Talk:... Not!

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-09. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inaccurate statement re what's "more recent" about this construction

The article states:

Note that the use of a postfix "not" has been used in English since at least the time of Shakespeare (as in "I love thee not"); what is more recent is the addition of the pause between the original statement and the "not".

It is simply untrue that a postfix "not" -- with or without a pause -- is part of normal discourse in English, written or oral (other than its use in poetry). Yes, it appears in a few traditional contexts (e.g., when picking the petals from a daisy while synchronously chanting, "She loves me, she loves me not, . . ."). But it is not remotely common compared to the usage of the Wayne's World locution.

Furthermore, the universality of the locution: declarative statement followed by a pause, and then "Not!" goes far beyond almost all the restricted cases that occur in poetry, where the postfix "not" is always very close to the verb. For example, "I am going shopping tomorrow, come hell or high water . . . Not!" According to existing citations, nothing like this has been used in written English until the article's quote ("An Historical Parallel-- Not.") from the Princeton Tiger in 1893.

I hope the inaccurate statement in the article will be modified by its originator so as to reflect English usage more accurately.

I'm not sure who I'm responding to, but the article doesn't say that it "is part of normal discourse in English", so I dont' know how claims which don't exist can be untrue. You point out that the first mention in written English is from 1893 as mentioned in the article and yet this contradicts the statement that the addition of the pause is more recent? I'm not sure I follow. When comparing with Shakespeare, any developments in the past 100 years could be considered recent. Also, please sign your posts/comments in the future, thank you. --Rajah 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article also neglects to mention that this locution is always used jocularly.Daqu 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's *always* jocular, but yes, most of the time it is jocular. --Rajah 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularized by Wayne's World?

I seem to recall children adding "not" to the end of sentences prior to Wayne's World. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what cemented it into the culture, but I'm pretty sure it was popular prior to Michael Myers joining the cast of SNL in 1989, which would be the first time Wayne was heard nationwide (assuming the nation in question to be the U.S.). Unfortunately, I have no reliable source for this, but, if someone else does, that would be nice to have in the article. Calbaer 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this: A Recent Coinage (Not!), Jesse T Sheidlower, Jonathan E. Lighter, American Speech, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Summer, 1993), pp. 213-218, doi:10.2307/455678 --Rajah 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

It's not exactly the same wording, but there was a Simpsons episode where Bart impersonating God said "Walk through the wall! I will remove it for you...later.". --DocumentN (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good article that isn't just a collection of "In popular cultural material"

NOT! 71.127.188.246 (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Journey

Seems to me I saw a 1940s movie with Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan in which this expression was used. I don't have a copy to confirm, but this is most likely the movie I saw. AMCKen (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)AMCKen[reply]

Precedent

Historically the expression "I don't think" has been used in British English in exactly the same way as Not! for decades. Curiously I have noted that, of late, it is being used, without irony, after some negative-expression that the speaker clearly does think, for example "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this, I don't think". And my point is... The Yowser (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um . . .

"Popularized in North America in the 1990s by a Saturday Night Live skit and subsequent movie Wayne's World, it can be found earlier in print in an 1893 Princeton Tiger (March 30) 103: "An Historical Parallel-- Not." An even earlier 1905 usage is in The Dream of the Rarebit Fiend by Windsor McKay.[1] It was selected as the 1992 Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society."

1905 is "earlier" than 1893? -- Not! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Privative

I see the link to privatives. Isn't this construction merely analogous to privatives, and more precisely just the use of an adverb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.202.10 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"LOL JK" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LOL JK. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#LOL JK until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]