So, can he violence, or can't he?

Found what I believe to be a text error in the Main Scenario quest, "The Beast that Mourned at the Heart of the Mountain". After the Navel cutscene, Aphinaud has this bit of dialogue:

Aphinaud: His anguish and despair have served to birth a primal, just as surely as would the supplications of the faithful. Worse, being born of such tumultuous emotion, this incarnation of Titan seems incapable of naught but violence.

Shouldn't that be "capable of naught but violence"? Indicating that he can do nothing but violence? Incapable of nothing but violence would seem to imply he can do anything BUT violence...

I think you are right. Two negatives make a positive.

I actually don't think its the capable that needs to be fixed, its the naught. Naught has an affirmative, aught.

He is incapable of aught, but violence.

In modern English their sentence reads "he is incapable of nothing but violence", double negatives aren't exactly grammatically incorrect (see what i did there), they are out of favor due to how confusing they are (example is this thread), and in some dialects of English (not all of them) a double negative makes a positive. In this sentence I'd still read it as, he can't do anything except violence, because I sit around (law) and read statutes all day, but a clue in to an exception. In American English at least "I can't do anything" and "I can't do nothing", are completely opposite, so the main problem or this sentence is they are using nothing which cancels the incapable, instead of anything (at least to me).

If you change it to aught the sentence reads in modern English, "he is incapable of anything at all but violence" which is completely grammatically correct and in favor, a lil awkward but that's because we're replacing aught/naught which aren't really used.

TLDR: They shouldn't change incapable, they should change naught to aught. They wanted old timey, it will maintain old timey feel and fix the double neg.