"Done no wrongdoing" ?

[SerendipityJane]

Even if it's a verbatim quote, am I wrong in thinking the BBC should have tweaked it to avoid the impression that Farage is illiterate ?

Or is it actually perfectly acceptable grammar ?

There's nothing wrong with it. There would be something wrong with tweaking his words.

You can't "tweak" a quote.

Oh, quite.

So if we take it's a verbatim quote, the is it (as far as English allows) correct ?

Sounds clunky to me.

It is not grammatically incorrect.

it doesn’t sound right though does it? Surely it should be “I’ve done nothing wrong”, or “there was no wrongdoing”

It might be clunky, but if you're going to quote someone you have to quote them word for word, even if they are illiterate. Although this doesn't sound too bad to me.

Sometimes press use [sic] to point out the error is the speaker's not theirs, but that doesn't make the speaker look less illiterate 🤣

That was my feeling. English can be "grammatically correct" and wrong at the same time. It's why we speak it.

It's entirely grammatically correct. It does sound clunky, because 'done' and 'doing' appear together which sounds like tautology.

It's not, however, incorrect.

What do you think might make it incorrect, OP?

Awful.

Should be “Ain’t done no wrong.”

We then stray into language as a political weapon.

If it is a verbatim quote, I hope his parents got a refund from his school.

It sounds clunky I think because there are two instances of “to do” - he’s “done no wrongdoing”

They should definitely not adjust quotes to make people sound “less illiterate” - though quotes can be chosen to give an impression too. I think it’s chosen to make him sound pompous, which I think is reasonable, given he is…

Why, though?

It is correct. It doesn't sound or look the most appealing, linguistically. But it's not wrong.

It's the equivalent of 'I've done no illegal action.'
It isn't two versions of the 'to do' verb.

I recall a horror of double negatives and split infinitives from my youth. (And abbreviations and contractions, but that's another story).

I have to admit my English grammar was mainly learned via Latin 😁

This jumped out at me as well. I suppose I'd say "I haven't committed a wrongdoing" but it's right that the BBC didn't change his quote.

I think "no wrongdoing was committed" sounds better but "no wrongdoing was done" sounds wrong, even though it's basically the same.

I ain't done nuffin wrong.

The passive sentences would sound disingenuous.

I think it sounds like someone who normally "talks common like" trying to use a big word and not quite getting it right, but I don't think it's wrong.

"There has been no wrongdoing" would have been my copy.

Some might wish to separate the speaker and the spoken and the source.

However that is what I am all about 😀

But if those are the words he used, any impression gained is justified. It’s not up to the BBC to correct his grammar, as long as they put quotation marked round it.

He probably chose his words carefully - wrongdoing sounds fairly harmless.
He pitches himself as a man of the people.
"There has been no wrongdoing" is passive so would come across as more suspicious.

I quite appreciate there is a deeper question of the role of editors and broadcasters here.

But my starting point is that the phrasing is clunky and "wrong". If not in fact in common usage.

Mind you, I really struggle hearing and reading "named for" instead of "named after"- which despite me being told for years is perfectly acceptable, sounds terribly American to my ears. Maybe a lingering effect of how my family spoke ?

Oh I read that and it made me fume! Although if it is exactly what he said, no editing required

I think it is definitely wrong usage, as you don't use the verb 'do' with 'wrongdoing'. It's wrong in the way 'He did a mistake' or 'He did an offence' is wrong. The parts of speech are fine (verb plus noun), but the idiom is wrong.

More the sort of thing a non native speaker might say, I'd have imagined.

But implications there are beyond the scope of this thread 😎