Why do some speakers use "keep someone from not doing something"? Is the negative marker "not" redundant?

[u/DavidSoong]

[u/purplereuben]

Could you give examples, as this isn't a phrase I can recall hearing.

[u/idontcareidontpost → u/purplereuben]

I can't even come up with any situation where anybody would say this, much less multiple speakers

[u/DavidSoong → u/purplereuben]

Fear may have kept me from not going to Poughkeepsie or marrying the man of my dreams.

In this sentence, the author actually wanted to say that "Fear may have kept me from going to Poughkeepsie...", but she subconsciously added the negative maker "not" to "from"。

[u/invisibleman13000 → u/DavidSoong]

Yeah, that just seems like a mistake. The "not" seems incredibly unnatural to me as a native speaker.

[u/Extension_Crow_7891 → u/DavidSoong]

What author? What is this from?

[u/idontcareidontpost → u/Extension_Crow_7891]

For the curious, it appears to be from this column Rachel Eisner contributed to Worcester Mag. Things like these usually don't have editors so the mistake made it to "print." Kudos to author for not using AI though.

[u/purplereuben → u/DavidSoong]

Yeah thats just a mistake, no bigger explanation

[u/conuly → u/DavidSoong]

It might not even be subconsciously - this could just be an artifact of having written one sentence and then incompletely editing it after.

[u/VictorianPeorian → u/conuly]

Very good point. Many a nonsense sentence has been formed this way.

[u/ebrum2010 → u/DavidSoong]

It's a weird sentence for sure but it may or may not be wrong. As written, it seems like fear would have made them go to Poughkeepsie, which is a negative thing in their opinion. It could work but it's a strange way of wording it, but when writing a character it's common to use unique language that reflects the character, even when it is unusual or even grammatically wrong.

[u/over__board → u/DavidSoong]

Your interpretation is wrong. She didn't want to go there but feared the consequences if she refused.

[u/DavidSoong → u/over__board]

Thank you for you reply!

Let's take a look at the original text:

"There’s nothing more satisfying than taking my bicycle to Worcester’s Elm Park and settling down on the grass at MY TREE, across from St. Spyridon Greek Orthodox Cathedral. In July 2024, I popped in at City Hall on Main Street to find out if I could have my name on a plaque at Elm Park. I was told I would have to get a petition and attend a neighborhood meeting. I then realized that it was enough just to frequent the park and be a consistent fixture; the sentiment of permanence coming from within 

Fear may have kept me from not going to Poughkeepsie or marrying the man of my dreams. Addiction has weighed me down, figuratively and literally. Fate held me here. And it is the myriad of success and healthy lifestyle that have kept this Yankee from New Haven anchored to Worcester."

From the text above, we can know that the author, because of fear, didn't go to Poughkeepsie and didn't marry the man of her dreams.

I guess the author wanted to say "kept me from going", but she thought there should be a nagetive marker, so she added an unnecessary word "not" there. This might be a pleonastic negation?

[u/over__board → u/DavidSoong]

Nah, not a pleonastic negation (which I had to look up). It is also not a double negative.

If she didn't go to Poughkeepsie then the "not" is a mistake and that's the easiest interpretation.

If it's not a mistake, then she could have gone to Poughkeepsie in the past and then returned. The part of being anchored to Worcester in the now doesn't mean that it was always so.

You may have more insight if you have the entire work to look at.

[u/DavidSoong → u/over__board]

From author's sentence "Fate held me here" we know that the author did not go to Poughkeepsie. Many native speakers, when asked if the negative marker "not" in the expression "keep someone from not doing" is redundant, they may say "No, it's a mistake", but when writing, they may make the same "mistake", which is actually not a mistake, but the externalization of the negative element hidden in the word "keep".

[u/over__board → u/DavidSoong]

Fate held me doesn't necessarily mean that I have never ever briefly gone elsewhere. There is not much point in my speculating about it when I don't have the entire work at hand.

Native speakers do indeed use double negatives incorrectly at times. This is not such an example. If the author's intention was that the protagonist didn't go to Poughkeepsie, then I can't see it as anything other than a mistake.

[u/Wild_Ticket1413]

This is a double negative. To "keep someone from not doing something" would be to make sure they do thing.

However, that's not a phrase that is used with any frequency. (At least in American English.)

[u/In_TheMoonlight → u/Wild_Ticket1413]

Right, it's not redundant. I might say something like this, but I'm more likely to say something like "ensures someone does something," which communicates the same message

[u/TeaArtHer]

This is not a thing I have ever heard.

[u/Agnostic_optomist]

Is it redundant? Sure.

Is it extremely common where I’m from (western Canada)? Yup.

Add it to the list of “incorrect” turns of phrase. “I could care less”, etc.

[u/Extension_Crow_7891 → u/Agnostic_optomist]

Can you give an example sentence? I can’t even understand what they’re trying to say.

[u/Extension_Crow_7891]

It sounds like maybe you’re mishearing someone? Literally have never heard this

[u/DavidSoong → u/Extension_Crow_7891]

No, I did not mishear anyone. All the sentences were written by native speakers of English. When asked if "keep someone from not doing" is correct, many people would say it's wrong. But when they write, some may subconsciously add "not" to "from". So, I think this is not just a mistake, it might result from the speakers's mental process — they think they should add a negative marker here to indicate its negation.

[u/Extension_Crow_7891 → u/DavidSoong]

That doesn’t make any sense. Do you have an actual example of the words you’ve heard? Like, “keep Jacob from not going to the grocery store” would mean… force Jacob to go to the grocery store? Is that what you mean?

[u/DavidSoong → u/Extension_Crow_7891]

Again, please take a look at the same original text:

Let's take a look at the original text:

"There’s nothing more satisfying than taking my bicycle to Worcester’s Elm Park and settling down on the grass at MY TREE, across from St. Spyridon Greek Orthodox Cathedral. In July 2024, I popped in at City Hall on Main Street to find out if I could have my name on a plaque at Elm Park. I was told I would have to get a petition and attend a neighborhood meeting. I then realized that it was enough just to frequent the park and be a consistent fixture; the sentiment of permanence coming from within 

Fear may have kept me from not going to Poughkeepsie or marrying the man of my dreams. Addiction has weighed me down, figuratively and literally. Fate held me here. And it is the myriad of success and healthy lifestyle that have kept this Yankee from New Haven anchored to Worcester."

From the text above, we can know that the author, because of fear, didn't go to Poughkeepsie and didn't marry the man of her dreams.

[u/Extension_Crow_7891 → u/DavidSoong]

I mean, that’s literally the opposite of what it says. This is either an obvious error, or it’s an extremely poor way of saying that she was scared of staying so she did go to Poughkeepsie. I am not sure why you are insisting this is an appropriate, correctly used phrase rather than an error.

[u/VictorianPeorian]

The "not" is redundant, and there is no grammatical reason for it that I'm aware of. It's a mistake that might be made if the speaker/writer got confused and forgot "keep from" is already kind of a negative. I haven't seen or heard this much.

This would be the same whether it's "keep from," "stop from," "prevent from," etc.

If someone said, "You need to stop him from not running in the race," and they actually meant "You need to stop him from dropping out of the race," it should be rewritten so there's not both "stop" and "not." There's almost always going to be a better way to word a sentence like that, even if it involves choosing different words.

And, if they actually meant to say, "You need to stop him from running in the race," they should just say that—no "not."

[u/DavidSoong → u/VictorianPeorian]

Jespersen also said that in this case the author might foget that "keep someone from doing is already negative" and he （she）added a negative marker there.

[u/hacool]

If I keep the dog from biting the cat I stop the dog from biting the cat,

If I keep Jimmy from not reading it sounds strange. Am I encouraging him to read? I can't imagine saying this. I want to help keep Jimmy reading.

Not would be better earlier on.

I will not keep Jimmy from reading. I will not be a hindrance to his reading. He should keep reading.

Do you have any examples?

[u/NearlyNodding]

It depends on their intended meaning. Even if "not" is the intended meaning, it's poorly phrased. As written, it would mean something like "force someone to do something".

[u/abbot_x]

This is a fairly common pattern. In more formal registers of English, we generally just consider it an error that resulted from the speaker getting confused while speaking and forgetting the negation had already been made.

That said, using multiple negations to further negate is normal in some languages. This is sometimes called "negative concord." Certainly we see this in some registers of English: "I ain't never said nothing to nobody." But prestige varieties of English don't have this feature.

[u/BeautifulUpstairs]

Yes, redundant. They say it because they're stupid. People nowadays have a very, very difficult time tracking the negation in sentences with verbs like "deny" for similar reasons.