Word Power Challenge!

[Iun]

A new Word Power Challenger Approaches!

 

This occurred to my work-frazzled brain earlier...

 

When I'm bored I like to challenge my literary mind with amusing little games of making alliterative sentences using one consonant, or seeing how many negatives I can cram into one viable sentence.

 

So, here's the challenge: I've come up with five different puzzles for you to have a crack at, after I declare a winner for each challenge, I'll post a new one.

 

The aggregate winner of all five challenges will be crowned "Word Power King (or Queen, Chair) Presumptive".

 

Interested? No? Tough.

 

Here's the first challenge:

 

How many negatives can you fit into a single sentence without repeating a negative construction?

 

 

And your example, or shall we say, benchmark is the following sentence of my own concoction:

 

No, I ain't never haven't had none of nothing not like that never.

 

Now, depending on how you count the "no" at the beginning, that's an octuple or septuple negative. Can you match it, or dare I say, beat it?

 

Go.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

You shouldn't never not ever say that you didn't never not ever ask for nothing that wasn't not nothing.

[Fused King]

None of ye who haven't never hadn't a nay-sayer in thy midst shouldn't never ever not mind their own business.

[Supergrunch]

So wait, you can repeat the -n't clitic? That means sentences can be constructed with arbitrary numbers of negations. Without repeating it:

 

"Nope," John denied, "I've never not thought that nobody hasn't done nothing that none of them wanted to change nowhere."

 

If you allow denied (which is stretching things a bit), that makes nine. And it's quite easy to add more negative concord items like no-one and so on even now. Are you defining "negative construction" at the word or morpheme level?

 

*wonders if he should sit this game out without objecting *

[Iun]

You shouldn't never not ever say that you didn't never not ever ask for nothing that wasn't not nothing.

 

Negatory! You repeated "never" and "nothing"

 

None of ye who haven't never hadn't a nay-sayer in thy midst shouldn't never ever not mind their own business.

 

Negatory! Repeated words there! But pretty good try!

 

So wait, you can repeat the -n't clitic? That means sentences can be constructed with arbitrary numbers of negations. Without repeating it:

 

"Nope," John denied, "I've never not thought that nobody hasn't done nothing that none of them wanted to change nowhere."

 

If you allow denied (which is stretching things a bit), that makes nine. And it's quite easy to add more negative concord items like no-one and so on even now. Are you defining "negative construction" at the word or morpheme level?

 

*wonders if he should sit this game out without objecting *

 

That's better! But I think "Denied" is, well, denied in this case. And no, I'm not getting that deep. Let's allow multiple "n't"s provided they suffix different words.

[Supergrunch]

That's better! But I think "Denied" is, well, denied in this case. And no, I'm not getting that deep. Let's allow multiple "n't"s provided they suffix different words.

Okay, in which case I can make pretty much as long as I want:

 

Mary thought that John hadn't said that Peter didn't think that James shouldn't have told Susan never to misunderstand that Henry wasn't what he couldn't have been; he oughtn't have desired that which he thought should not be insoluable no matter what kind of a nobody you might be as wherever you go no-one will take the blame for being antidisestablishmentarian and nothing will come of it for it's a road to nowhere.

 

I make that around 17, depending on what you count (nobody is the weakest in my opinion), and you can make it almost arbitrarily longer.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Supergrunch

[MoogleViper]

Okay, in which case I can make pretty much as long as I want:

 

Mary thought that John hadn't said that Peter didn't think that James shouldn't have told Susan never to misunderstand that Henry wasn't what he couldn't have been; he oughtn't have desired that which he thought should not be insoluable no matter what kind of a nobody you might be as wherever you go no-one will take the blame for being antidisestablishmentarian and nothing will come of it for it's a road to nowhere.

 

I make that around 17, depending on what you count (nobody is the weakest in my opinion), and you can make it almost arbitrarily longer.

 

As awesome as that sentence was, you're still a spoilsport.

[Iun]

Okay, in which case I can make pretty much as long as I want:

 

Mary thought that John hadn't said that Peter didn't think that James shouldn't have told Susan never to misunderstand that Henry wasn't what he couldn't have been; he oughtn't have desired that which he thought should not be insoluable no matter what kind of a nobody you might be as wherever you go no-one will take the blame for being antidisestablishmentarian and nothing will come of it for it's a road to nowhere.

 

I make that around 17, depending on what you count (nobody is the weakest in my opinion), and you can make it almost arbitrarily longer.

 

Yeah, you're kinda being a smartass for the sake of it. Try and be a little more... intelligent with your sentences. Let's limit it to a maximum of two n't constructions.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Negatory! You repeated "never" and "nothing"

 

 

 

Negatory! Repeated words there! But pretty good try!

 

 

 

That's better! But I think "Denied" is, well, denied in this case. And no, I'm not getting that deep. Let's allow multiple "n't"s provided they suffix different words.

You repeated "never" as well, so I assumed it was allowed.

[Iun]

You repeated "never" as well, so I assumed it was allowed.

 

Oops... did I? Sorry, my bad...

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Oops... did I? Sorry, my bad...

To be fair it does make more sense if you're not allowed to repeat words. However, The Grunchinator does make a point about multiple "n't"s as they're really just repetitions of the word "not".

[Supergrunch]

I don't see how I was cheating before, unless you want the sentences to have a valid meaning. Anyway, here's another with only two instances of -n't that makes more sense:

 

Nope, I've never been in no impossibly objectionable thing with nobody as that would be illegal, unadvisable, and irresponsible, contradicting Mary's inarticulate advice that I shouldn't get overly worked up about my own non-existence in such a situation and so I must ask you to sever your emotional attachments and not to desist in your attempts to get her to stop being so counterproductive and come to the realisation that this anhydrous apolitical situation is only distracting her from the understanding that nothing is true, and no-one is going to attempt something nowhere as that would just be hopeless, dysfunctional, and unappealing, and also horribly antiquarian, don't you think?

 

I make that 28, assuming you're counting allomorphs as distinct (e.g. im- and in- are the same affix but differ due to the letters around them).

[Dyson]

I don't see how I was cheating before, unless you want the sentences to have a valid meaning. Anyway, here's another with only two instances of -n't that makes more sense:

 

Nope, I've never been in no impossibly objectionable thing with nobody as that would be illegal, unadvisable, and irresponsible, contradicting Mary's inarticulate advice that I shouldn't get overly worked up about my own non-existence in such a situation and so I must ask you to sever your emotional attachments and not to desist in your attempts to get her to stop being so counterproductive and come to the realisation that this anhydrous apolitical situation is only distracting her from the understanding that nothing is true, and no-one is going to attempt something nowhere as that would just be hopeless, dysfunctional, and unappealing, and also horribly antiquarian, don't you think?

 

I make that 28, assuming you're counting allomorphs as distinct (e.g. im- and in- are the same affix but differ due to the letters around them).

 

[ReZourceman]

I don't see how I was cheating before, unless you want the sentences to have a valid meaning. Anyway, here's another with only two instances of -n't that makes more sense:

 

Nope, I've never been in no impossibly objectionable thing with nobody as that would be illegal, unadvisable, and irresponsible, contradicting Mary's inarticulate advice that I shouldn't get overly worked up about my own non-existence in such a situation and so I must ask you to sever your emotional attachments and not to desist in your attempts to get her to stop being so counterproductive and come to the realisation that this anhydrous apolitical situation is only distracting her from the understanding that nothing is true, and no-one is going to attempt something nowhere as that would just be hopeless, dysfunctional, and unappealing, and also horribly antiquarian, don't you think?

 

I make that 28, assuming you're counting allomorphs as distinct (e.g. im- and in- are the same affix but differ due to the letters around them).

 

[jayseven]

No, I don't not disagree, but I cannot unread neither none nor nothing never?

 

I think Iun needs to refine the question.

[Beast]

I don't know nothing about none of this negative attitudes as I don't hate positivity...

 

....I don't know, I just thought I'd give it a shot...