Here Monty, you're a language nerd.
I was reading the Wiki on Middle English and it had negative concord, where if you had multiple negatives in a sentence they intensified the negative, rather than cancelling it. So "I've not got nothing" would have been a more linguistically aggressive "I've got nothing".

Interesting, I thought. I vaguely remember reading something that suggested that our propensity towards double negatives wasn't merely bad grammar, but a function of our language and it was Victorian standardisers, who used Latin grammatical rules I believe, who put this idea of multiple negatives being bad into our heads.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:17, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Is this the less vs fewer debate all over again?
Were you touched up by a Victorian standardiser or summat?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:19, Reply)

No that's a different thing.
I just thought this was interesting.
( Kroney, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:19, Reply)

Well you were wrong.

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:22, Reply)

This is why I didn't start the post with "Here, Battered".

( Kroney, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:25, Reply)

Most likely.
Go back 300 years and you could spell how the fuck you liked and arse about with grammar all day long and no one gave a shit.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:27, Reply)

Wasn't this known as the Gonzian period for that very reason?

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:28, Reply)

I believe so, yes.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 24 Apr 2013, 15:29, Reply)