There are very few people who would not like to do it.没多少人想做如此的事。
《武峰十二天》：定语从句中的not是用来继续是 very few people的，所以非常显然very few 和not并不可以形成并列结构，进而不可以形成双重否定，所以要翻译为“没多少人”。
本人的理解：只有极少一部分人/这类人不想做如此的事≈只须极少一部分人不想做如此的事=几乎所有人都想做如此的事
如此一来跟书中讲解完全相反，请问是语法理解出错了吗？
一个简单的双重否定句，在网上被搞得这样复杂。
There are very few people who would not like to do it.= Most people would like to do it.
There are few people who would not want to work. = Most people would want to work.
There is no one but needs food. = There is no one that doesn't need food. = Everyone needs food.
这个句子之所以网上有那样多讨论，重点是刚开始的翻译不够准确，译者没结合上下文。
A hundred years ago it was assumed and scientifically “proved” by economists that the laws of society made it necessary to have a vast army of poor and jobless people in order to keep the economy going. Today, hardly anybody would dare to voice this principle. It is generally accepted that nobody should be excluded from the wealth Western industrialized countries, a system of insurance has been introduced which guarantees everyone a minimum of subsistence in case of unemployment, sickness and old age. I would go one step further and argue that, even if these conditions are not present, everyone has the right to receive the means to subsist , in other words, he can claim this subsistence minimum without having to have any “reason”. I would suggest, however, that it should be limited to a definite period of time, let’s say two years, so as to avoid the encouraging of an abnormal attitude which refused any kind of social obligation.
This may sound like a fantastic proposal, but so, I think, our insurance system would have sounded to people a hundred years ago. The main objection to such a scheme would be that if each person were entitled to receive minimum support, people would not work. This assumption rests on the fallacy of the inherent laziness in human nature, actually, aside from abnormally lazy people, there would be very few who would not want to earn more than the minimum, and who would prefer to do nothing rather than work.
黑体部分是这么被翻译的：
这种假设是基于如此一种谬论：人的天性中就存在遗传惰性。而事实上，除去特别懒惰的人以外，几乎无人想挣只等于最低生活保持费的钱，也无人想饱食终日，无所用心。
“几乎无人想挣只等于最低生活保持费的钱”这句翻译是不对的，是对the minimum的误解。原文第一段告诉大家即便一个人失业或年老、生病不工作也能得到最低的生活保持费，这笔钱是不需要挣的，是不劳而获的。但假如一个人工作的话，他得到的钱就一定多于这个minimum。多于minimum的这部分前是需要earn的。所以这个句子的正确翻译应该是：几乎无人不想挣高于最低生活保持费的钱，或者几乎无人想就守着最低生活保持费。也就是说大部分人都想挣高于最低生活保持费的钱，或者大部分人并不想守着最低生活保持费。
所以，这个句子其实就是一个简单的双重否定句，very few...would not want... =almost all would want.
