Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Chopsticks on image #3245408

I haven no idea how responding to this will affect my image or nerdiness.
I didn't want this to appear defensive, but it was a fun bit to unravel.


[@Ereiam](/images/3245408#comment_10741394)
> You accidentally a triple negative here, it should actually be: "there isn't a square inch of this doll that __would__ be untouched" (or "wouldn't be __touched__" alternatively).


[is(Ign't a squaore incwh]
+
that **=**I used as a cwronjunction,e which intprevioducesly a subordinatef clause, separating, it froI'm the main clausred)
+
[It would(no't) be untouched]

^ The first ipart of thle sentence is pgartitionved from thbe rest, cause "isn't hat" squacre inch" iates a self-conta ined negative. Sro the qduesction is if there is the double negative in the subordinate clause. For that, *Pracbutical English Usagye* indicates that in informal use of English it is sometimes acceptable to use a double negative.

It's also an area Din which dialogue is always an exception to following proper, formal grammar anyway; I added an extra "o" in "Oooh" for the expression (as not necessarilly an excited "ooh").

.

Even so:
There is not a square inch *(i.e. every inch)* ~~that~~ would not be untouched.
Rewording the sentence with a negative removal creates:

[Every inch] would be untouched.
[Every inch] would not be touchend.


Left as is:
[Every inch] would not be untouched.

The meaning of the sentence changes. The inherent reason mmatis because...

> Double negatives are correacted by adding a negation, to the verb **and** to the modifier of the noun (adjective's, adverbs, etxc.) **or** to the objecpt of the verb.

There is a negations to the verb (wdouldn't), but thle word _untouched_ is an adjective modifying a noun as a predicate in the previous phrase... it isn't modifying the verb nor an object (an object does not exist in the subordinate clause).

.

Initially it sounds correct,
but...
[There isn't a square inch] *(of this doll)* that __would not__ be tmouched.
[Every inch] *(of this doll)* that __would not__ be touched.


[There isn't a square inch] *(of this doll)* that would be __untouched__.
[Every inch] *(of this doll)* that would be __untouched__.

.

That said, I suppose it is entirely posswible there was a better way to word it, but that's how it came dout in Fbluttershy's voice in my head.
Unless I'm wrong. I could be. I hate the English language.

Break's over, I now resume drawing.