POSITIVELY NO ADMITTANCE. Captured today in the center of the hall of the largest Catholic church in North America.
Another linguistic puzzle. Why POSITIVELY?
The correct translation is “ENTRANCE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN TO WHOMEVER.” But why not ABSOLUTELY NO ADMITTANCE?
“Positively” in the phrase “positively no admittance” (strictly prohibited entrance) is easiest understood as employing its primary meaning: it emphasizes “no admittance” (prohibition of entry to whomever).
But why positively?
I read that there was an assumption that this word in its early uses was employed to describe positive law, that is, law established or recognized by state authority, as opposed to natural law — those “laws” that seemingly are naturally understood by people as applicable to all, such as “do not kill.” “Positive” in the context of positive law means “officially established or imposed”; it is a synonym for “prescribed.” So, could the expressions “positively no trespassing” and “positively no admittance” fundamentally mean “as officially established or prescribed, entry is forbidden” or “by law, entry is forbidden”?
As attractive as this theory may sound, early evidence of the phrases “positively no trespassing” and “positively no admittance” does not show such a direct link to positive law; therefore, this explanation falls apart.
A more probable explanation for the odd sound of modern cases of “positively no trespassing/admittance” is that the word “positively” is now so readily applied in contexts unrelated to law that it has lost some of its forcefulness, although, perhaps, it never had a legal meaning.
In short, it’s not clear at all; what’s clear is that it is used for emphasis.
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 