Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 22

= January 22 =

"not to be reckoned with" - correct usage?
My experience with the phrase is different than that shown below. I reckon that a force not to be reckoned with is a force you want to avoid. So it is not inconsequential, but instead considered (i.e. reckoned) to result in a bad consequence. My understanding of "reckoning" is that it mean's thinking, deciding, considering, or estimating and the phrase "reckoned with" means dealing with or addressing or thinking about or experiencing the consequences of a problem, issue, or event. It is not that you must deal with it, but that you are dealing with it.

I understand the phrase "to be reckoned with" means something that must be considered or dealt with, but does "not to be reckoned with" suggest something which is too significant/big to deal with (a force one cannot hope to influence), or something which is too insignificant to deal with (a force of no consequence).

The phrase mostly seems to be used to suggest the former, but the natural interpretation seems to me to be the latter one. I've been staring at this for too long though. It is ambiguous right?

89.100.64.193 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Think of "reckon (with)" as a synonym for "estimate" or "consider" and the usages should become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase to be reckoned with is a stock phrase or cliché. The phrase has a meaning as a whole that has only a loose connection with the individual words that form it. The phrase usually follows a noun or the words something or "someone" (e.g., "a force to be reckoned with", "a woman to be reckoned with", "something/someone to be reckoned with").  I don't think that most English speakers would easily understand the phrase "not to be reckoned with" in these contexts.  The phrase to be reckoned with means "powerful" or "substantial".  Therefore, its negation should mean something like "insubstantial" or "not worth considering", but in fact, I don't think you can create a negative form of a stock phrase like this and expect it to carry a clear meaning.  The more idiomatic negation of "X to be reckoned with" would be something like "nothing to worry about".  Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A synonym for "to be reckoned with" is "not to be trifled with". So the negation would be something inconsequential: "not (i.e. not necessary) to be reckoned with" and "to be (or can be) trifled with". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But the usual negation would not be something like "a force (or person, etc.) not to be reckoned with"; it'd be "not a force to be reckoned with". The first version just looks like an error to me, perhaps a confusion of "to be reckoned with" and "not to be trifled with".  --Anonymous, 21:31 UTC, January 22, 2010.


 * It sounds like something John Cleese might have said in Monty Python: "Dinsdale was not a person to be reckoned with.  It was matter of immense pride to him that people frequently trifled with him".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Marco polo has it. "to be reckoned with" is a fixed phrase in English. Adding a "not" to a fixed phrase makes the meaning confusing and, well, you're right, Monty Pythonesque. Moncrief (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not altogether relevant, but the verb "to reckon" is generally not used in American English* (apart from in the South), although the "to be reckoned with" stock phrase is quite common. (*Certainly not in the "He reckons that's a good guess" usage common to Australia and the UK. Can you think of another context in which the verb is used in the USA, apart from in some Southern vernaculars and with this fixed phrase? I can't.) Moncrief (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon you're right. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another not-uncommon idiom is "day of reckoning". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one, but note that "reckoning" there is a noun, not a verb. Moncrief (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think "reckon" would be understood everywhere in America, though it may not be a word that most people reach for very often. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, yes. Understood as sounding quaint and vaguely Australian/West Virginian to most Americans, yes as well. Moncrief (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for the comments, particularly Marco Polo. My initial interpretation was the same as Baseball Bugs', but it didn't make sense to me when I broke it down. The fact the author seemed to be using it to imply the opposite left me doubly confused. Anyway thanks again, you guys are great. 89.100.64.193 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be reckoned with practically means, that you have to be wary. 37.33.229.13 (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a phrase that can mean two quite opposite things. Makes me want to channel Edward Gibbon. "The question of the nature of the Trinity is a matter not to be reckoned with, the question being so entirely out of proportion to the mind of man." - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironic, then, that humans invented the concept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK, before the days of pocket calculators there used to be little books called "ready reckoners" that were full of tables to help with calculations of non-metric weights and measures and our pre-decimal currency. I see our government still uses the term. Alansplodge (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just in the UK. That has a familiar ring to this US native. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They still make those. I was just looking at one the other day. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one oddity about "not to be reckoned with". "To be reckoned with" means you have to take something into consideration. "Not to be reckoned with" sounds like you have to NOT take something into consideration, i.e. you HAVE TO ignore it. That doesn't seem right. A better way to say it would be, "Need not be reckoned with." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)