MadalinStroe: EDIT: I just realized I used a double negative, but I think I used it correctly. Double negatives are so difficult to wrap one's brain around.
dtgreene: Double negatives also behave differently in different dialects of English. In modern Standard English, double negatives cancel each other out. In other dialects, like AAVE (the dialect some black people in the US speak), that does not happen. (Example: "I ain't got no money." The contraction "ain't" (which is typically not considered part of Standard English) contains a negative, and "no" is a negative, but in dialects that use "ain't", typically the negatives don't cancel each other out.)
Also, double negatives often don't cancel each other out in languages other than English, so this whole issue can be tricky for those who learn English as a second language.
In other words, yes it's tricky, and it works differently in different languages and dialects.
I think double negatives are difficult to grasp, only because we use them extremely rarely. So, our brain isn't used to quickly decoding the meaning, especially since it's it goes against the "natural" sentence structure.
I have only recently heard of Eubonics, and now I learn about AAVE, so I read a bit about it. Honestly, it sounds more like regionalisms rather than a dialect. However I realize that the entire issue is extremely debated, even by scholars, so I won't/can't comment further.
The Romanian language also uses double negatives, so I speak English as a second language, which is why I said that "I think I used it correctly".
