I was having a "comment chat" here on Workplace.SE when Alexander made the following comment:
But it's not just that most companies don't hire a permanent employee for a temp position.
Due to what seemed to be a double negation, I took it to mean "most companies hire a permanent employee for a temp position", which in context, was clearly not what he intended.
However, he then followed it up with a remark:
"not just ... not" is not "pure" double negation and its meaning cannot be resolved or simplifíed using boolean algebra.
Could someone explain to me how to interpret the original comment? Is there even any double negation at all, or does it use some idiom in a special sense that I am not aware of?
Since comments could be deleted some time soon by the Workplace moderators, I am posting the relevant conversation here for context:
Masked Man: When evaluating such "ethical" questions in the workplace, I always find it useful to put the boot on the other foot: if the company has predecided to fire you after one year, would they tell you? That should lead you to the answer.
Alexander: But it's not just that most companies don't hire a permanent employee for a temp position. In fact, they do it the other way around: They hire temps for permanent jobs. So I am back to square one with the decision.
Masked Man: Was the double negation in your first sentence intentional? I took it to mean "most companies hire permanent employees for a temp position", which was probably not what you intended.
Alexander: "Not just ... not" is not a "pure" double negation and its meaning cannot be resolved or simplifíed using boolean algebra.