19

(I'm not a native speaker) In this example:

A: Oh. Since we are getting a bar, does that complicate shipping at all?
B: Not at all. It will take the same time to arrive.

Does not at all sound weird, misplaced or rude in that sentence? I've found some dictionary entries showing that not at all is used to say "no" or "not" strongly.

randomhead
  • 21,084
  • 1
  • 45
  • 52
lili
  • 309
  • 2
  • 6
  • 14
    Note that "not at all" is also used as a reply to thanks (and it is also not rude in this context, quite the opposite!). – tomasz Jul 14 '21 at 09:57
  • 27
    Not at all. It's perfectly acceptable in this context. – Charlie Bamford Jul 14 '21 at 22:05
  • 1
    The fact is it can be used BOTH in a seething, angry, way OR in a particularly happy, positive agreeable way. (Do note that exactly the same thing applies to simply the word "No".) – Fattie Jul 15 '21 at 12:28
  • They can also be used back to back in a polite way. E.g, person A: Do you mind if I take a selfie with you?. Person B: No, not at all! – Luke Briggs Jul 15 '21 at 16:45
  • I understand it can be confusing, but in this context it is the opposite of rude. It is trying to answer as nicely as possible. – evildemonic Jul 15 '21 at 20:49
  • @CharlesBamford 18 people "see what you did there" – CGCampbell Jul 16 '21 at 14:07
  • 1
    It's the most polite answer to some questions. "Do you think I'm being stupid here?" – Toby Speight Jul 16 '21 at 14:40
  • 1
    Because it takes more effort to say and is longer, it can come across as less abrupt than "No" and can hence be more polite – Caius Jard Jul 16 '21 at 17:27
  • 1
    Quite the opposite. If anything, they're being extra polite. B is assuring A they have nothing to worry about. They're trying to assuage A of the feeling that they're imposing. – ikegami Jul 16 '21 at 23:48

11 Answers11

50

Just saying something slightly more strongly is not usually "rude" in English-speaking countries. If person A asks person B if something is a problem, and person B says "not at all", then person A is pleased. 'Not at all' in that conversation is a polite and helpful reassurance that all is well. 'Absolutely not!' said with emphasis might be even stronger and not rude either. If person B said 'of course it bloody isn't' now that would be rude.

Michael Harvey
  • 71,537
  • 5
  • 105
  • 149
  • 20
    It's strong, but not rude. To Michael's example above, if person B just answered, "No", person A might not believe them because they didn't say it strongly enough. "Not at all" reassures that we really mean it, not just saying it. – gotube Jul 13 '21 at 20:58
  • I believe in some cultures it is sometimes 'rude' for a person who is junior to another by age, rank, job, etc, to use stronger forms and sometimes elaborate circumlocution is necessary – Michael Harvey Jul 13 '21 at 21:01
  • 1
    Do any of those cultures use English primarily? – gotube Jul 13 '21 at 21:19
  • 4
    No but their members might ask questions about the situation in English. – Michael Harvey Jul 13 '21 at 21:41
  • 28
    As always it depends on context. This is correct for OP's example, but if the querent would prefer a positive answer (to, for example: "Do we still pay the same shipping if we're getting a bar?"), then 'Not at all' would come across as less polite. Perhaps use ''with extra emphasis' rather than strongly', so extra emphasis added to an answer that aligns with the desired answer is more friendly whereas extra emphasis on an answer that isn't what is desired is less polite. – mcalex Jul 14 '21 at 04:51
  • I think the OP has seen 'strongly' in a dictionary and thinks (or wonders if) it means something like 'loudly' or 'very emphatically'. – Michael Harvey Jul 14 '21 at 07:20
  • 4
    @MichaelHarvey in the past I've seen that the term "strong language"has caused confusion, as its meaning is so different from things like "strongly-worded" – Chris H Jul 14 '21 at 10:08
  • @gotube not quite the same, but similar circumlocutions can be found in Indian English, where it may be the language of doing business even if it's no one's first language – Chris H Jul 14 '21 at 10:15
  • Even 'of course it bloody isn't' might not be seen as rude in some English-speaking cultures, at least in many contexts. Rudeness is very much cultural and not every English speaking culture sees the same expression the same way. – Glen_b Jul 15 '21 at 06:10
  • 2
    @Glen_b I'm having a hard time seeing a context where that isn't rude. That very much sounds like Obviously not, why are you even asking? – TKoL Jul 15 '21 at 08:49
  • 1
    @TKoL: I quite agree that in most contexts it would mean roughly your paraphrase, but there are certainly some where it wouldn’t be rude. E.g. two people letting off steam about a common frustration: “Just heard from Jim, the shipment isn’t coming today after all.” “Ugh, of course it bloody isn’t.” – PLL Jul 15 '21 at 08:59
  • 1
    It depends on tone of voice as well. In the example, I tended to imagine the phrase being used in a reassuring tone, as that appears to have been the intent of this reply. If it were used with a more confrontational tone (which it often can be if a person is feeling accused of something), then it could come across as quite rude. –  Jul 15 '21 at 09:00
  • 2
    @TKoL: I can imagine that between good friends, one of them saying "of course it fucking isn't" would not be rude but extra reassuring. Especially when saying this with a stong tone, offuscated at the mere thought it could be. Man, we know each other for 20 years and you are asking me that? WTF is wrong with you? Here, take a beer and pass me a slice of the pizza. (cultural context: France) – WoJ Jul 15 '21 at 10:09
  • @WoJ I feel like that situation, it's rude by design because you're talking to your friend. Talking to friends always throws normal rules about what's rude or polite out the window. – TKoL Jul 15 '21 at 10:22
  • IMO it is totally wrong that it is "more reassuring" or "more strong" - and it's confusing to present such incorrect information to learners. In most situations, an emphatic "No" is much more reassuring and positive than chatty blabber. (Imagine comparing the two emissions in a military situation, for example.) – Fattie Jul 15 '21 at 12:30
  • 2
    @Fattie - Horses for courses. Military emissions aside, anxious questioners tend to be more reassured by fuller answers. If I take my dog to the vet and ask, "Is Spotty going to croak, Doc?", I'd much rather hear 'Not at all, but he might limp a bit for a week or two', rather than 'NO!', which latter might make me look for a vet with better communication and/or interpersonal skills. – Michael Harvey Jul 15 '21 at 15:32
  • 2
    "Not at all" is stronger than "no". "at all" is an intensifying phrase. One that, taken literally, excludes the possibility of exceptions. But that doesn't make it rude every time. That comes from context. Is getting a "no" a good thing or a bad thing? We humans have less tolerance when hearing bad news. – candied_orange Jul 15 '21 at 16:51
  • @mcalex I think given your example, the rudeness comes not so much because the querent was expecting a positive response, but because the negative response required extra information to be complete, and that information was not provided. – Tim Sparkles Jul 15 '21 at 19:00
12

"Not at all" in that case is simply a short way of saying "That does not complicate shipping at all". Note that "not" in "Not at all", "Of course not", "Not if...", etc. is being used in place of a prior sentence.

Since the question itself already contains "at all", "Not at all" in your example is not rude or anything.

You ask: "Does not at all sound weird, misplaced or rude in that sentence?"

I answer "Not at all."

listeneva
  • 710
  • 1
  • 6
  • 18
11

"Not at all" is simply more emphatic than a simple "no". Whether it's rude or not really depends on what answer the person is hoping or expecting to hear.

In general, if you're giving good news, emphasis is fine; you're telling the person what they want to hear, so the emphasis acts to reassure them that you really mean it, while using language that downplays the answer would feel like you aren't really certain of the information. For example:

A: Since we are getting a bar, does that complicate shipping at all?

B: I don't think so. It should take the same time to arrive.

This would convey that B doesn't really know and is just guessing.

By contrast, if you're giving bad news, it's more polite to downplay the negative, or at least keep it neutral, while emphasis can come off as aggressive, frustrated, or rude, depending on how it's worded.

Downplayed: "Well, potentially. It's possible it may take a little longer." (This is fine, though it may make the listener wonder if they're being honest that it's only a possibility, or if it's definitely going to take longer and they're being dishonest.)

Neutral: "Yes, it will take a few days longer." (It's bad news, delivered as a clear matter of fact, so it's not rude.)

Emphatic: "Oh, absolutely! It will definitely take longer." (This emphasis may come off as rude -- it could suggest I should have already known this and I'm being stupid for even asking, or it might imply that I'm making the speaker do extra work and they resent that fact. But it depends on your relationship and tone of voice; I could say something like this to my brother without implying there's a problem with it, where I probably wouldn't want to speak that way to a customer.)

Darth Pseudonym
  • 2,610
  • 8
  • 10
  • 1
    I keep hearing the words of Prufrock's interlocutor when she says “That is not what I meant, at all” It's definitely more emphatic, and since it's unwelcome (to Prufrock), more disappointing. – Matthew Leingang Jul 14 '21 at 19:15
  • Ah, there it is. Lots of others are getting hung up on short vs. long phrasings, and confirming a negative vs. denying an affirmative. But I totally agree that it's situational, depending on whether they perceive a "no" as desirable. – Tim Pederick Jul 15 '21 at 05:53
8

Not at all, there's nothing wrong it this usage. Simply saying 'no' can sound abrupt, as some kind of imperative.

WJG
  • 81
  • 1
  • 5
    +1 for this; shorter is often taken as ruder, and wordier as politer, for whatever reasons. A lot of people will take offense at a simple No, even if the message is positive. "Do I have to give back this million dollars?" "No!" "Well, you don't need to be rude!". – CCTO Jul 14 '21 at 16:00
  • 1
    I like the answer but you might want to double-check your wording. – JimmyJames Jul 14 '21 at 20:24
8

In your example it's not rude at all, in fact it is more polite if anything since it reassures strongly that their extra order does not complicate things. But consider the following:

-- I made cookies, do you wanna try some?
-- No, not at all!

Now that could be considered more rude than a customary “No, thanks”.

cyco130
  • 181
  • 6
  • 1
    In this example there is a complicating factor, the reply is acting as an emphatic rejection,not just an emphatic confirmation of a negative. – Stilez Jul 14 '21 at 20:22
7

The other answers are fine, but I find it interesting that your question itself seems to "know" the answer:

does that complicate shipping at all?

"Not at all" is the opposite of rude when the question shows concern. You are trying to get across a feeling of "relax, everything's cool". This happened because your question was showing concern.

That wouldn't be the case if the question was showing a strong, affirmative point. Consider:

"Isn't Mary the single most beautiful woman in this world?" "Not at all"

This could be used rudely, though I believe it would need some assistance from the way you would tell it.

George Menoutis
  • 226
  • 1
  • 6
5

I'm from the western U.S. and the phrase "Not at all," when used in its most common fashion, is not rude. In fact, in its most common use, I disagree that it's stronger than "no." In our culture, it's simply formal and polite. It's similar to saying de nada (it is nothing) in Spanish, which I hear said all the time by my Spanish-speaking friends.

It should be noted that the phrase in our region is most commonly heard when the negative response has a positive connotation.

Would you mind passing the salt? Not at all!

Compare the same statement with the shorter, more terse "no."

Would you mind passing the salt? No.

In a situation like that (and in our region), using "no" sounds more dismissive, suggesting the person asking the question deserves little or no attention. However, I admit that the distinction is mighty thin and could be more reflective of my social group than my region.

However, compare this with a negative response having a negative connotation:

Will you help us? Not at all.

In this case the response would be very, very rude.

Let me leave you with one more idea, and it's kinda contrary to a statement I made earlier. When used in its most common fashion in my region, the phrase isn't stronger than "no." However, I believe it is fair to say the phrase can be thought of as an "emphasis," a verbal way to place an exclamation mark at the end of a "no." Thus, in a positive context it expresses enthusiasm to support the intent of the request.

Does this dress make me look fat? Not at all!

But it also emphasizes the negative context.

Did you do your homework? Not at all!

JBH
  • 3,767
  • 1
  • 14
  • 28
  • Finally a correct answer. – Fattie Jul 15 '21 at 12:31
  • 1
    Oh my goodness, this makes it sound regional. When it's very common in most varieties of English. – Lambie Jul 15 '21 at 17:30
  • 1
    @Lambie That may very well be true, but I don't have enough insight to make that claim. The best I can do is claim a regional perspective. – JBH Jul 16 '21 at 02:45
4

In this case it's a business partner assuring the speaker that there is no problem "at all": It is probably welcome news, and the purpose of using "at all" here is to put the person asking at ease and relieve them of any concerns.

In a context like this "not at all" is not only not offensive; on the contrary, it is polite and may even be a little white lie or exaggeration. For example, if you ask a clerk whether it would be a problem to gift-wrap an item you bought they may say "oh, not at all" even though there is a line of other customers waiting. They do this because it is their business policy to do so on request, and they don't want to make the customer feel bad. They say "not at all" even though it is in fact an inconvenience.

In other contexts though it can surely have an offensive edge, in particular as part of a rebuke or refutation: "Are you trying to take advantage of this old lady?" "Not at all, what are you thinking! I'm just helping her!"

Peter - Reinstate Monica
  • 1,043
  • 9
  • 15
3

I think it totally depends on the context. In my opinion using the "not at all" expression is not rude and it actually seems kind of friendly if you just met someone.

In the example you are giving it's not rude, it's friendly and kind.

Leandra Sanchez M
  • 31
  • 1
  • 2
    Your answer could be improved with examples and references. Welcome to the ELL. – fev Jul 14 '21 at 17:21
1

' Not at all ' does not sound rude. For example, if you were asked, " Are you upset? " you could respond as, " No, not at all "

Atinuke
  • 11
  • 2
0

I think in your example it doesn't sounds rude. In fact it's a good way to deny something when you don't want to say "no" entirely. This sounds good when the conversation is passive, calm, and polite.

Eddie Kal
  • 18,866
  • 27
  • 89
  • 183
user139692
  • 9
  • 1
  • 2
    Not sure your answer brings anything new to what the other answers have said. – fev Jul 14 '21 at 20:54