On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 19:47:37 UTC, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 19:05:44 UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:23:56 GMT, Peter Young <***@ormail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >On 7 Feb 2018 Harrison Hill <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the "wacky-races" scenario my poor wife experiences
> > >> every day - in her "road-rage" car park - are people who
> > >> insist on "reversing in backwards".
> > >
> > >> She has guided one backwards into a wall today, but more
> > >> importantly: is her grammar okay?
> > >
> > >When was learning to drive, what seems like centuries ago, my driving
> > >instructor would always talk about "reversing backwards". As his
> > >meaning was clear, I didn't correct his grammar,
> > The meaning isn't clear to me. "Reversing backwards" sounds like a
> > double negative. Does that mean "going forward"? I doubt it. Perhaps
> > the double negative is just meant to reinforce a single negative, and
> > what he meant was what I would call "backing up." But I'm not sure.
> Why do you see it as a "double negative", rather than two
> positives reinforcing each other?
> Heavily weighted.
> The far away distance.
> Deep Purple.
> A black hole.
> Security fencing.
> ...everyday English?
Yes, everyday, but that's because they're not necessarily
tautologous. There are light weighting, near distance,
less deep shades of colours, holes that aren't black (your
windows are covering such holes!) and fencing that is not
a security measure. Reversing backwards is obviously not
a double negative but it is inescapably tautologous.