24

Is there a technical name for the common form of words whereby we refer to a thing -- often a person -- having a low level of some property, by saying that it does not have an especially high level of that property?

For example:

John is not the smartest person in the room.

I recently used this form myself (which is what triggered this question), in an ell.se answer I gave, when I wanted to refer to someone being of low intelligence. I referred to them as having:

...less than Einsteinian levels of intelligence

In practice, this structure is often combined with an idiom, as in:

  • Billy is not the smartest saw in the shed.
  • She was no oil painting.
  • Money doesn't grow on trees.
  • This is not my first rodeo

(But just to be clear, I'm asking not about the idioms themselves, but about the general form where "not lots of X" is used to mean "very little X")

Prior to asking here, I searched around a bit and so I think I can eliminate a few possibles. It is not:

  • sarcasm, because the statement being made is true;
  • damning with faint praise, because the statement doesn't actually praise at all;
  • a backhanded compliment, because it is not, in fact, a compliment.

So what is it called?

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
tkp
  • 7,412
  • 17
  • 31
  • 1
    More commonly we'd say "he's no Einstein" (to imply someone was stupid). The most common example is probably "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" (also to imply stupidity -- dullness of mind). – Owen Reynolds Mar 04 '21 at 19:46

1 Answers1

41

It's a form of litotes:

a figure of speech and form of verbal irony in which understatement is used to emphasize a point by stating a negative to further affirm a positive

Source: Wikipedia. The article lists an example which is not unlike* your first one:

Along the same lines, litotes can be used as a euphemism to diminish the harshness of an observation; "He isn't the cleanest person I know" could be used as a means of indicating that someone is a messy person.

It's an old rhetoric device, already used by the Ancient Greeks and Romans (hence the use of a Greek/Latin term for it).

*: see what I did there?

Glorfindel
  • 14,824
  • 15
  • 69
  • 76
  • 2
    And we have a winner! Litotes is exactly what I'd found seconds after posting my question. Never heard the term until now. OK, now I really must make time to read Aristotle's Rhetoric – tkp Mar 03 '21 at 15:46
  • 4
    Oh, and +1 for your "see what I did there" – tkp Mar 03 '21 at 15:47
  • 3
    "He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire" Anyway "Greek" not "Latin" (although it was borrowed into Latin). Also, ngrams show gradually increasing use of the word "Litotes" which means that there is hope for the world after all. – James K Mar 03 '21 at 21:50
  • 7
    The quoted definition of litotes mentions it, but it might be worth explicitly noting in the answer that litotes is a specific form (or use, as the definition puts it) of understatement. While @tkp is rightfully delighted with litotes, a lot of ELL readers might be more interested in the more general, more well-known, and more often-used term. – KRyan Mar 04 '21 at 03:29
  • 5
    @KRyan understatement is also (perhaps more often) used without any negative form. – Glorfindel Mar 04 '21 at 07:25
  • And here I just called it "hypobole" – Kevin Mar 04 '21 at 14:20
  • 2
    It's also worth noting that this is a highly academic word - nobody, not even native speakrs, will generally understand this word if you use it. I would not recommend it for an English learner. It will cause more confusion than anything else. – J... Mar 04 '21 at 14:33
  • 2
    @J... true; I do think most non-native English speakers who followed Latin classes (like me) will have heard of it. Quite often, very specific single-[tag:word-request]s, like this one, have such complicated 'solutions'. If you want to explain it in a simpler way, you'll have to use multiple words. – Glorfindel Mar 04 '21 at 21:42
  • @J..., it’s true the word itself isn’t one encountered very often, but the form of words to which it refers is commonplace. Litotes is not at all uncommon, as it were. So maybe the word should be more widely used and understood, (You can be sure that I, for my part, am going to be sprinkling it around liberally for the next while. It displaces "pachydermatous" as the most recent addition to my list of Cool Words I'd Like To Use More Often.) – tkp Mar 05 '21 at 07:44
  • @tkp Sure, you can do whatever you like. For language learners, however, many are concerned about sounding like a natural speaker and don't want to introduce any unnecessary awkwardness or confusion into their word selection. It seems you mean to do this deliberately, and that's fine, but I added the note for those who may not have the context to understand how goofy this makes you sound in normal conversation. – J... Mar 05 '21 at 11:25
  • @tkp To put it another way, if your English is not perfect, then someone listening to you and hearing words like "pachydermatous" and "litotes" will immediately understand that you're still learning and will forgive you for selecting unusual and strange vocabulary - but they will notice. And if your English is perfect, then using words like this in general conversation (ie: not with close friends), outside of an appropriate academic context, just comes off as stuffed, affected, and self-important. In almost all cases, speaking like this gives a negative impression. – J... Mar 05 '21 at 11:43
  • @J... if I’ve given the impression that I’m making light of your point, that wasnt my intent. In fact I wasn’t sure I should post my question to here, and instead considered english.stackexchange.com. However, to be honest, I’ve never really been able to discern much difference between english.se vs ell.se (in practice, if not intent), and, more important, I find many of the regulars here on ell.se to be very smart, helpful, and friendly. So I took a risk ! I reckon your comments should be sufficient to communicate your (perfectly valid) concern, but if not I'm happy to move my question. – tkp Mar 06 '21 at 04:26
  • 1
    @tkp Definitely this answer would be perfect on the English stack. I take a much more practical view on ELL. I've upvoted both q&a here because both are good, just that here I feel it needs the disclaimer whereas on English proper it would not. – J... Mar 06 '21 at 08:54