Clayborn: ‘They can’t not have football’

couple guys making fun of how he says 'can't not' - i think it is fine as I understand what he means. i understand the double negative, but how else would it be put, if it is in fact poor grammar usage?
 
couple guys making fun of how he says 'can't not' - i think it is fine as I understand what he means. i understand the double negative, but how else would it be put, if it is in fact poor grammar usage?

Agreed. Hell, I'm a journalism major, and I say stuff like that too. I don't use it in writing, but in speech I do it.
 
This is a case where what he says makes more sense and has more of an effective point than if he had used "proper" grammar.

Maybe it would have come across better with some italics or something like, "They can't NOT have football." This way people who read in monotone could have understand what he was saying without getting their panties all wadded up.
 
"They can't NOT have football"

Thats the way I read it, a strong emphasis on not.

I've heard Adrian speak several times, he's not an idiot.
 
The people making fun of the comment either hate athletes, hate Iowa, or both. I'm not too worried about it.
 
The people making fun of the comment either hate athletes, hate Iowa, or both. I'm not too worried about it.


We do have a major problem with dumbing down our expectations. The average vocabulary of a teen in 1945 was around 25,000 words. Today it's just above 10,000, although I'm sure that the # of acronyms have increased drastically (OMG, WTF, LOL, etc...). It's unfortunate when people just pass this on as acceptable standards, especially someone who claims to be a journalism student. My grammar/spelling is far from great, especially when I post stream of consciousness on forums. That said, I don't think we should lower the bar.
 
We do have a major problem with dumbing down our expectations. The average vocabulary of a teen in 1945 was around 25,000 words. Today it's just above 10,000, although I'm sure that the # of acronyms have increased drastically (OMG, WTF, LOL, etc...). It's unfortunate when people just pass this on as acceptable standards, especially someone who claims to be a journalism student. My grammar/spelling is far from great, especially when I post stream of consciousness on forums. That said, I don't think we should lower the bar.

Glad to see you're fighting the good fight, brother.
 
over on clown nation they were making fun of his grammar as well. i thought it to be correct, but i'm far from a grammar major.


Yeah, it's one thing to encourage learning and another to take shots at someone. I wish Clayborn the best, and I'll be rooting for him to tear up the NFL.
 
The people making fun of the comment either hate athletes, hate Iowa, or both. I'm not too worried about it.

Lolwut?

jump-to-conclusions.jpg
 
It's not very well phrased, but it's actually not an example of incorrect double negative usage.

He wasn't trying to say "They CAN have football." He was actually saying that they (the interested parties) are not capable of forgoing an NFL season.
 
We do have a major problem with dumbing down our expectations. The average vocabulary of a teen in 1945 was around 25,000 words. Today it's just above 10,000, although I'm sure that the # of acronyms have increased drastically (OMG, WTF, LOL, etc...). It's unfortunate when people just pass this on as acceptable standards, especially someone who claims to be a journalism student. My grammar/spelling is far from great, especially when I post stream of consciousness on forums. That said, I don't think we should lower the bar.

Like I said, I never write things like that, because I know it's incorrect grammar. But in speech, you can place the necessary inflection on the words to make clear what you mean. It's just a little colloquialism. That's normal, and not just in the U.S.
 

Latest posts

Top