Quick LR Bible question (negation/logical opposites) Forum

[Power Clean]

pg. 266 - "...negating a statement means to alter the sentence so the meaning is logically opposite of what was originally stated. Negation largely consists of taking a 'not' out of a sentence if one is present, or putting a 'not' in a sentence if one is not present."

I'm just curious why Statement Negation Drill #1 makes the point of negating will as might not, explains that will not is the polar - not logical - opposite of will, then reverts to using will not - consistent with the pg. 266 explanation - in the answer to #7. (pg 270/271).

[bgdddymtty]

I don't have the book, so I can't speak to an explanation for a particular question. That said, both principles expressed here are correct. The easiest way to think of negation is the insertion or removal of "not," since you want the opposite of the original statement. However, what you want is the logical opposite rather than the polar opposite. The key to logical opposites is that between the two of them, every possible instance must fall into one category or the other with no overlap. For instance, you might describe some people as tall and others as short, but what about people of medium height? On the other hand, once you define what constitutes tall, everyone is either that or something else--either "tall" or "not tall."

As for "will," that's a definite statement about a future event. Either something is sure to occur, or it is not sure to occur. In order to negate the idea that something will occur, it need not be the case that it is sure not to occur. That would leave out all of the middle ground, the situations where we're not sure what will happen. Instead, either something definitely will happen ("will"), or there is a possibility that it will not ("might not").

[Power Clean]

I definitely see how blindly using "not" in all cases does not necessarily produce a logical opposite. I guess I just got confused because in the first example they go out of their way to say the "logical opposite of will is might not," which I understand leaves open the middle ground of possibility, AND that "will not" is the polar opposite. Then in #7 they said go ahead and use "will not" or "might not."

I suppose it was just to reiterate that both will probably work? Thanks!

[bgdddymtty]

I definitely see how blindly using "not" in all cases does not necessarily produce a logical opposite. I guess I just got confused because in the first example they go out of their way to say the "logical opposite of will is might not," which I understand leaves open the middle ground of possibility, AND that "will not" is the polar opposite. Then in #7 they said go ahead and use "will not" or "might not."

I suppose it was just to reiterate that both will probably work? Thanks!

I think my last answer was a bit unclear. When I said that "both principles" were right, I was referring to the general idea of inserting or removing "not" and the fact that "will" and "might not" are logical opposites. Inasmuch as the book gave "will not" as a negation of "will," it's wrong. "Might not" or "will not necessarily" is what you want.