is clearly incorrect.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunTry: 'You are an idiot'. I find this less ambiguous than either of your examples. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
It is still correct. It is a matter of what is the subject. In the first case you are stating the subject as "I do not have the thought, belief, opinion, etc. of ", said object. The second is stating the subject as "I have the thought, belief, opion of" said object. And in particular you are adding a negative to this case so they are equivilent (and both correct). Neither is necessarily better as both have the same meaning. In some cases a person may take more offence to the other but I would guess it is purely contextual and also would vary from person to person. "I don't think you are a good person" (maybe less offensive) vs. "I think you are a bad person" (than this) "I don't think you should do that" (maybe more authoritative) vs. "I think you should not do that" (than this)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Yes, the senses of the two forms are more or less equivalent. Your latter examples better demonstrate the difference made when placing the "negative" in one place or another. They certainly have slightly different connotations.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I don't think we'll agree. Is there something syntactically wrong with this sentence? I don't think so, but that where I live, this would be an acceptable way of saying this.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Nothing syntactically wrong and certainly not a wrong way of saying it. But where you place the negative certainly gives a slightly different meaning to the sentence. Often people really mean "I think you don't(won't)..." rather than "I don't think you will...".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
So, is it better to say (what gets the true meaning across better?) "I don't think you <whatever>" OR "I think you don't <whatever>" As in, "I don't think we'll agree" or "I think we won't agree"? I think the second relays the true sense, since the first, even though it is more often used, is saying "I don't think" which is clearly incorrect.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunThe problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so: You: I don't think He : No, you don't do you?
-
Nothing syntactically wrong and certainly not a wrong way of saying it. But where you place the negative certainly gives a slightly different meaning to the sentence. Often people really mean "I think you don't(won't)..." rather than "I don't think you will...".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
But where you place the negative certainly gives a slightly different meaning to the sentence. Often people really mean "I think you don't(won't)..." rather than "I don't think you will...".
I see what you mean now. Cheers.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Try: 'You are an idiot'. I find this less ambiguous than either of your examples. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
This says it better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068156/quotes?qt0443169[^]
-
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so: You: I don't think He : No, you don't do you?
Not if you preface it with "Hey dipshit..."
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. -
both are correct, but they say slightly different things. in the first, i'm telling you i have no reason to assume you will X, but i am giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you will X. if you do, then i was mistaken out of my own ignorance. please correct me! the second, simply tells you that i assume you will not X. the indirection in the first makes it a bit more polite.
They say the same thing. It is just a moving of the negative. Some people may respond differently, but that is not because the statements mean differently. It is more about psychology of the context. We can see this by not having a person as the "object". "I think the lights should be on" vs. "I do not think the lights should be off" They mean the same thing. However when listening and placing the statement in context they provide more pyshchology to the statement. For example maybe the context here is watching a movie. The first may create a psychological effect of implying I think the lights should be on for a specific reason, e.g. better for your eyes. The second has the psychological effect of implying I have a reason for the lights not being off, e.g. teenage children watching a movie. However, both are not truely implied. There is a difference between implied meaning and pyschologically implied. An implied meaning is like this, Context it is 4:30 PM at the end of the day. A collegue enters your cube and begins talking about work. You say "I am sorry but I must pick up my child from school". The implied information is you must do this now. The reasoning is the implication came from context and adding it back it did not change the meaning in any way. You would not have said that if you had to pick up your child tomorow (unless the conversation was about tomorow), so adding in the 'now' does not change the meaning. However in the case of the lights it does somewhat change the meaning. For the psychologcial implication could be many different reasonings of which would all be assumption about my thoughts on the situation.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so: You: I don't think He : No, you don't do you?
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Not if you preface it with "Hey dipshit..."
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
All true, but PIEBALD's example is certainly more insulting.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
-
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
-
They say the same thing. It is just a moving of the negative. Some people may respond differently, but that is not because the statements mean differently. It is more about psychology of the context. We can see this by not having a person as the "object". "I think the lights should be on" vs. "I do not think the lights should be off" They mean the same thing. However when listening and placing the statement in context they provide more pyshchology to the statement. For example maybe the context here is watching a movie. The first may create a psychological effect of implying I think the lights should be on for a specific reason, e.g. better for your eyes. The second has the psychological effect of implying I have a reason for the lights not being off, e.g. teenage children watching a movie. However, both are not truely implied. There is a difference between implied meaning and pyschologically implied. An implied meaning is like this, Context it is 4:30 PM at the end of the day. A collegue enters your cube and begins talking about work. You say "I am sorry but I must pick up my child from school". The implied information is you must do this now. The reasoning is the implication came from context and adding it back it did not change the meaning in any way. You would not have said that if you had to pick up your child tomorow (unless the conversation was about tomorow), so adding in the 'now' does not change the meaning. However in the case of the lights it does somewhat change the meaning. For the psychologcial implication could be many different reasonings of which would all be assumption about my thoughts on the situation.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They say the same thing.
they don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is just a moving of the negative.
it's not. "I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement. "I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement. the implied lack of confidence is generally intentional (though usually not truthful), and it implies a touch of deference to the listener. it also diffuses the issue a little by letting the lack of confidence make the prospect of non-agreement seem like something that's still up for debate (even though it might not be) - after all, if i was really confident about something, i'd just tell you what i think; i wouldn't tell you about the negative of what i don't think. and because meaning is that which language communicates, and because they communicate different things, they mean different things. "I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They say the same thing.
they don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is just a moving of the negative.
it's not. "I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement. "I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement. the implied lack of confidence is generally intentional (though usually not truthful), and it implies a touch of deference to the listener. it also diffuses the issue a little by letting the lack of confidence make the prospect of non-agreement seem like something that's still up for debate (even though it might not be) - after all, if i was really confident about something, i'd just tell you what i think; i wouldn't tell you about the negative of what i don't think. and because meaning is that which language communicates, and because they communicate different things, they mean different things. "I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications. By definition they are the same. The implications are even stronger when using a secondary person as the object. Removing the secondary person as the object and replacing with a non person (e.g. a light) the grammer is still the same but it should become apparent that there is no difference other than psychological implications.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
This is simply another case of psychological implications. The statement by definition is the same. Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly). However they are often associated with other psychological implications. For example sarcasm can change the meaning of a phrase to essentially the opposite of its true definition. This does not mean that the phrase itself has a different meaning, as the sarcasm and pyschological context are what did that.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement.
"I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement.You have already put your context in your mind to deduce this. I can create a context where the psychological implication is different. For example, 2 friends choosing a bar to attend. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B: "Your right I think we won't agree but I really want to meet up with Joe at Charlies". vs. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B" "Your right, I don't think we will agree. You choose" So in case one the wording was as you say "more confident" but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this". Where as the later it used the "less confident one" to conceed. Pyshcological implications are always about context. The raw meaning of the sentances are still the same but can be altered like they can with sarcasm. But that do
-
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
Chicken to egg*: Of course you came first, you always come first, that's why I never come at all. * Or it could be the other way around -- if I recall correctly, it's from a Caldwell cartoon back in the 70s. http://caldwellcartoons.com/index.html[^]
