What is the difference between the words negative and negatory? I looked up the definitions here and they are pretty much the same.
Learn English – the difference between the words negative and negatory
meaningword-choice
Related Solutions
The difference is fairly subtle
- To Emigrate is to leave one country to settle in another. (The focus is on the original country)
- To Immigrate is to come to a new country to live. (The focus is on the new country)
So if I were born in Ireland, and then migrated to the US, all of the following would be true and grammatical:
I emigrated from Ireland.
I immigrated to the US.
(Now the tricky bits)
I emigrated from Ireland to the US. (This focuses on the leaving bit)
I immigrated to the US from Ireland. (This focuses on the arriving bit)
And finally, relatives in Ireland might say:
Dusty emigrated to the US last year. (from their perspective, I left)
While new friends in the US:
Dusty immigrated to the US last year. (from their perspective, I arrived)
Candid and honest do not mean the same thing--they don't even have similar word roots.
Let's start with "candid." This word means "openness" and "not scripted or rehearsed." During the 70s, there was a popular American TV show called "Candid Camera" hosted by Alan Funt. We did not call it "Honest Camera." The show featured raw film footage of people in candid situations. It was not scripted and showed sincere and genuine reactions of ordinary people.
We use the word "candid" to talk about politicians' answers and interviews with actors. We say "candid interview" not "honest interview." In a candid interview, a person might not have access to the questions beforehand, or have thought out answers, or be as scripted. If a politician or actor were involved in a scandal, you can be sure they will not participate in a candid interview.
The word honest means "not deceptive, fair, or displaying integrity." We want policemen who are honest, judges who display honesty, and politicians that give honest answers. The key word is "not deceptive." Candid has nothing to do with deception, trickery, fraud, or cheating, things which the light of honesty combats.
The words have started to be used interchangeably because people confuse "unscripted" with "honest."
We want honest not candid politicians. Donald Trump is an example of a candid politician. He's being honest about his answers but I prefer he were less candid in his responses. Usually, the more experience a politician has the less candid they are, which can be frustrating for voters who think everything is scripted and designed to manipulate. Candid responses such as Trump's often cause people to grimace or cringe.
Policemen typically do not speak candidly about subjects because the stakes are high. They have practiced responses and ways of dealing with things that protect and serve the greater purpose of justice. In the current situation in America, many people will laugh at what I just said, but ideally we believe this. We do want policemen who are honest and give honest answers.
Candid answers are usually spontaneous and people are called to task for them. "I misspoke" is a response when criticized for a candid answer.
There is some overlap with these words but the overlap is not a majority.
Best Answer
Early recorded use of 'negatory'
One of the earliest instances of negatory that a Google Books search finds is in Elisha Coles, An English Dictionary, Explaining the Difficult Terms that are used in Divinity, Husbandry, Physick, Philosophy, Law, Navigation, Mathematicks, and other Arts and Sciences (1717), which provides the following simple definition:
This entry follows two related terms:
Clearly negatory and negative had very similar meanings at that time, though negative was (and remains) by far the more common term of the two.
Examples of negatory in the wild include this one in a legal decision, dated January 21, 1702, in The Decisions of the Lords of Council and Session, From June 6th, 1678, to July 30th, 1712 (1761):
Another early instance of negatory used in a legal context occurs in William Strahan's 1722 translation of Jean Domat, The Civil Law in Its Natural Order, Supplement to Book IV Of the Publick Law, Title I, "Of the Several Sorts of Judicial Demands and Actions," VI:
This definition seems well suited to the facts of the 1702 Grant v. Simpson dispute quoted above, where negatory appears.
We also have this nonlegal instance from "Bavius versus Prompter" in The Gentleman's Magazine (March 1736, quoted from The Grubstreet Journal, number 324):
And from Benjamin Martin, Bibliotheca Technologica; or, a Philological Library of Literary Arts and Sciences (1740):
This last example is particularly interesting because the author frequently uses the word negative in the same discussion and seems to introduce the term negatory to indicate a shade of difference, as if negative meant "negative" in the modern sense, while negatory meant something like "negating."
Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1756) omits negatory. Nevertheless, the term continues to appear (though never commonly) in serious works over the ensuing decades. For example, we have instances from law such as George Bowyer, Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law (1848):
And from "Notice of Caldwell's Nicomachean Ethics," in The Classical Journal (December 1828):
And from history in Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution: A History, volume 3, The Guillotine (1837), writing about Caron de Beaumarchais, the author of Figaro:
And from logic in Augustus De Morgan, Formal Logic: or, The Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable (1847), who describes a class of "negatory conclusions" that he defines in contradistinction to "affirmatory conclusions." He later remarks:
Between 1850 and about 1975, many occurrences of negatory in Google Books search results involve law or logic (or both), though authors specializing in other areas such as history, psychology, and philosophy use it, too.
"Negatory" after the coming of 'Convoy'
The year of change for negatory was 1975, when the citizen's band radio fad blossomed in the United States, and C.W. McCall released his hugely popular recording "Convoy," which uses (among other bits of contemporaneous CB radio slang) the word negatory in the sense of "no":
If some people now view negatory as being strictly or primarily a joke word, CB radio slang may well be to blame. The humor (I suspect) derives from the perceived intellectual overreach of typical users of the term, since CB radio enthusiasts as a group are not widely viewed as being especially well educated. A similar instance of overreach is reported in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where a Ku Klux Klan spokesperson is recorded on film giving a speech that, among other things, uses the novel terms revengent and revengeance:
As I recall, the Klansman's neologisms were a source of considerable amusement in the Constitutional Law class where I heard the case discussed.
Whatever the general perception of negatory may be, serious writers continue to use it completely seriously, as in Nicholas Tavuchis, Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation (1991):
And Steven M. Cerutti, The Word of the Day: The Unlikely Evolution of Common English (2005):
As for how negatory and negative differ in non-CB-radio-derived usage, negatory clearly works in far fewer contexts than negative does, because it has far fewer meanings—essentially, "denying or negating"—whereas negative applies as well to such areas as electromagnetic polarity and a cynical or pessimistic attitude. Still, within the narrower confines of "denying or negating," the terms are very similar. Just be aware that some readers or listeners are likely to reflexively think "Ten-four, good buddy" whenever they encounter the word negatory.
I should also point out that, despite its regular (though infrequent) use in certain areas of English for more than 300 years, negatory is not accorded an entry in Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) or its predecessors, suggesting that the people at Merriam-Webster have never regarded it as an everyday English word in good standing.