"Not bad"... [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

[Poll #1396236]

←

→

There are 32 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

I define 'bad' as, say, the lowest quartile. So, 'not bad' can mean any of the remaining 75%.

However, the choice of words implies that it is close to bad, in some sense, so I guess you could make a case for it being in the 25-50% range, strictly worse than the median.

The idea that 'not bad' may be taken to mean better than average scares and confuses me.

iawtc. I guess we're the two that chose 'worse than average' then.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Taken literally, it means that there are no bad elements, but there could equally well be no good elements too, or there could be lots of good elements.

Thinking of it as an English idiom it is a negated inversion: invert good to bad and negate it, so it means good. Hence it could be equated to better than average in the scale above.

Your second point is an interesting one but I don't think everyone uses it like that.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that very few people use it like that. I strongly suspect that is how the term originated though. The English are very good at doing things like that.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oh, it depends on the tone of voice! In a cheery tone of voice, "not bad, not bad at all" can mean "perfect" :) Whereas, grudgingly "not bad, I suppose" can mean "minimum conceivably acceptable". I'm not sure which I use more often. (It can probably also vary with context, but I'm not sure how.)

I'm sure I've had hilariously unhelpful conversations where I've tried to clarify "not bad" or "ok" by exaggerating the tone of voice...

This is basically what I was going to say. It is generally somewhere between less-than-terrible and less-than-brilliant IMO, exact location depending on tone, context, etc.

[link] [parent] [reply]

*nods* I agree that context can change the meaning.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Fourthed!

For me, a tone of surprise indicates it is better than I expected, or if I stress the 'bad' bit then I mean it's somewhere on the worse side of the average between good and bad. You see, in English we're left pretty much with just the intonation to give a clue to the illocutionary force of the utterance...

Argh, too much pragmatics teaching lately!

[link] [parent] [reply]

It depends on context, and tone of voice.

Indeed.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Depends on context. Written in the context of, say for example, a product review, "not bad" means "bad". When spoken with a positive tone of voice, it's a lot more positive, even going as far as "faultless" sometimes.

It could be any of those, depending on tone. I most often use it as a form of understatement indicating something is good (which I guess is better than average).

It can mean either better than average or worse than average or just plain average. As usual with language, it's all about context.

Depends entirely on context. If the speaker needs to be self deprecating, then it means "nothing short of brilliant", if the speaker needs to be polite, it could be all the way down to "awful".

Another vote for "depends on tone of voice/context".

Definetely above average; but more precision requires context and tone.

Another vote for very tone/context dependent.

I'm not sure about this. I thought at first it did, but I don't think there is any tone or context in which it could mean anything worse than above average. If I say of something I've just eaten, "This really isn't bad," I mean it's very good. If I say grumpily, "Huh - not bad I suppose," then I'm less enthusiastic, but I still mean better than average. If I wanted to signify average, I'd say something like, "Not completely dreadful".

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hmm. I think there's quite a gap between average and completely dreadful, and it's into that gap that a grumpy "Huh - not bad I suppose" would fall if I were saying it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

As a baseline, I think it means "not significantly worse than average". How much is significant depends on context: how easily quantifiable the thing is, how much I care, etc. An interest rate might be bad if it differed by a tiny sliver; a sandwich bought as a distress purchase when ravenously hungry would have to be practically inedible before being considered especially bad.

As several people have noted, the expression might be used coyly, sarcastically, understatedly, etc. I don't think that necessarily alters the phrase's meaning, any more than my saying "gosh, what a fantastic idea" in a sarcastic tone of voice makes the expression mean "that's stupid" in any fundamental sense.

BALGE.

I think the usage of this phrase varies wildly not only by context but also from person to person.
For me, it's not something I learned but picked up while living here and I generally use it as "OK", i.e. neither particularly good or bad, hence my pick.

If I say 'not bad' in a rising tone, it means I'm rather gosh darned impressed with something, and I'm giving it a thorough nod of approval.

If someone asks me how I am, I nearly always reply 'not bad' in a flat tone. This means I am functioning above the median of my functioning range. (Otherwise I would have said 'not good, of course.)

If you asked me what I thought of a film and I said 'not bad' in a falling tone (probably preceded with 'well'), it would mean it probably wasn't very good at all, but it wasn't the worst thing I'd ever seen (which would probably be 'Rat Race').

What I am now concluding is that the words 'not bad' are utterly irrelevant; it is how they are spoken that matters. I will therefore in future say 'cabbages' instead of 'not bad', while retaining the tonal inflection. That will remove all ambiguity. Thank you for improving the clarity of my speech.

Heh, brilliant.

[link] [parent] [reply]

:-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm adding my vote for context /tone: That's not bad! vs Well it's not bad I suppose...

The former is probably top 25%, the latter just not bottom 25%.

Another one for depends on intonation, in spoken foruim.

In purely written forum, I'd take it as "average" unless context strongly suggested otherwise.

In response to the question 'how are you?' at work, my answers tend to be 'excellent, thank you!' which is a good day, 'good, thanks!' which is an average day and 'not bad, ta' which is a bit below that.

I think I'd take it literally to mean NOT "bad" i.e. either average or better, but you wouldn't let me tick more than one answer, so I said average.

I said other, because as others have said it depends on context and also because of I how I thought I used it in response to 'how are you?' but reading the responses I remembered that the phrase I actually use is 'not too bad' which actually means a range of things from nearly fine to not brilliant at all, but I'm trying to disguise that without actually lying. 'Not too bad' means things could be worse but they aren't particularly positive, but I'm happy for you to accept that I'm being understated. It's less misleading than 'fine' when I'm not while being a reasonably content free response to 'how are you?' which after all is basically a phatic expression, but if someone actually wants content they can pursue it.

While it depends on context, my default assumption is based on 'average', but knowing that its semantic 'cloud' of meaning can be tweaked by the context to somewhere else on the scale.

October