# The meaning of "necessarily" in non-standard dialects of English
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 29, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428 "2010-09-29T03:08:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/1 "2010-09-29T03:08:28Z")
I teach logic, critical thinking and philosophy to non-traditional college students. (Adults with established careers, people who didn’t do well in High School the first time around, people in extremem poverty, and so on.) The great majority of my students–but not all–are African American.
On Friday and today, in two different classes, I had a strange conversation with them about the word “necessarily.” In both classes, some students were sure that the phrase “it necessarily follows that” means “it might follow, or it might not.” Not even “probably” but just “maybe, maybe not.”
I took a poll, using “clickers” (little devices that allow them to register an answer anonymously) about this usage.
The question was, “Select A if ‘Necessarily’ means ‘definitely,’ select B if ‘necessarily’ means ‘maybe’”. (I now don’t remember the exact phrasing of the prompt. It was along those lines though.)
Over two thirds of the class selected B.
“Okay,” I thought. “Maybe this is a dialectical difference I’ve never heard of?”
But further careful conversation, devoid of argument and thoroughly exploratory in intent and execution, about determining synonymy through word replacement and things like that, seemed, after a few minutes, to evince genuine “light bulb” moments in the students. They all seemed to come around to the view that “necessarily” means something more like “definitely” than “maybe”.
But what the heck? How could they become convinced of this, given that they were so sure about what they meant by the term before?
Are there known dialects in which necessarily really _does_ mean something like “maybe”?
An example students gave was the phrase “not necessarily” which they at first seemed to be in consensus about–that it’s a phrase where “necessarily” is being used to mean “maybe”. Synonymy tests on this phrase seemed to evince “light bulbs” in many of them.
But I mean… I just… I don’t _get_ it. I don’t know what happened. Did I take the first steps toward teaching them a new dialect? Did I help them see more clearly what their own words mean to them? I don’t know which of these things (or some other thing) happened. But if the latter, what made them so certain about the idea that necessarily means maybe in the first place? If the former, then why did they seem to _realize_ (rather than simply accept) that necessarily doesn’t mean maybe after all?
Very interesting but confusing situation.
---
### Author:  [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/2 "2010-09-29T03:33:56Z")
My guess is they probably just haven’t given it much thought before. In casual speech (IME), the phrase “not necessarily” is a universal idiom, and _much_ more common than “necessarily” used by itself. I know I pretty much never use “necessarily” except in academic writing.
---
### Author:  [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/3 "2010-09-29T03:40:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> An example students gave was the phrase “not necessarily” which they at first seemed to be in consensus about–that it’s a phrase where “necessarily” is being used to mean “maybe”. Synonymy tests on this phrase seemed to evince “light bulbs” in many of them.
Well “not necessarily” does mean “maybe”. “It’s not necessarily illegal”:“It may be illegal”. “It’s not necessarily going to rain”:“It may be going to rain”.
Combine this with the fact that the only time most people see the word “necessarily” is in conjunction with a negative or a reducer. Look at the Google results:
[Not necessarily] = 34,700,000 results.
[necessarily -“not necessarily” -“ain’t necessarily” -“isn’t necessarily” -"doesn’t necessarily] = 29,700,000 results, almost all of them in the form of questions in essay style writing.
I’m not seeing any instances in the first 5 Google pages of where a person with only a High School education is likely to encounter the word “necessarily” without a negative. In contrast “not necessarily” and “ain’t necessarily” return movies, TV shows, popular press, lyrics etc.
Maybe this is the source of the confusion. Any time a person with limited education sees or hears the word “necessarily” it in conjunction with “not” and thus means “maybe”.
I guess you’d have to look at the examples you were using to know if this is the case. The fact that the class pegged the word in “not necessarily” as “maybe” but later worked out the real meaning suggests that it is the case.
---
### Author:  [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellis_Aponte_Jr)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/4 "2010-09-29T03:40:29Z")
I would guess (as you touched upon) they were so used to hearing the word as part of the phrase “not necessarily” - which must be far and away the most common context for the word in colloquial speech - and simply started to process “not necessarily” as a figure of speech without parsing its literal meaning. It seems similar to the “could care less” issue in which people who use that expression don’t realize they are contradicting their intended meaning; the same light bulbs switch on when you point out that “couldn’t care less” is more logical.
**friedo** is saying the same thing - I got in a little late
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/5 "2010-09-29T03:42:05Z")
> [@friedo](#):
>
> My guess is they probably just haven’t given it much thought before. In casual speech (IME), the phrase “not necessarily” is a universal idiom, and _much_ more common than “necessarily” used by itself.
Hmm, if this is a case of people dropping the “not,” could it parallel the case of “I couldn’t care less” morphing into “I could care less”?
---
### Author:  [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/6 "2010-09-29T03:45:08Z")
> [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](#):
>
> **friedo** is saying the same thing - I got in a little late
et tu.
---
### Author:  [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/7 "2010-09-29T03:53:09Z")
Maybe they spent too much time reading _M’Culloch v. Maryland_:
> [@](#):
>
> Congress is authorized to pass all laws ‘necessary and proper’ to carry into execution the powers conferred on it. These words, **'necessary and proper** ,’ in such an instrument, are probably to be considered as synonymous. Necessarily, powers must here intend such powers as are **suitable** and [17 U.S. 316, 325] fitted to the object; such as are best and most **useful** in relation to the end proposed…
>
> Nor is it required, that the power of establishing such a moneyed corporation should be indispensably necessary to the execution of any of the specified powers of the government. An interpretation of this clause of the constitution, so strict and literal, would render every law which could be passed by congress unconstitutional; for of no particular law can it be predicated, that it is absolutely and indispensably necessary to carry into effect any of the specified powers; since a different law might be imagined, which could be enacted, tending to the same object, though [17 U.S. 316, 355] not equally well adapted to attain it. As the inevitable consequence of giving this very restricted sense to the word ‘necessary,’ would be to annihilate the very powers it professes to create; and as so gross an absurdity cannot be imputed to the framers of the constitution, this interpretation must be rejected…
>
> The convention well knew that it was utterly vain and nugatory, to give to congress certain specific powers, without the means of enforcing those powers. The auxiliary means, which are necessary for this purpose, are those which are useful and appropriate to produce the particular end. **‘Necessary and proper’ are, then, equivalent to needful and adapted** ; such is the popular sense in which the word necessary is sometimes used. That use of it is confirmed by the best authorities among lexicographers; among other definitions of the word ‘necessary,’ Johnson gives ‘needful;’ **and he defines ‘need,’ the root of the latter, by the words, 'want, occasion.** ’ Is a law, then, **wanted** , is there **occasion for** it, in order to carry into execution any of the enumerated powers of the national government; congress has the power of passing it. To make a law constitutional, nothing more is necessary than that it should be fairly adapted to carry into effect some specific power given to congress. This is the only interpretation which can give effect to this vital clause of the constitution; and being consistent with the rules of the language, is not to be rejected, because there is another interpretation, equally consistent with the same rules, but wholly inadequate to convey what must have been the intention of the convention. Among the multitude of means to carry into execution the powers expressly given to the national government, congress is to select, from time to time, such as are most fit for the purpose.
(bolding mine)
Presto, bango - necessary means "proper,“or “suitable,” or useful,” or “occasion for,” or “wanted.” Or whatever, apparently. :smack:
ETA: cite [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=17&invol=316](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=17&invol=316)
---
### Author:  [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/8 "2010-09-29T12:49:39Z")
I can’t help but wonder if demographics are at play here, and am reminded of the old Ebonics debate. The example that comes most readily to mind is the divergence in the perceived meaning of the statement “She been/‘bin’ married.” Whites tended to interpret this as in the present perfect tense (meaning “she was married, but is not married any longer”), while African Americans tended to infer that the statement indicated that she was still married.
Regional and cultural influences can really sour communications in terms of statement structure and pronunciation. As Huck Finn summarized, “why don’ a Frenchman talk like a man?”
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/9 "2010-09-29T12:54:06Z")
It’s almost as if putting “not” in front of a word changes the meaning.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/10 "2010-09-29T14:59:41Z")
I would guess that necessāriē has always been used in ambivalent statements, even though its strict meaning is univalent. If you always use it in the ambivalent sense (maybe, but…), and always in the negative, then it makes sense that the negative of an ambivalent statement would be seen as ambivalent (maybe not, but).
My own Logic professor was very keen to make sure we talked in terms of “following _from_” (is a deductively logical consequence of) rather than merely “following” in the broader sense. It might be something you’ll want to just work into your lesson plan. “Today, we’re going to be very specific about the concept of necessity.”
---
### Author:  [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/11 "2010-09-29T15:09:16Z")
I love the clicker idea. It lets everyone participate , stay anonymous, and yet get an instant response. You must be a great teacher.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/12 "2010-09-29T15:45:08Z")
> [@Johnny\_Angel](#):
>
> It might be something you’ll want to just work into your lesson plan. “Today, we’re going to be very specific about the concept of necessity.”
Heh, yeah, well, it’s definitely part of the way I’ll be teaching the course from now on. I just was taken by surprise this time around… it simply didn’t occur to me that there was any confusion about the meaning of the word “necessarily.” Confusion about how literally to take it, sure. But confusion about its basic meaning? That I never saw coming…
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/13 "2010-09-29T15:57:07Z")
> [@DanBlather](#):
>
> I love the clicker idea. It lets everyone participate , stay anonymous, and yet get an instant response.
And is probably preferred by school administrators over the “audience applause-o-meter” method.
---
### Author:  [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/14 "2010-09-29T21:32:26Z")
There is a sort of parallel thing in French. The most commpn way to say “not” is “ne [verb] pas”, which originally meant “not a step”. But since the “ne” is such a tiny word, people began to feel the “pas” carry the weight of the negativity – so that, in casual speech, the “ne” is skipped altogether, and people feel “pas” to mean “not”.
Like your “not necessarily”, it’s about a phrase becoming so much more common than its constituent parts, that there is mass confusion about which part of it carries the “weight” of the entire phrase’s meaning; and then the meaning becomes more ascribed to the “physically” weightier part of the phrase.
---
### Author:  [@\_mostly\_Harmless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_mostly_Harmless)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/15 "2010-09-30T01:02:42Z")
Linguist here.
I agree with those who said that the overwhelming usage of ‘not necessarily’ makes people associate the phrase with a sense of ‘maybe’. Secondly the African American English dialect does make use of double negation as opposed to Standard American English which does not (in theory). This could lead to an even smaller role for the word ‘not’ similar to what JKellyMap said about French.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-meaning-of-necessarily-in-non-standard-dialects-of-english/555428/16 "2010-09-30T01:20:57Z")
Agree with the posts above.
In fact, I used to make a similar mistake: the word “equivocal” in my mind meant something like _certain_ or _unambiguous_. I guess it’s because I’d seen the word “unequivocal” about a million times more often and there was a deep association there.
And on a separate point, IME when people have a misconception of what a word means, it is very often the exact opposite of the word’s true meaning.
Perhaps the context in which a word is used tells you the word’s relationship to other entities but not its “sign”.