It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hi all,
I have some troubles in negating the following:
I am not very sure whether I should negate "too" or, rather, "to" in the above sentences.
Thanks very much,
Leon
Comments
I've seen this in some questions where you'd usually just make the Ignore a subscript of Trivial and then negate it or not negate it
I believe you would negate the "too." I normally try to find the main verb in the sentence, which is "is" in your example, and the negate the main verb. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong?). So the negated of both of your examples would be:
So sentence 2 would have too negatives, so then it would be translated colloquially to:
Hope that makes sense, and if I'm wrong, please someone correct me.
Thanks for the help, ObjectionQuarantined and sylviatantran !
Following your comments, ObjectionQuarantined, so you would choose to negate "to ignore", correct?
Sylvia, how would you understand this sentence: "Head injury is NOT too trivial to ignore."
For me, it means the same as ""Head injury is not so trivial that we cannot ignore". But there still an ambiguity here:
It could mean: "to ignore a head injury or not does not associate with it being too trivial or not."
Or, "Head injury is so trivial that we can ignore."
I am still not sure which one is more appropriate as a correct negation understanding.
Hope someone could share your insights, or comments!
Thanks.
Following your thread, I think the notation comes down to preference and the expressive power needed. The difficulty I think you're perceiving is the embedded logic. But I would keep it as simple as possible.
"Head injury is NOT too trivial to ignore."
Here, I think the 'not' is working on the predicate 'too trivial to ignore' (the whole). If I had to turn to logic:
HI -----> ~TTI
'too trivial ' means 'insignificant/of little worth'
Which I understand to mean, "Head injury is not insignificant to ignore" or colloquially head injury is significant to acknowledge.
.