Your example certainly shows that it can be used that way, but it does not prove that it is only to be used in that way.
In any case, I prefer the word “similar;” it is less definite than “like” and may be used in the sense of “similar in one or more ways” as you have used “not unlike.” It is also not a double negative, and so is less controversial.
I didn’t set out to prove anything, so that’s OK.
The double negative is not accidental or erroneous; it’s completely deliberate and there specifically to emphasise the nature of the comparison being made. As identified upthread, this is a litotic phrase - it uses understatement for effect.
Similar and related: Describing something as ‘not terrible’ or ‘I don’t hate it’, or ‘I wouldn’t be angry if that happened’
To me there is a difference in degree.
It’s like saying “they are not entirely dissimilar”…I’m stating that there is some similarity in some senses, but that saying that they are alike would be going too far.
I mean, I really don’t think that too much nuance is really the problem with people’s use of language today.
Well, let’s think logically. There is the Law of the Excluded Middle which says that, for every proposition p, either p is true or “not p” is true. However, this may be too strong a principle sometimes. Nevertheless, it is still tautological that it is not not true that either p or not p.
Perhaps it is a bit much to assert that I want ice cream, but I do not not want ice cream.
It reminds me a bit of this:
Person A: Do you like my room mate?
Person B: Yes
Person A: Great! She likes you too, so the movie tomorrow will basically be a double date.
Person A: Do you like my room mate?
Person B: No
Person A: Sheesh, what did she do to annoy you?
Person A: Do you like my room mate?
Person B: I don’t dislike her…
Person A: Ah ok, she likes you, but no worries, we can all just be friends
And yes I know there are other ways of expressing this, but I think most are going to be equal or more verbose than “not unlike”.
Exactly. The variety of subtly different ways to express things in English is a feature, not a flaw.
This is not unlike a discussion of double negatives that’s in Pinker’s “Language Instinct” in which he crafts the following statement (which I’m paraphrasing) that is not unlike a famous Rolling Stones lyric:
“As much as I shouldn’t be happy about others’ misfortunes, I can’t get NO satisfaction when (I forget the rest of it).”
Litotes definitely has its place, and while it can sound pretentious, it’s because it’s a complex idea that many people might not have considered the implications of. There are times where it’s the best way to express the idea you’re going for. For the above sentence, I’m not sure “I must get SOME satisfaction” is all that different of an idea, so it’s not entirely like “not unlike” where there’s definitely a feeling that using “like” instead connotes a much stronger resemblance of the things than you’re wanting to suggest, but it’s certainly not unlike.
I don’t think there’s a problem at all though with “not entirely unlike”, which makes it more clear that you don’t really want to say that things are like each other, but they do have some similarities that are worth mentioning.
Pretentious? Moi?
Not that it matters, but I was an English major in college, and I never have heard any sort of proscription against using the phrase “not unlike” nor do I even understand how it can be characterized as “pretentious.” It’s a perfectly cromulent and useful phrase and, as mentioned above, an example of litotes, a literary device that goes back to at least Beowulff.
Not unpretentious.
Ah. Peut-être.
I couldn’t fail to disagree with you less.
I knew exactly what you meant, until I realized that you were being sarcastic.
It also seems a bit of a trend to say, “He’s not wrong” in a situation where it might not be quite accurate to say, “He’s right.” I see this used ironically when someone says something that might be factually true but also irrelevant.
Kind of like sentence fragments.
I think the double-negativity of “not unlike” is a feature, not a bug. It’s subtly acknowledging that the similarity in question is possibly unexpected or controversial. “Not unlike” implies “I know these things wouldn’t generally be considered alike, but actually in this particular aspect…”
Sort of like the French “si” for “yes”, it’s saying “You probably expected me to reject this statement but in fact I’m not.”
I’d rather be not wrong than not even wrong.
Well, sure, that’s an obvious preference. But would you not also rather be wrong than not even wrong?
There’s a fairly new thing where people say “not not” as in:
Q: Are you calling me an idiot?
A: I’m not not calling you an idiot.
Similar to “you’re not wrong”. Like, “answering yes to the question you asked wasn’t my main point but the answer to your question is yes.” At least that’s how I uderstand it. Ask a young person to get a better definition.
I don’t dislike this construction.
Yeah, that’s a good example of when a deliberate double negative has its own layer of impact.
You could, I suppose answer
Q: Are you calling me an idiot?
A: If the shoe fits…
But it’s not quite the same; answering “I’m not not saying you’re an idiot” implies a particular blend of both scorn and disinterest. Whilst the ‘not-not’ thing is certainly trending at present, in the past people might have said “I wouldn’t deny it” (which is also sort of litotically-doubly-negative) to much the same effect.