Nepal's Kusunda language has no words for "yes" or "no"(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Nepal's Kusunda language has no words for "yes" or "no"
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220804-kusunda-the-language-isolate-with-no-word-for-no
230 comments
In Finnish, "not" is an auxiliary verb, so "do" + "not" and similar combinations are just one word:
"I do not" => "En"
"(It) does not" => "Ei"
etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_verb#Finnish
"I do not" => "En"
"(It) does not" => "Ei"
etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_verb#Finnish
That's interesting - since basically every auxiliary verb I can think of for english
(Am, is, are, was, were, will, have, has, had, may, might, can, could, shall, should, must, ought to, would)
has a contraction form with "not" (although some are fairly colloquial, or considered out of date):
(amn't, isn't, aren't, wasn't, weren't, willn't, haven't, hasn't, hadn't, mayn't, can't, couldn't, shalln't, shouldn't, mustn't, oughtn't to, wouldn't)
(Am, is, are, was, were, will, have, has, had, may, might, can, could, shall, should, must, ought to, would)
has a contraction form with "not" (although some are fairly colloquial, or considered out of date):
(amn't, isn't, aren't, wasn't, weren't, willn't, haven't, hasn't, hadn't, mayn't, can't, couldn't, shalln't, shouldn't, mustn't, oughtn't to, wouldn't)
> amn't
Amn't is neither standard nor historically supported; the word naturally developed into the modern word ain't, which is stigmatized.
Standard English essentially requires "I'm not" instead. Where avoiding the inflectional form is impossible, the standard awkwardly provides first-person aren't.
> willn't
Not sure what you were thinking here; there is a negative form of will, but it's won't.
> shalln't
And this is shan't.
Amn't is neither standard nor historically supported; the word naturally developed into the modern word ain't, which is stigmatized.
Standard English essentially requires "I'm not" instead. Where avoiding the inflectional form is impossible, the standard awkwardly provides first-person aren't.
> willn't
Not sure what you were thinking here; there is a negative form of will, but it's won't.
> shalln't
And this is shan't.
My daughter invented amn't when she was 3 based on the rules that she understood.
There ain't no such thing as 'Standard English.'
I don’t think that a supportable position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English
> Although standard English is usually associated with official communications and settings, it is diverse in registers (stylistic levels), such as those for journalism (print, television, internet) and for academic publishing (monographs, academic papers, internet). This diversity in registers also exists between the spoken and the written forms of SE, which are characterised by degrees of formality; therefore, Standard English is distinct from formal English, because it features stylistic variations, ranging from casual to formal
If there is such a thing as Standard English, then it would allow phrases like “amn’t”, according to this definition anyway, as a casual style or register.
Evidently, it is usable to all speakers - you can come up with it yourself for the first time ever, and still be perfectly understood by every other speaker who hears it for the first time.
If there is such a thing as Standard English, then it would allow phrases like “amn’t”, according to this definition anyway, as a casual style or register.
Evidently, it is usable to all speakers - you can come up with it yourself for the first time ever, and still be perfectly understood by every other speaker who hears it for the first time.
> There are substantial differences among the language varieties that countries of the Anglosphere identify as "standard English"
There is no One True Standard.
There is no One True Standard.
The negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is historically supported and is evidenced in Scots and Hiberno english.
The reason for this is, probably, that in Irish the cluster -mn- became disallowed at some point and was obligatorily split by a schwa. As a result speakers of Hiberno English likely didn't have to simplify "amn't" because they pronounced it "ament" from the start.
The - mn - cluster is legal in Irish -- the plural of bean (woman) is mná even. It occurs a few other places too, though some dialects have gone away (though any Cn has become Cr unless it's sn, so not just mn) from it.
AFAIK, mná is never actually pronounced in this way, it’s either [mena] with an epenthetic schwa or [mra].
At least in Kerry, there's a tendency for /mna:/ (Ó Sé Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne, 33) and he explicitly states (32) that both /mn/ and /m'n'/ are legal consonant clusters at the beginning of words, no epenthesis (he gives 'don mbeannacht' as an example for the other, where the vowel is dropped). I'd suspect the rest of Munster to be the same.
Cool, thanks! But word-final -mnt is a slightly different thing anyway.
I willn't take any of this no more. I amn't fond of your ostentatiousness.
It is not "shalln't", it is "shan't" -- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant
Also, you can abbreviate "it is" as "it's" and "is not" as "isn't", but what do you abbreviate "it is not" as?
Also, you can abbreviate "it is" as "it's" and "is not" as "isn't", but what do you abbreviate "it is not" as?
It's actually both - Shalln't is considered the archaic form, but it was used. You're right that shan't is much more common.
But hey - if Stargate uses it (and they do - S09E04) then I'm willing to count it :)
But hey - if Stargate uses it (and they do - S09E04) then I'm willing to count it :)
It isn’t ?
s'not
Isn’t is it “won’t” for “will not”? (Not “willn’t”)
the contraction for "am not" is "ain't", not "amn't", which isn't a word
amn't is absolutely a word. It's the standard contraction of "am not" in Hiberno-English. Wiktionary says it's used in Scotland as well: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amn't
In Scottish and Hiberno-English the negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is perfectly correct. Ain't is the common term everywhere else.
The Hungarian and Finnish location and direction suffixes thing sounds a lot like latin case. Do you know off-hand if it’s related?
"Relatedness" is a very thorny notion here because we cannot discount the possibility of long-range contact influence in Western Eurasia. Many ancient Indo-European languages had some kind of ablative or locative case, and accusative was often used in a directional sense.
However, localtive-case systems of Hungarian and Finnish are much more developed than anything we see in Indo-European (Latin has at most 3 cases with locative/directional semantics; Hungarian has 9; Finnish has 8), so it's a different system anyway.
However, localtive-case systems of Hungarian and Finnish are much more developed than anything we see in Indo-European (Latin has at most 3 cases with locative/directional semantics; Hungarian has 9; Finnish has 8), so it's a different system anyway.
It's not related. But suffixing is a very common way of expressing stuff also in unrelated languages, e.g., your Finnish locative works just like it does in Japanese or Tamil (structurally, not literally: it is a different ending) -- and those three are totally unrelated.
Structurally, Finnish endings are also quite different from Latin as the ending is always the same (almost, except for vowel changes), while Latin has an array of endings for the same function and you need to learn about declension classes of nouns to understand how to select the right one. Finnish 'cases' are more like suffixes like '-ne' or '-que' in Latin. E.g., '-ssa' or '-ssä' is 'in (location)': 'Amerikassa' 'in America', 'Sveitsissä' 'in Switzerland'. In Japanese the ending for 'in' is '-de' and in Tamil, it is '-il'.
Structurally, Finnish endings are also quite different from Latin as the ending is always the same (almost, except for vowel changes), while Latin has an array of endings for the same function and you need to learn about declension classes of nouns to understand how to select the right one. Finnish 'cases' are more like suffixes like '-ne' or '-que' in Latin. E.g., '-ssa' or '-ssä' is 'in (location)': 'Amerikassa' 'in America', 'Sveitsissä' 'in Switzerland'. In Japanese the ending for 'in' is '-de' and in Tamil, it is '-il'.
> Finnish 'cases' are more like suffixes like '-ne' or '-que' in Latin. E.g., '-ssa' or '-ssä' is 'in (location)': 'Amerikassa' 'in America', 'Sveitsissä' 'in Switzerland'. In Japanese the ending for 'in' is '-de' and in Tamil, it is '-il'.
This seems to confuse inflectional suffixes with analytic particles. Certainly -ne and -que in Latin are not suffixes; they are clitics, exactly analogous to the English articles a(n) and the (not usually considered "prefixes"). They are not part of the word after which they appear. In contrast, the -i in humi "on the ground" is a part of the word, which mutated into that form to express a locative use.
(As a side note, that is not at all the norm in Latin - location is usually expressed with a preposition, as in sub monte "under [at the foot of] the mountain". Humus is one of only a handful of words that preserve the locative case.)
I believe the situation for Japanese de is similar, with de being either a clitic or a fully independent word. I have no knowledge of Tamil or Finnish.
This seems to confuse inflectional suffixes with analytic particles. Certainly -ne and -que in Latin are not suffixes; they are clitics, exactly analogous to the English articles a(n) and the (not usually considered "prefixes"). They are not part of the word after which they appear. In contrast, the -i in humi "on the ground" is a part of the word, which mutated into that form to express a locative use.
(As a side note, that is not at all the norm in Latin - location is usually expressed with a preposition, as in sub monte "under [at the foot of] the mountain". Humus is one of only a handful of words that preserve the locative case.)
I believe the situation for Japanese de is similar, with de being either a clitic or a fully independent word. I have no knowledge of Tamil or Finnish.
In Japanese, as in many other head-final languages, it is often hard to impossible to distinguish between clitics and suffixes. -de can only attach to a noun because a noun phrase always ends with a noun and there can be nothing between a noun and a -de, they are inseparable. On the other hand, there is no phonological fusion of any kind between a noun and -de (unlike in verbs, where yom-u 'to read' becomes yon-de in the gerund form). Because of this -de and other case markers are described both as "particles" and "case endings" in different sources.
In agglutinative languages with freer word order, it is easier to argue that a locative morpheme is a suffix because it always appears with nouns, but absent any phonological processes that bind them together, one can always write them with a space and call the second part "locative postposition". In some cases, it is even unclear if an agglutinative language is very morphologically complex or just uses a lot of function words.
In agglutinative languages with freer word order, it is easier to argue that a locative morpheme is a suffix because it always appears with nouns, but absent any phonological processes that bind them together, one can always write them with a space and call the second part "locative postposition". In some cases, it is even unclear if an agglutinative language is very morphologically complex or just uses a lot of function words.
Related in that they serve similar functions, perhaps. However, while Latin is an Indo-European language, Hungarian and Finnish are Uralic languages. The difference is notable in the number of cases; Latin has six, while Hungarian has 17.
Does anyone know why this was downvoted? It was a genuine question. I’m confused. Accident, maybe?
Thanks.
Most people know exactly nothing about linguistics, but because everyone speaks a language, they feel qualified to talk about it. The results are mostly ridiculous to anyone actually trained in the field.
Most people know exactly nothing about linguistics, but because everyone speaks a language, they feel qualified to talk about it. The results are mostly ridiculous to anyone actually trained in the field.
I'm sure all that's true (we see the same things in diet threads too - you eat food? no way, me too!) - but still, please don't post empty putdowns like this to HN. It just makes things worse.
When you know more than others, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, so we all can learn. That's what macleginn did in the GP comment, making the thread much better.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When you know more than others, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, so we all can learn. That's what macleginn did in the GP comment, making the thread much better.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I get your point, but the reasoning for my "putdown" can be found in GGP's comment, so I feel like you're getting hung up on a minor issue here. I was merely corroborating the first sentence of GGP's comment.
Certainly, if the bar for comments here is "it has to make the reader substantially more knowledgeable", not a lot of comments would remain. Even in this very comment section, I can find other "empty putdowns" or not very substantiated comments.
Certainly, if the bar for comments here is "it has to make the reader substantially more knowledgeable", not a lot of comments would remain. Even in this very comment section, I can find other "empty putdowns" or not very substantiated comments.
Maybe so, but that would be a reason to post fewer empty putdowns, not more.
> Nepal's Kusunda language has no known origin and a number of quirks, like no words for "yes" or "no".
That's not that uncommon, Scottish Gaelic and Irish, both spoken in the UK (take note British Broadcasting Corporation), have that same quirk—at least traditionally. There's some anecdotal evidence that with the number of non-native speakers learning the language, that Tá/Níl and Sea/Ní hea are starting to fill that gap in Irish.
> including lacking any standard way of negating a sentence, [...], or any words for direction.
These are much more interesting features (or lack thereof)! Why wouldn't the article lead with that?
EDIT: This is even funnier after seeing that the author even has a name of Scottish Gaelic/Irish origin: Eileen McDougall.
That's not that uncommon, Scottish Gaelic and Irish, both spoken in the UK (take note British Broadcasting Corporation), have that same quirk—at least traditionally. There's some anecdotal evidence that with the number of non-native speakers learning the language, that Tá/Níl and Sea/Ní hea are starting to fill that gap in Irish.
> including lacking any standard way of negating a sentence, [...], or any words for direction.
These are much more interesting features (or lack thereof)! Why wouldn't the article lead with that?
EDIT: This is even funnier after seeing that the author even has a name of Scottish Gaelic/Irish origin: Eileen McDougall.
Mandarin also does not have direct equivalents of ‘yes’ and ‘no’. There is a negator word 不 bù, but just answering 「不」 wouldn’t make sense. You answer a question with the verb that was asked. ‘Do you like coffee?’ ‘Like!’ or ‘不like‘. It doesn’t feel any different or make me experience any sort of mental contortion to use this pattern to convey the exact same information I’d convey in English.
I used to really like these pop linguistics kind of articles about exotic languages without tenses or plurals or what have you. It made my imagination churn to think about how it might influence your conception of the world if you expressed time in terms of length, size, or quantity. I remember a RadioLab show about the ancient Greeks having no word for blue, and that as a result they couldn’t perceive it.
I’ve since learned that this all stems from a theory called linguistic relativism, that the language we use constructs our worldview. I’m much less excited in this kind of idea since learning mandarin. I express the exact same thoughts and ideas I have in English, even if I express them without syntactical tenses, plurals, or whatever. Feels the same.
I used to really like these pop linguistics kind of articles about exotic languages without tenses or plurals or what have you. It made my imagination churn to think about how it might influence your conception of the world if you expressed time in terms of length, size, or quantity. I remember a RadioLab show about the ancient Greeks having no word for blue, and that as a result they couldn’t perceive it.
I’ve since learned that this all stems from a theory called linguistic relativism, that the language we use constructs our worldview. I’m much less excited in this kind of idea since learning mandarin. I express the exact same thoughts and ideas I have in English, even if I express them without syntactical tenses, plurals, or whatever. Feels the same.
> You answer a question with the verb that was asked. ‘Do you like coffee?’ ‘Like!’ or ‘不like‘.
Surely this explains that Chinese bootleg Star Wars translation meme where Darth Vader's "Nooo" is subtitled as "Do not want"?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-want-do-not-want
Surely this explains that Chinese bootleg Star Wars translation meme where Darth Vader's "Nooo" is subtitled as "Do not want"?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-want-do-not-want
I didn’t know this was the root of the ‘do not want’ meme. TIL. If I was to translate bootleg copy of Star Wars I think Darth Vader was probably trying to express ‘幹！’
Jokes aside, yes that make sense, you could express your regret or refusal by saying 我不要！ or you could say something like ‘how awful!’ Chinese translated literally sometimes feels so corny.
Jokes aside, yes that make sense, you could express your regret or refusal by saying 我不要！ or you could say something like ‘how awful!’ Chinese translated literally sometimes feels so corny.
These days a lot of Mandarin video translations do just use "bù!" or "oh bù!", even though it's not grammatically correct and technically meaningless, just because it tends not to ruin the lipsyncing.
The Taiwanese dub of "We don't talk about Bruno" uses Oh不 (actually, more like Woh不) as a lyric sung by the backup chorus. (In English, the chorus is singing "no, no", which is a callback to the heavily focused lyric "we don't talk about Bruno-no-no-no". This is not true in the dub, where that lyric is translated as if the "no"s were pure repetition: the dub says "women bu ti bulunuo-nuo-nuo-nuo".)
Lip syncing can't be a concern, because the chorus is not visible. The background characters on screen are not singing.
Lip syncing can't be a concern, because the chorus is not visible. The background characters on screen are not singing.
That's it exactly. "要" means "want", and "不要" means "not want".
Yes, because that's what a Mandarin-speaking Darth Vader would have said in that context. 不要 literally means "don't want" but is probably the most common negated verb combination used as "no." It's what a 2 year old would yell if you made them do something they didn't want to do. Here it's more an emotion expression "no, this is not what I wanted!"
So does this mean that there isn't a simple, single word exclamation in Mandarin to denote "Nooooooo!"?
How about "ffffuuuuuuuck!" etc?
How about "ffffuuuuuuuck!" etc?
> How about "ffffuuuuuuuck!"
肏, often euphemistically spelled as 操. But also commonly seen in the expression 我操, which would be two words.
You can analyze 不要 in the use under discussion as one word, or as two. There's no rule that says a word can't be more than one syllable long, but then again 不要 is not exactly etymologically opaque.
肏, often euphemistically spelled as 操. But also commonly seen in the expression 我操, which would be two words.
You can analyze 不要 in the use under discussion as one word, or as two. There's no rule that says a word can't be more than one syllable long, but then again 不要 is not exactly etymologically opaque.
Might be a Taiwan thing but the equivalent exclamation to ‘fuck!’ here is ‘幹！’, like ‘fuck, I lost my keys’. I’ve only seen/heard 肏 used in the sense of literal copulation, like ‘fuck your mom!’ as an insult, but not as an interjection.
Side note just to illustrate how filthy and vulgar 肏 is: it’s constructed of 入 and 肉. 入 means enter, go into, like 入口 is entrance. 肉 means meat or flesh, like beef 牛肉 or muscle 肌肉.
Side note just to illustrate how filthy and vulgar 肏 is: it’s constructed of 入 and 肉. 入 means enter, go into, like 入口 is entrance. 肉 means meat or flesh, like beef 牛肉 or muscle 肌肉.
我肏 is very common on the mainland. I don't know about bare 肏. But I can assure you that 我肏 is used as an interjection; I have even seen it used by girls.
(Which I was actually less surprised by than when I heard someone make fun of herself by saying 傻屄的我...)
> just to illustrate how filthy and vulgar 肏 is: it’s constructed of 入 and 肉. 入 means enter, go into, like 入口 is entrance.
Occasionally I wonder, if 入口 is entrance, what is the character 如 supposed to represent? Nobody objects to that one.
(Which I was actually less surprised by than when I heard someone make fun of herself by saying 傻屄的我...)
> just to illustrate how filthy and vulgar 肏 is: it’s constructed of 入 and 肉. 入 means enter, go into, like 入口 is entrance.
Occasionally I wonder, if 入口 is entrance, what is the character 如 supposed to represent? Nobody objects to that one.
不要 is a single word/lexeme in the linguistic sense, even if it is two syllables.
I read this response to my wife and she's in stitches.
> linguistic relativism
is a really hot button issue in linguistics, because it obviously correlates with certain ideological worldviews one way or another.
If you actually look at the data... it's complicated. In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. Probably there is some symbiotic relationship between the concepts we express in language and the saliency of certain distinctions in our habitual cognition.
IOW, it's highly unlikely that the Ancient Greeks didn't perceive the colour blue (much less so that this was caused by their language), but it is possible that the distinction between the colour blue and certain other colours was not seen as as significant as other distinctions (e.g. saturation, brightness). But all this theory ultimately stems from this one expression in Homer about the "wine-red sea" and one can only speculate.
If you want a good pop-sci overview of the situation, though still written by a linguist, try Guy Deutscher's "Through the Looking Glass". That said, he does come down a bit more on the pro-relativism side, so you may also want to read the counterarguments in John McWhorther's "The Language Hoax", which I haven't read though.
is a really hot button issue in linguistics, because it obviously correlates with certain ideological worldviews one way or another.
If you actually look at the data... it's complicated. In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. Probably there is some symbiotic relationship between the concepts we express in language and the saliency of certain distinctions in our habitual cognition.
IOW, it's highly unlikely that the Ancient Greeks didn't perceive the colour blue (much less so that this was caused by their language), but it is possible that the distinction between the colour blue and certain other colours was not seen as as significant as other distinctions (e.g. saturation, brightness). But all this theory ultimately stems from this one expression in Homer about the "wine-red sea" and one can only speculate.
If you want a good pop-sci overview of the situation, though still written by a linguist, try Guy Deutscher's "Through the Looking Glass". That said, he does come down a bit more on the pro-relativism side, so you may also want to read the counterarguments in John McWhorther's "The Language Hoax", which I haven't read though.
The book is "Through the Language Glass", which I agree is very good.
Of course. It's a clear reference to Lewis Carroll, something which I obviously remembered better than the actual title of the book. Thanks for correcting.
> In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right.
I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote goes something like:
"The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously false to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for.
The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously true to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for."
(In the context of a formulation where the strong version is that language limitations make certain things impossible to think or express, and the weak version is that language limitations just make certain things difficult or inconvenient to think or express.)
I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote goes something like:
"The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously false to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for.
The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously true to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for."
(In the context of a formulation where the strong version is that language limitations make certain things impossible to think or express, and the weak version is that language limitations just make certain things difficult or inconvenient to think or express.)
You've got some very significant equivocation going on there though. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the lack of a familiar term makes things difficult to think. The obvious proof of the weak hypothesis proves that lack of a familiar term makes concepts difficult to express. It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept.
> It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept.
As the quote suggests, it very much is obvious to anyone who has felt the need to coin a new term in order to reduce difficulty in thinking about a concept.
As the quote suggests, it very much is obvious to anyone who has felt the need to coin a new term in order to reduce difficulty in thinking about a concept.
Not having the word for a color, or living in an environment where it doesn’t feel relevant, does impact your ability to distinguish that color. You can still see it, of course, but it takes you measurably longer to perceive. Almost like a form of mild color blindness. Like you have to focus harder to tell colors apart if you don’t have a word for them.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
It's never been very clear to me that these kind of studies where you measure response time differences (usually measured in tens or hundreds of milliseconds) are really all that insightful, or say all that much about anything meaningful.
In this case, the English speakers were actually faster than Russian speakers, and the accuracy was identical, only when "two colours if they fell into different linguistic categories in Russian" were the Russian speakers faster. Plus "English speakers as a group drew nearly the same boundary as did the Russian speakers".
In this case it seems like a categorizing problem: it's not that English speakers can't distinguish the colours, it's just that the boundaries of your categories are less clearly defined than in Russian, so it takes a few more brain cycles to select the right category. I think everyone already agrees that some concepts can be easier or harder to express in certain languages (as a simple example, in Dutch there is no word for sibling).
I don't really read any support for a "mild colour blindness" in that study.
In this case, the English speakers were actually faster than Russian speakers, and the accuracy was identical, only when "two colours if they fell into different linguistic categories in Russian" were the Russian speakers faster. Plus "English speakers as a group drew nearly the same boundary as did the Russian speakers".
In this case it seems like a categorizing problem: it's not that English speakers can't distinguish the colours, it's just that the boundaries of your categories are less clearly defined than in Russian, so it takes a few more brain cycles to select the right category. I think everyone already agrees that some concepts can be easier or harder to express in certain languages (as a simple example, in Dutch there is no word for sibling).
I don't really read any support for a "mild colour blindness" in that study.
Oooh I really like that for when people ask ambiguous questions. So is there an equivalent in mandarin for "Have you stopped beating your wife"?
It seems like maybe you could just say "no beat" and there's no linguistic trap.
It seems like maybe you could just say "no beat" and there's no linguistic trap.
> "Have you stopped beating your wife"?
The correct answer to this perennial bad riddle is "only because your mom got jealous".
The correct answer to this perennial bad riddle is "only because your mom got jealous".
I think I’d have trouble explaining this joke to someone. There is a way to say ‘I’ve stopped’: 我停止了, but I think they’d probably just answer me 我從來沒有打過我的太太 ‘I’ve never beaten my wife’.
It does make the binary logic humor answer ‘yes’ to ‘do you V A or B?’ impossible, because there are different ways to express ‘or’ for questions or statements. I suppose puns and humor dependent upon word play is one area where I do think differently in Chinese vs English. You can crack jokes if you know how similar sounding words might be mistaken.
It does make the binary logic humor answer ‘yes’ to ‘do you V A or B?’ impossible, because there are different ways to express ‘or’ for questions or statements. I suppose puns and humor dependent upon word play is one area where I do think differently in Chinese vs English. You can crack jokes if you know how similar sounding words might be mistaken.
I'm not sure how that's any less ambiguous than answering "I don't beat her".
[deleted]
> Mandarin also does not have direct equivalents of ‘yes’ and ‘no’.
This is going a little too far; 是的 is a direct equivalent of "yes".
This is going a little too far; 是的 is a direct equivalent of "yes".
It is different. "是的" means "That's correct"; So if someone ask me "you don't smoke?" and I answer "是的" that means I don't smoke, which is actually what "no" means in standard English.
> So if someone ask me "you don't smoke?" and I answer "是的" that means I don't smoke, which is actually what "no" means in standard English.
I don't think there's much to be learned by trying to examine this situation in English. Affirmative answers to negative questions are a source of frequent confusion among native speakers, suggesting that the rules of English are not clear on this point.
If you said to me 你不是犹太人吧？, and I responded 是的, what would you think?
I don't think there's much to be learned by trying to examine this situation in English. Affirmative answers to negative questions are a source of frequent confusion among native speakers, suggesting that the rules of English are not clear on this point.
If you said to me 你不是犹太人吧？, and I responded 是的, what would you think?
There are clear rules in English and Chinese. English is absolute so "yes" means I am. Chinese is an echo language so "是的" means you are correct that I am not.
However, I do see Chinese making mistakes in English and English speakers making mistakes in Chinese and I am not 100% free of the guilt.
In the question "你不是犹太人吧？" there is already a "是“ in it, so a native speaker would use "对“ or "没错“ instead of "是的". They all means "correct" but by avoiding using "是" again, the chance of misunderstanding is minimized.
However, I do see Chinese making mistakes in English and English speakers making mistakes in Chinese and I am not 100% free of the guilt.
In the question "你不是犹太人吧？" there is already a "是“ in it, so a native speaker would use "对“ or "没错“ instead of "是的". They all means "correct" but by avoiding using "是" again, the chance of misunderstanding is minimized.
I guess I have to draw your attention to these two sentences:
> There are clear rules in English and Chinese.
> They all mean "correct" but by avoiding using "是" again, the chance of misunderstanding is minimized.
If the rules were clear, there would be no misunderstanding.
> There are clear rules in English and Chinese.
> They all mean "correct" but by avoiding using "是" again, the chance of misunderstanding is minimized.
If the rules were clear, there would be no misunderstanding.
I mean there are clear rules in both English and Chinese `officially`. However, Chinese is such a lax language and can convey very different meanings with just tone differences, you don't want to take the chance if there is a better way.
I think a better example wouldn't use 是. For example:
你去不去商店吗? (Are you going to the store?)
The way to answer is either going (去) or not going (不去). There are a lot of phrase for "that's right" or similar, but that's not the same as "yes."
Mandarin has no word directly mapping to "yes."
你去不去商店吗? (Are you going to the store?)
The way to answer is either going (去) or not going (不去). There are a lot of phrase for "that's right" or similar, but that's not the same as "yes."
Mandarin has no word directly mapping to "yes."
I put the 是 in that example on purpose, because it forces the response 是的 to be ambiguous between opposite meanings.
Your example is not in the form of a yes-or-no question[1], so it's not surprising or interesting that the answer can't be "yes". We see exactly the same phenomenon in English:
Q: Are you going to the store or staying home?
A: *Yes
[1] Admittedly, the presence of 吗 makes this claim weaker.
Your example is not in the form of a yes-or-no question[1], so it's not surprising or interesting that the answer can't be "yes". We see exactly the same phenomenon in English:
Q: Are you going to the store or staying home?
A: *Yes
[1] Admittedly, the presence of 吗 makes this claim weaker.
Sorry. Typo. Take 你去商店吗
(I started typing 你去不去商店 and changed part-way)
(I started typing 你去不去商店 and changed part-way)
It’s the equivalent to
‘yes’ in a subset of contexts where ‘yes’ would make sense, for example
‘Is he the guy you were talking about?’ 「是的」 would make sense to say yes. But it wouldn’t work as an answer like ‘yes, I like hiking’.
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1947367332200522468.html
Where you can say 是的，我最喜欢爬山, you can obviously also just say 是的.
Where you can say 是的，我最喜欢爬山, you can obviously also just say 是的.
The full answer is ok, but just 是的 sounds weird even though people would understand your intent.
I suppose 對 would be able to cover the rest of the contexts.
That’s still not complete. You wouldn’t answer 對 to the question “do you like hiking?”. The standard answer would be “like”. Or the versatile 嗯
- 你喜歡爬山嗎?
- 對,我喜歡
Sounds fine to me.
Though I suppose that's more like saying "That's correct/right, I like hiking."
- 對,我喜歡
Sounds fine to me.
Though I suppose that's more like saying "That's correct/right, I like hiking."
Yea exactly. In that phrasing you're putting an affirmation to the original question. Just "對" doesn't work.
> Just "對" doesn't work.
As with 是的, that isn't true.
I knew one Chinese person who was very definite that 它 could not be used to refer to an inanimate object such as a folder or notebook. Instead, the object must be referred to with 这个.
But I know other Chinese people who routinely refer to inanimate objects with 它.
As with 是的, that isn't true.
I knew one Chinese person who was very definite that 它 could not be used to refer to an inanimate object such as a folder or notebook. Instead, the object must be referred to with 这个.
But I know other Chinese people who routinely refer to inanimate objects with 它.
The overall point is there isn't a single "yes". The equivalent of "yes" takes various forms depending on the context. "是的", "对" etc can all work depending on the question.
By that argument, English also has no direct equivalent of "yes". Sometimes you say "right". (Compare 对.) Sometimes you say "sure".
But don't you think it's strange to claim that there is no English equivalent of an English word?
But don't you think it's strange to claim that there is no English equivalent of an English word?
I still think you can reply that way in conversation, because "That's correct" is a valid way to answer that question, imo. But sure, I guess 對 doesn't actually mean "yes" in the same way the word "yes" does.
[deleted]
I wouldn’t say that. Maybe someone would understand what you mean but it’s definitely not as versatile as yes.
I’d say the closest to yes is 嗯
I’d say the closest to yes is 嗯
> I express the exact same thoughts and ideas I have in English, even if I express them without syntactical tenses, plurals, or whatever. Feels the same.
It feels the same now. But you're not (and can't) compare what it was like to think that way before learning mandarin and after. Even your memories are modified by your present linguistic understanding.
Language doesn't strongly determine how you think and feel. It's more complex than that. But many studies have shown the benefits of bilingualism, and the limited-in-scope effects that language can have on your thinking. Linguistic relativism is a real thing.
It feels the same now. But you're not (and can't) compare what it was like to think that way before learning mandarin and after. Even your memories are modified by your present linguistic understanding.
Language doesn't strongly determine how you think and feel. It's more complex than that. But many studies have shown the benefits of bilingualism, and the limited-in-scope effects that language can have on your thinking. Linguistic relativism is a real thing.
> There is a negator word 不 bù, but just answering 「不」 wouldn’t make sense.
That goes a bit too far. It would certainly be understood, but be considered quirky, or an indication that you're not a native speaker.
My kids are bilingual German/Mandarin, and use it like that quite a bit.
That goes a bit too far. It would certainly be understood, but be considered quirky, or an indication that you're not a native speaker.
My kids are bilingual German/Mandarin, and use it like that quite a bit.
So how do these languages (Scottish Gaelic and Irish) express affirmation and negation then? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia. I can imagine that affirmation would be a repeated variation on the question, as some languages do (e.g., "Have you got your ticket?" "I have it"), but negation?
There is a word that negates a sentence/clause, just not a word for no. You're correct that we repeat the verb (tá is the independent form when no particle precedes it, fuil is the dependent form, which here has an initial mutation adding bh to its beginning). "Have you got your ticket?":
EDIT: Unfortunately, code blocks are necessary for alignment, so I've added '-' to the beginning of each line to aid in legibility on mobile.
- An bhfuil do thicéad agat? (LIT: is your ticket at-you?)
- (interrogative) is your ticket at-you?
- Tá mo thicéad agam.
- is my ticket at-me.
- Níl mo thicéad agam.
- Ní-fhuil
- not-is my ticket at-me.
- An gcanann tú?
- (interrogative) sing you?
- Canann mé / Canaim
- sing I / sing-1st.pres
- Ní chanann mé / Ní chanaim
- not sing I / not sing-1st.pres
EDIT: Unfortunately, code blocks are necessary for alignment, so I've added '-' to the beginning of each line to aid in legibility on mobile.
Apart from Donegal, you won't really find the analytic first person singular present anywhere outside of the verbs tá and bíonn. Even in Donegal, the synthetic is best.
Also, you don't have to repeat the pronoun (unless it is one with the analytic form).
An gcanann sé? Canann.
Also, you don't have to repeat the pronoun (unless it is one with the analytic form).
An gcanann sé? Canann.
> Apart from Donegal, you won't really find the analytic first person singular anywhere outside of the verbs tá and bíonn
Have you mixed up analytic and synthetic? Analytic = Canann mé, Synthetic = canaim. Ulster irish generally tends toward analytic (similar to Scottish Gaelic actually), and Munster tends toward the Synthetic.
> Also, you don't have to repeat the pronoun (unless it is one with the analytic form).
True, but I didn't want to complicate it any further than it already was.
Have you mixed up analytic and synthetic? Analytic = Canann mé, Synthetic = canaim. Ulster irish generally tends toward analytic (similar to Scottish Gaelic actually), and Munster tends toward the Synthetic.
> Also, you don't have to repeat the pronoun (unless it is one with the analytic form).
True, but I didn't want to complicate it any further than it already was.
No, the synthetic first person singular present tense is still more prevalent, even in Donegal. Overall, yes, Donegal (the only living Ulster dialects, as I'm sure you're aware) tends towards analytic, but they're not that common in some tenses. An Teanga Bheo: Gaeilge Uladh (horrible name, East Ulster was very different from Donegal!) mentions that you can say canann mé but that canaim is still preferred. Same with a few of the persons in the conditional mood.
Ah yeah, that makes sense. I glossed over "first person singular" in the part I quoted.
> Canann
Interesting; same root as Italian 'cantare'.
Interesting; same root as Italian 'cantare'.
Yep! They both come from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) keh₂n-.
As a matter of fact, the Italic and Celtic branches of PIE are posited to be closer than to each other than other Indo-European branches and are often grouped together as Italo-Celtic.
As a matter of fact, the Italic and Celtic branches of PIE are posited to be closer than to each other than other Indo-European branches and are often grouped together as Italo-Celtic.
You should know that your code blocks are complete gibberish on mobile browsers.
Apologies. I'm aware of the issues with code blocks on mobile, and I myself even call people out who used them instead of quotes. Here though, I used text alignment to aid in showing which words in Irish correspond to their translation in English, so a monospaced font was necessary as HN doesn't provide any other means of alignment.
EDIT: I viewed my comment on mobile, and I don't think it's completely gibberish as the commenter suggested. I use a relatively small phone (an iPhone SE 2020), and found it readable. That said, I've added '-' to the beginning of each line to aid in legibility for anybody experiencing issues.
EDIT: I viewed my comment on mobile, and I don't think it's completely gibberish as the commenter suggested. I use a relatively small phone (an iPhone SE 2020), and found it readable. That said, I've added '-' to the beginning of each line to aid in legibility for anybody experiencing issues.
Thanks, most informative.
In Scottish Gaelic you'd use "Tha" or "Chan eil" to literally say "yes" or "no".
"Tha" - pronounced like "Haa" - is more like "It is" or "I am", "A'bheil thu sgìth?" "Tha, tha mi sgìth." "Are you tired?" "Yes, I am tired".
"Chan eil" - the "ch" is like in "loch", that back-of-the-throat sound, and "eil" is like "ale" - is a syntactically gendered form of "Cha" and "bheil", where the "bh" pronounced a bit like a "v" is dropped and an "n" is added. "Syntactically gendered" isn't like male female person gender, it's like plug socket gender - you can't say "Cha eil" because there's a stupid-sounding stop in it, like you can't say "a apple". You'd say "*an* apple" so you've got a consonant between the vowel sounds.
But yeah in general I'd ask you "Are you hungry?" and you'd say "I'm not" or "I am" rather than "No" or "Yes".
Of course modern Gaelic is a heavily code-switched language so you'd probably just use "No" or "Yes" directly anyway if you were speaking in a modern idiom.
"Tha" - pronounced like "Haa" - is more like "It is" or "I am", "A'bheil thu sgìth?" "Tha, tha mi sgìth." "Are you tired?" "Yes, I am tired".
"Chan eil" - the "ch" is like in "loch", that back-of-the-throat sound, and "eil" is like "ale" - is a syntactically gendered form of "Cha" and "bheil", where the "bh" pronounced a bit like a "v" is dropped and an "n" is added. "Syntactically gendered" isn't like male female person gender, it's like plug socket gender - you can't say "Cha eil" because there's a stupid-sounding stop in it, like you can't say "a apple". You'd say "*an* apple" so you've got a consonant between the vowel sounds.
But yeah in general I'd ask you "Are you hungry?" and you'd say "I'm not" or "I am" rather than "No" or "Yes".
Of course modern Gaelic is a heavily code-switched language so you'd probably just use "No" or "Yes" directly anyway if you were speaking in a modern idiom.
Hmm. If I asked the following (forgive my spelling/grammar, it's be a while since I've studied Scottish Gaelic, so I've probably fecked up the mutations and question particle, I've put what I intend it to mean in English)
> Am bidh thu sgìth? Are you tired? (regularly)
Would you answer "Bidh", "Tha", or "Tha, bidh mi sgìth"?
> Am bidh thu sgìth? Are you tired? (regularly)
Would you answer "Bidh", "Tha", or "Tha, bidh mi sgìth"?
I'm not sure, to be honest, probably the latter is most correct.
> as some languages do (e.g., "Have you got your ticket?" "I have it"), but negation?
They say "I haven't it" (they negate the verb)
(Which in English sound weird, but you can negate the verb without using 'no')
They say "I haven't it" (they negate the verb)
(Which in English sound weird, but you can negate the verb without using 'no')
I mean practically Níl on its own is no in actual spoken Irish, but that is a relatively recent usage that came about because approximately all Irish speakers learned English as a first language and want to import the usage.
But yes, officially and historically the correct response was like "Níl aon tickead agam" or "There is no ticket on me", or less directly translated/less awkwardly "I don't have a ticket"
But yes, officially and historically the correct response was like "Níl aon tickead agam" or "There is no ticket on me", or less directly translated/less awkwardly "I don't have a ticket"
Really? This must be a very recent change. If your teacher asked you "An dTuigeann Tú?" ("do you understand?"), they would accept "Níl" as an answer? It sounds horribly off to me.
Teachers would also correct someone asking "Can I <do XYZ>?" to "May I <do XYZ>?", but the former would be perfectly accepted in regular conversation. Academic standards are (well, usually and hopefully) higher than conversational standards.
It depends on the speaker, the usage is much more common among people who haven't learned the language to any degree of fluency (which is the majority of people who claim to speak Irish). Hearing "Níl" in response to a question that didn't involve "An bhfuil?" still sounds off to me, but languages change over time.
> but languages change over time.
I would argue there's a difference between natural language change among natives and language change because learners can't/won't learn something right. What we're actually seeing isn't language change, but language shift (in the Gaeltacht), where Irish loses all that separates it from English as English creeps in, and language formation (outside the Gaeltacht) as a sort of Gaelo-Anglo pidgin/creole is being formed.
I would argue there's a difference between natural language change among natives and language change because learners can't/won't learn something right. What we're actually seeing isn't language change, but language shift (in the Gaeltacht), where Irish loses all that separates it from English as English creeps in, and language formation (outside the Gaeltacht) as a sort of Gaelo-Anglo pidgin/creole is being formed.
As a Spaniard living in Ireland I couldn't detect much difference in how the Irish I heard at the popup gaeltacht event sounded compared to English as a language (though when I first visited Kerry I thought some of the older men were speaking Gaelic because of how they spoke English)
I'd expect people to not want their Irish to sound so like English (jibberish English like the Simms) but it doesn't seem to be something learners or educationists care about or are aware of
I'd expect people to not want their Irish to sound so like English (jibberish English like the Simms) but it doesn't seem to be something learners or educationists care about or are aware of
There's two factors there though. The first is how English accents in those localities have been influenced by historic use of Irish there. The second is how the accents learners of Irish are now being influenced by English phonetics.
The biggest problem with the latter is a lot of learners don't grasp the Slender/Broad consonants distinction at all (it's a palatilization/velarization distinction similar to the soft/hard distiction in Slavic languages).
The biggest problem with the latter is a lot of learners don't grasp the Slender/Broad consonants distinction at all (it's a palatilization/velarization distinction similar to the soft/hard distiction in Slavic languages).
Honestly, most people don't know and don't care. They use their little phrase 'Broken Irish is better than clever English' to hide/dismiss any concerns as well. It's a huge issue though -- the native sounds are dying, and learners are killing them. Put off by saying "Oh, it's just my dialect" (it's not, you're not a native speaker; you don't have a dialect!)
When I visited Ireland, one of the defining characteristics of the Irish dialect of English was the absence of yes/no - it definitely stood out to me that people would respond to stuff like "did you eat lunch?" with "I did".
Weird to see that not only has yes/no come into the English spoken in Ireland, but is now being backported to the Gaelic.
Weird to see that not only has yes/no come into the English spoken in Ireland, but is now being backported to the Gaelic.
You have to admit yes and no are pretty useful words!
I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. "I haven't it" and "I don't have it" are essentially the same: the clitic "n't" applied to a verb to negate it. In one case you use an auxiliary verb and in another you don't, but the method of negation is the same.
I think the point is that they can't simply say "no". Also, perhaps "I haven't it" is syntactically more similar than "I don't have it" to what they actually say.
> perhaps "I haven't it" is syntactically more similar than "I don't have it" to what they actually say
Neither is particularly close, as Irish doesn't have a verb for have, and uses Verb-Subject-Object rather than Subject-Verb-Object as english does:
Neither is particularly close, as Irish doesn't have a verb for have, and uses Verb-Subject-Object rather than Subject-Verb-Object as english does:
- I haven't it
- I have-NEG it
- I don't have it
- I NEG.AUX have it
- Níl sé agam
- is-NEG it.NOM at-me
So something like "It isn't here", with the qualification that "here" doesn't quite express the contrasts available?
More like, "It's not with me", at least in Hiberno English. We'd also say "on me" (in Hiberno-English) for possession, although it means that you have it on your immediate person:
"Do you have it?"
"Not on me / I don't have it on me" = it's not on my person.
"Do you have it?"
"Not on me / I don't have it on me" = it's not on my person.
I aint is an old but still used negation of to have. So: "Got your ticket"? "I aint"! However this is heading into regional variance territory. Granny Weatherwax (Discworld witch) famously wore a sign saying: "I aten't dead" when off Borrowing.
Sounds like most of them just negate the operative verb in the question.
Do you have a pen? Have Not have
Do you have a pen? Have Not have
In fact filmmaker Manchán Magan had to borrow the English word “no” to title his documentary “No Béarla” (No English) in which he roamed Ireland attempting to speak only Irish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Béarla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Béarla
I think that's pretty much to be a bit more harsh on Irish people who don't speak Irish, and also to be more recognisable as a title to non-Irish speakers (who would likely at least still recognise Béarla from years of Irish lessons).
"Gan Bearla" or "Without English" would have been an equally short title without resorting to a bilingual title.
"Gan Bearla" or "Without English" would have been an equally short title without resorting to a bilingual title.
> take note British Broadcasting Corporation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize <-- Gàidhlig / Gaeilge / Cymraeg language options available
Gàidhlig
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/alba <-- a tv channel
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_nan_gaidhea... <-- a radio channel
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p09xzjpm
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p09xwbsz
- https://speakgaelic.scot/
Gaeilge
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p084p79m <-- not a dedicated channel like Gàidhlig but regular TV programming
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/subjects/zqtw7ty
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cpvp
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cmsk6
I mean, thats just a very quick look, yes Gàidhlig is better served than Gaeilge but my feeling is that those looking for Gaeilge resources are probably looking elsewhere ;-)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize <-- Gàidhlig / Gaeilge / Cymraeg language options available
Gàidhlig
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/alba <-- a tv channel
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_nan_gaidhea... <-- a radio channel
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p09xzjpm
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p09xwbsz
- https://speakgaelic.scot/
Gaeilge
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p084p79m <-- not a dedicated channel like Gàidhlig but regular TV programming
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/subjects/zqtw7ty
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cpvp
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cmsk6
I mean, thats just a very quick look, yes Gàidhlig is better served than Gaeilge but my feeling is that those looking for Gaeilge resources are probably looking elsewhere ;-)
The point was that the BBC writer of this article should already be aware of Gaelic languages.
> The point was that the BBC writer of this article should already be aware of Gaelic languages.
Ah yes, i see that now, TY for pointing that out (i would imagine that the writer is not a 'BBC writer' but a freelancer, but yes, i see the point
Ah yes, i see that now, TY for pointing that out (i would imagine that the writer is not a 'BBC writer' but a freelancer, but yes, i see the point
Ditto the Welsh language (also a Celtic language spoken in the UK), where there traditionally weren't words for yes and no and where the words used instead depend upon tense, person and the verb being responded to.
> depend upon tense, person and the verb being responded to
Or the structure of the sentence.
-- Dych chi'n dwp? -- Ydw. (-- Are you stupid? -- Yes.) [verb initial]
-- Athro wyt ti? -- Ie. (-- Are you a teacher? -- Yes.) [noun initial]
Or the structure of the sentence.
-- Dych chi'n dwp? -- Ydw. (-- Are you stupid? -- Yes.) [verb initial]
-- Athro wyt ti? -- Ie. (-- Are you a teacher? -- Yes.) [noun initial]
Interesting to know! I suspected that might be the case, but didn't include it as I'm not all that familiar with the Brittonic languages.
I came here to mention Irish/Gaelic traditionally lacking "yes" and "no". This leads to replies that seem a bit verbose but are kind of charming, e.g.
"Would you like a cup of tea?"
"I would not".
> There's some anecdotal evidence that with the number of non-native speakers learning the language, that Tá/Níl and Sea/Ní hea are starting to fill that gap in Irish.
Only among non-natives or natives of the Neo-Irish that is starting to form outside the Gaeltacht. This is not a change that is happening, from my experience, in the Gaeltacht raised with traditional Irish speaking parents. It's really a sign of the weakening of the language.
Only among non-natives or natives of the Neo-Irish that is starting to form outside the Gaeltacht. This is not a change that is happening, from my experience, in the Gaeltacht raised with traditional Irish speaking parents. It's really a sign of the weakening of the language.
Do you want to have the language as a living language or as a fossilized relic? It's long been a complaint of the gaelgoir crowd that Irish people do not use the Irish language and they're losing touch with the culture.
A consequence of the push for more widespread usage of the language that came from that is that a language in use evolves. Even English language media from 50 years ago is markedly different in the way the language is used.
So I feel the influence of the Duolingo/meetup generation of Irish language speakers is both inevitable and arguably a sign of the increased uptake of the language - if such people were small in number compared to the traditional speakers, they could not have had this outsized influence.
Also in the case of Tá/Níl as Yes/No in particular, the roots of that probably also have something to do with bilingual government forms adopting it as a space saving measure, so these new speakers have a lifetime of seeing Tá/Yes and Níl/No options on professionally translated forms that may also have primed this development.
A consequence of the push for more widespread usage of the language that came from that is that a language in use evolves. Even English language media from 50 years ago is markedly different in the way the language is used.
So I feel the influence of the Duolingo/meetup generation of Irish language speakers is both inevitable and arguably a sign of the increased uptake of the language - if such people were small in number compared to the traditional speakers, they could not have had this outsized influence.
Also in the case of Tá/Níl as Yes/No in particular, the roots of that probably also have something to do with bilingual government forms adopting it as a space saving measure, so these new speakers have a lifetime of seeing Tá/Yes and Níl/No options on professionally translated forms that may also have primed this development.
There is no reason a living language can't be a fossilized relic. French has the fairly conservative French Academy. The German case system as you would learn it from a textbook has been kept on life support by academics and formal users for centuries.
French is centralized, but not stationary. It's also, at least among languages I'm familar with, an outlier in being so formally standardised - if English was treated as stringently, variations like Hiberno-English, American English or English as spoken in India would be considered errors, rather than regional variations. Finally, it's not hoping for adoption among a group 40x larger than it's current speaker base.
> Do you want to have the language as a living language or as a fossilized relic?
I want to see it remain a living language. I don't want to see it becoming, as it is in idiom, sounds and grammar, "English in Irish drag" (quoting a prominent linguist on the matter). It's not Irish. It's people substituting Irish words into English grammar, using English sounds and idioms to do so. That's the death of Irish.
> It's long been a complaint of the gaelgoir crowd that Irish people do not use the Irish language and they're losing touch with the culture.
There's a huge difference between the 'gaelgoir' crowd and native speakers (none of whom would call themselves Gaeilgeoirí -- those are specifically the learners who come in with notebooks or to the summer schools).
> A consequence of the push for more widespread usage of the language that came from that is that a language in use evolves. Even English language media from 50 years ago is markedly different in the way the language is used.
There's a difference between language evolution and language death. There's also a difference between learners not learning properly and native speakers changing the language naturally (.i. not under conditions of language death)
> So I feel the influence of the Duolingo/meetup generation of Irish language speakers is both inevitable and arguably a sign of the increased uptake of the language - if such people were small in number compared to the traditional speakers, they could not have had this outsized influence.
The problem is the shitty level of Irish held by most school teachers, even those in the Gaelscoileanna. And their ignorance on proper Irish idiom, grammar and sounds that then gets passed on.
> Also in the case of Tá/Níl as Yes/No in particular, the roots of that probably also have something to do with bilingual government forms adopting it as a space saving measure, so these new speakers have a lifetime of seeing Tá/Yes and Níl/No options on professionally translated forms that may also have primed this development.
And those forms are purposefully translated so that Tá/Yes Níl/No is an answer to an "An bhfuil" question, following proper Irish grammar (usually "An bhfuil tú i bhfábhar ...").
But, natural language change is not what's happening with Irish. Instead, we're seeing a split between the traditional Gaeltacht raised native speakers and a pidgin/creole forming in the urban areas. Sadly, only one can survive and it's less and less likely it'll be traditional Irish. Instead, we'll be left with something that calls itself Irish, but is really no different from English in the way it expresses concepts, the sounds it uses to express those concepts and, outside perhaps the very basics, the grammar it uses to express those concepts. The only thing different is the words it uses. That's not Irish.
You'd never see this happening with any majority language -- French speakers would be rightfully up in arms if someone spoke French with English sounds, used English grammar and then claimed their French was just as authentic as the natives'. Sadly, we accept it -- praise it -- for Irish. At the expense of the traditional, rich native language and the Gaelic worldview (assuming linguistic relativity and/or cognitive metaphors shape the way we think; I lean towards the latter)
I want to see it remain a living language. I don't want to see it becoming, as it is in idiom, sounds and grammar, "English in Irish drag" (quoting a prominent linguist on the matter). It's not Irish. It's people substituting Irish words into English grammar, using English sounds and idioms to do so. That's the death of Irish.
> It's long been a complaint of the gaelgoir crowd that Irish people do not use the Irish language and they're losing touch with the culture.
There's a huge difference between the 'gaelgoir' crowd and native speakers (none of whom would call themselves Gaeilgeoirí -- those are specifically the learners who come in with notebooks or to the summer schools).
> A consequence of the push for more widespread usage of the language that came from that is that a language in use evolves. Even English language media from 50 years ago is markedly different in the way the language is used.
There's a difference between language evolution and language death. There's also a difference between learners not learning properly and native speakers changing the language naturally (.i. not under conditions of language death)
> So I feel the influence of the Duolingo/meetup generation of Irish language speakers is both inevitable and arguably a sign of the increased uptake of the language - if such people were small in number compared to the traditional speakers, they could not have had this outsized influence.
The problem is the shitty level of Irish held by most school teachers, even those in the Gaelscoileanna. And their ignorance on proper Irish idiom, grammar and sounds that then gets passed on.
> Also in the case of Tá/Níl as Yes/No in particular, the roots of that probably also have something to do with bilingual government forms adopting it as a space saving measure, so these new speakers have a lifetime of seeing Tá/Yes and Níl/No options on professionally translated forms that may also have primed this development.
And those forms are purposefully translated so that Tá/Yes Níl/No is an answer to an "An bhfuil" question, following proper Irish grammar (usually "An bhfuil tú i bhfábhar ...").
But, natural language change is not what's happening with Irish. Instead, we're seeing a split between the traditional Gaeltacht raised native speakers and a pidgin/creole forming in the urban areas. Sadly, only one can survive and it's less and less likely it'll be traditional Irish. Instead, we'll be left with something that calls itself Irish, but is really no different from English in the way it expresses concepts, the sounds it uses to express those concepts and, outside perhaps the very basics, the grammar it uses to express those concepts. The only thing different is the words it uses. That's not Irish.
You'd never see this happening with any majority language -- French speakers would be rightfully up in arms if someone spoke French with English sounds, used English grammar and then claimed their French was just as authentic as the natives'. Sadly, we accept it -- praise it -- for Irish. At the expense of the traditional, rich native language and the Gaelic worldview (assuming linguistic relativity and/or cognitive metaphors shape the way we think; I lean towards the latter)
> This is not a change that is happening, from my experience, in the Gaeltacht raised with traditional Irish speaking parents.
Of which there are less and less of. I think the only way Irish can survive in the long term is in a semi-creolized form with a lot of English influence. It's all well and good trying to codify a variety of "proper Irish", but realistically if it is to gain any amount of new speakers, it's going to have significant influence from the native languages of those new speakers—which will be English.
This isn't unnatural. Languages are influenced by non-native speakers all the time. See English: a Germanic language with much of its vocabulary derived from Norman French, Latin, and Greek, and a loss of almost all inflection save for some irregular verbs, and referring to ships in the feminine.
Look, I'd like as much as the next person to preserve Irish as native speakers speak it, but the chance to do that died over a century ago.
Of which there are less and less of. I think the only way Irish can survive in the long term is in a semi-creolized form with a lot of English influence. It's all well and good trying to codify a variety of "proper Irish", but realistically if it is to gain any amount of new speakers, it's going to have significant influence from the native languages of those new speakers—which will be English.
This isn't unnatural. Languages are influenced by non-native speakers all the time. See English: a Germanic language with much of its vocabulary derived from Norman French, Latin, and Greek, and a loss of almost all inflection save for some irregular verbs, and referring to ships in the feminine.
Look, I'd like as much as the next person to preserve Irish as native speakers speak it, but the chance to do that died over a century ago.
> I think the only way Irish can survive in the long term is in a semi-creolized form with a lot of English influence.
Then that's not Irish. It's a Neo-Irish creole. Which is fine -- great even! -- but let's call it what it is.
> See English: a Germanic language with much of its vocabulary derived from Norman French, Latin, and Greek, and a loss of almost all inflection save for some irregular verbs, and referring to ships in the feminine.
There's a huge difference between what's going on with Irish and what happened with English under Norman rule. For instance, the sound system is still fairly Germanic, the grammar most definitely is. Both these things are being lost in Neo-Irish.
> Look, I'd like as much as the next person to preserve Irish as native speakers speak it, but the chance to do that died over a century ago.
I think there is still a chance, if radical steps are taken. Sadly, you're right; they won't be taken.
I'm fine with something surviving, but we need to be honest about what it is, and how the State has failed those who actually speak traditional Irish and all but guaranteed its death, thanks, in part, to the way it implemented it in the schools. It should've always been a Gaeltacht outward revival.
Then that's not Irish. It's a Neo-Irish creole. Which is fine -- great even! -- but let's call it what it is.
> See English: a Germanic language with much of its vocabulary derived from Norman French, Latin, and Greek, and a loss of almost all inflection save for some irregular verbs, and referring to ships in the feminine.
There's a huge difference between what's going on with Irish and what happened with English under Norman rule. For instance, the sound system is still fairly Germanic, the grammar most definitely is. Both these things are being lost in Neo-Irish.
> Look, I'd like as much as the next person to preserve Irish as native speakers speak it, but the chance to do that died over a century ago.
I think there is still a chance, if radical steps are taken. Sadly, you're right; they won't be taken.
I'm fine with something surviving, but we need to be honest about what it is, and how the State has failed those who actually speak traditional Irish and all but guaranteed its death, thanks, in part, to the way it implemented it in the schools. It should've always been a Gaeltacht outward revival.
I think Tá/Níl were used (after some debate) as Yes/No on the Irish-language ballot papers in various recent constitutional referenda in Ireland.
(Gaelic in Scotland does not have the same official status as Irish in Ireland or Welsh in Wales, so the Scottish independence referendum ballots were only in English.)
(Gaelic in Scotland does not have the same official status as Irish in Ireland or Welsh in Wales, so the Scottish independence referendum ballots were only in English.)
Yes, they were. I can't remember the exact wording of the question, but I believe it was along the lines of "Are you in favour?" so the answer could be "I am/Tá", or "I am not/Níl". I could be wrong, so if somebody can remember the wording on the ballot paper, please don't hesitate to correct me.
Harder to make snappy for a headline, I guess! I agree that these qualities are much more interesting.
This language is different - it lacks the concept of negation all together. There's no way to negate a verb in this language.
Of course there is, there are negative suffixes for that, see a grammatical overview here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/83v8d1wv
Yes, I pointed that out in the comment you responded to.
I was taught in school that "tha" and "chan eil" are yes / no in Gaelic
Dad spoke Irish at home (Galway) and uses Hibernian E English.
“Are you posting on Hacker News?”
“I am.”
Easy.
“Are you posting on Hacker News?”
“I am.”
Easy.
Most famously, Latin has no word for "yes". Different circumlocutions to say "yes" evolved into the words for "yes" in romance languages.
"sic" -> si/sim (italian, spanish, portuguese)
"hoc" -> oc (occitan)
"hoc ille" -> oui (french)
"sic" -> si/sim (italian, spanish, portuguese)
"hoc" -> oc (occitan)
"hoc ille" -> oui (french)
French has "si" from "sic" as well! Used in an affirmative response to a negative question. Pulling an example from wiktionary:
Tu ne m’aimes pas, n’est-ce pas ? — Si !
You don’t like me, do you? — Yes, I do!This has interesting consequences on my speaking English.
Of course there is no "si" in English and I know that, but because I grew up speaking French, I intuitively understand "no" to mean agreement, which is not usually what a native English speaker means. I will also tend to reply "no" to mean agreement, though I will not reply "yes": I will notice that I can't say "si", but forget that the absence of "si" also means I can't say "no".
Do you not like me?
Of course there is no "si" in English and I know that, but because I grew up speaking French, I intuitively understand "no" to mean agreement, which is not usually what a native English speaker means. I will also tend to reply "no" to mean agreement, though I will not reply "yes": I will notice that I can't say "si", but forget that the absence of "si" also means I can't say "no".
English used to have this distinction, we used to use "yes" as a strong affirmative, and "yeah" otherwise. We still use both words but the distinction between them has disappeared.
I'm curious if you or someone else can answer this: is this use similar or identical to the German "doch"?
I've always like "doch", which was explained to me as meaning "I agree with you", and spares the speaker the effort of matching the negatives or not in the question.
"Are you going to the club then?" "yes" "doch" "Are you not going to the club then?" "no" "doch"
I've always like "doch", which was explained to me as meaning "I agree with you", and spares the speaker the effort of matching the negatives or not in the question.
"Are you going to the club then?" "yes" "doch" "Are you not going to the club then?" "no" "doch"
That's not how "doch" works. It's the German "though" and works to mean effectively "on the contrary" in response to a negative question. It doesn't work in response to a positive question.
"Du magst mich nicht?" You don't like me? "Doch" Yes I do.
"Du magst mich nicht?" You don't like me? "Doch" Yes I do.
Ah, that's too bad, although it fits the 'spirit of German' (Deutchgeist?) better than what I misunderstood it to mean.
So yes, the same as the French «Sí» as others have explained it.
So yes, the same as the French «Sí» as others have explained it.
> (Deutchgeist?)
Correct spelling would be "Deutschgeist", but it's not a word that evokes much sense. I think a good translation would be "im Geiste der deutschen Sprache", which more literally translates to "in the spirit of the German language". Yeah, sadly we can't use combined nouns for everything...
Correct spelling would be "Deutschgeist", but it's not a word that evokes much sense. I think a good translation would be "im Geiste der deutschen Sprache", which more literally translates to "in the spirit of the German language". Yeah, sadly we can't use combined nouns for everything...
No, "si" is only used as a positive response to a negative question.
A: Tu ne vas pas au club, n'est-ce pas? //You're not going to the club, right?
B: Si! //Yes! ; this means B is going to the club
B: Oui! //Yes! ; this means B is agreeing with A, indeed B is not going to the club; in practice this is probably somewhat ambiguous
B: Non! //No! ; probably this also means that B is not going to the club, though it could also mean that B is contradicting A: B is going to the club.
In contrast, if A had asked "Tu vas au club?" (Are you going to the club?), B wouldn't normally answer "Si", since "Si" only makes sense as a response for a negative question.
A: Tu ne vas pas au club, n'est-ce pas? //You're not going to the club, right?
B: Si! //Yes! ; this means B is going to the club
B: Oui! //Yes! ; this means B is agreeing with A, indeed B is not going to the club; in practice this is probably somewhat ambiguous
B: Non! //No! ; probably this also means that B is not going to the club, though it could also mean that B is contradicting A: B is going to the club.
In contrast, if A had asked "Tu vas au club?" (Are you going to the club?), B wouldn't normally answer "Si", since "Si" only makes sense as a response for a negative question.
> No, "si" is only used as a positive response to a negative question.
Yes it is/doch/si! :) Because OP misunderstood, "doch" is used exactly the same way as the french "si" and as you described.
Yes it is/doch/si! :) Because OP misunderstood, "doch" is used exactly the same way as the french "si" and as you described.
It's more about resolving the ambiguity of a negative question. Taking GP's example:
French resolves that ambiguity with "si" to mean the latter. In languages like English that don't have the same concept, you would repeat a bit of the question to clarify.
You don’t like me, do you?
French resolves that ambiguity with "si" to mean the latter. In languages like English that don't have the same concept, you would repeat a bit of the question to clarify.
I would generally expect to interpret a "yes" as the former? The "why would you say that, I do like you" seems more like a "no", though troublingly an unqualified "no" probably also implies "No, I don't [like you]." Maybe if spoken with a tone of offense an indignation...
English used to have this distinction using the words "yeah" and "yes" but the distinction in usage has disappeared.
I was going to say that I was fairly sure Latin didn't have "yes", but I was a C student scraping by on the peripheral historical content rather than the language.
Other circumlocutions that I don't think made it into any Romance languages:
"ita" ('it is so', 'indeed')
"ita vero" ('it is so, truly')
"maxime" ('entirely')
"valde" ('very much (so)')
"vere" ('truly')
There are great circumlocutions for "no". I remember Nancy Llewellyn had a whole list, including "haud quaquam" ('hardly/scarcely to any degree'), "nullo modo" and "nullo pacto" ('in no way'), and "nullactenus" ('to no extent'). Latin students are most often taught "minime" ('minimally', 'scarcely').
Without the circumlocutions I think you would simply do what so many other languages described here do, which is repeat the main verb of a question, either negated or not negated.
"ita" ('it is so', 'indeed')
"ita vero" ('it is so, truly')
"maxime" ('entirely')
"valde" ('very much (so)')
"vere" ('truly')
There are great circumlocutions for "no". I remember Nancy Llewellyn had a whole list, including "haud quaquam" ('hardly/scarcely to any degree'), "nullo modo" and "nullo pacto" ('in no way'), and "nullactenus" ('to no extent'). Latin students are most often taught "minime" ('minimally', 'scarcely').
Without the circumlocutions I think you would simply do what so many other languages described here do, which is repeat the main verb of a question, either negated or not negated.
Nec/necque are a good way to negate in Latin.
In the 11th Century, Peter Abelard wrote a famous book called “Sic et Non” - which is always translated as “Yes and No.”
Even in Classical Latin “ita” was pretty close to yes.
I think an ancient Roman would understand and possibly use sic and ita much as we use “yes”.
But it’s been a while. My Latin is rusty.
Even in Classical Latin “ita” was pretty close to yes.
I think an ancient Roman would understand and possibly use sic and ita much as we use “yes”.
But it’s been a while. My Latin is rusty.
Skepticism is usually warranted about claims that <super obscure language> has a <really unique feature> or doesn't have <really common concept>. Linguists like to publish this kind of thing because it's catchy, but many of these claims don't stand up to closer scrutiny.
A few examples:
* Daniel Everett made an entire career out of claiming various dubious things about the Piraha language, including that it has no colors other than light/dark, lacks recursion and has phonemes used in no other language on the planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language#Unusual_f...
* Guugu Yimithirr supposedly only has absolute directions (north, west, etc, instead of left, right) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guugu_Yimithirr_language
A few examples:
* Daniel Everett made an entire career out of claiming various dubious things about the Piraha language, including that it has no colors other than light/dark, lacks recursion and has phonemes used in no other language on the planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language#Unusual_f...
* Guugu Yimithirr supposedly only has absolute directions (north, west, etc, instead of left, right) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guugu_Yimithirr_language
This is a problem with press coverage much more so than linguistics. As usual when they cover things they’re not familiar with, journalists often wildly exaggerate these claims to make them sound more interesting. By contrast, from what I’ve seen of the linguistic literature, actual linguists tend to be fairly measured in their assessments of languages, and generally support their arguments with evidence. For instance, we have more than enough evidence that Guugu Yimithirr really does only have absolute directions [0]; there are of course some subtleties in how they are applied, but either way it undoubtedly has no words corresponding to relative directions. This isn’t even too rare, either — e.g. many languages of Vanuatu are exactly the same [1]. Everett is the only case I can think of where there genuinely has been the sort of wild exaggeration more often found in the press. (Though even there, I suspect his critics have been looking rather more at the predictions of Chomskyan formal syntax than at what’s actually happening. It wouldn’t be the first time.)
[0] Haviland 2008, Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions: https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25
[1] François 2005, The ins and outs of up and down: Disentangling the nine geocentric space systems of Torres and Banks languages: http://alex.francois.online.fr/data/AlexFrancois_2015_North-...
[0] Haviland 2008, Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions: https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25
[1] François 2005, The ins and outs of up and down: Disentangling the nine geocentric space systems of Torres and Banks languages: http://alex.francois.online.fr/data/AlexFrancois_2015_North-...
The second claim is much less radical than the first one. In many small communities, absolute directions (often based on local landmarks rather than abstract cardinal directions) are perfectly reasonable, but these systems have to be recalibrated when speakers migrate. Viking migrations and their interaction with speakers of Greenlandic Inuit is an interesting case outside Australia: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03740463.2017.1...
Nobody knows anything about Everett's claims, because they're so outlandish and nobody has been able to verify them.
But the absolute directions in GY are well-established, and not really all that unusual cross-linguistically. Relative directions also play a minor role in a number of other smaller languages.
But the absolute directions in GY are well-established, and not really all that unusual cross-linguistically. Relative directions also play a minor role in a number of other smaller languages.
[deleted]
https://youtu.be/x-Y2FHLGhEY
Languages without yes and no are called echo languages. English used to be four-form with yes/no and yeah/nay, but now it's two-form.
Languages without yes and no are called echo languages. English used to be four-form with yes/no and yeah/nay, but now it's two-form.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch the whole video, yeah/nay is for answering 'negative' questions (e.g. "do you not like it?")
In the video he says that "yes/no" are for negative questions and "yea/nay" are for positive questions.
This is why people who are interested should just watch the video. It's only about 4 minutes of actual content.
It is amazing that no one yet has posted about the Japanese language. Yes, "technically" there is a term for "no" (いいえ). In practice, outside of official documentation, almost no one uses it in daily life. (When you fill official docs, はい==yes, and いいえ==no.) There are so many stupid Japanese language training books that teach you about "いいえ", but you will never hear it in the Real World, except during language trailing dialogs! Most Japanese people will say "違います" (chiigamasu / "it is different") to avoid saying "no" directly.
YouTuber That Japanese Man Yuta recently posted a good video explanation/exploration of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9JdP6pA5LY
Why do you say that? What’s your experience? I’ve spent years in Japan and live with 2 native Japanese and hear はい
and いいえ all the time…
When you give a Japanese person a compliment the most comment response IME is いいえ (nooo I’m not)
And はい is said all the time
When you give a Japanese person a compliment the most comment response IME is いいえ (nooo I’m not)
And はい is said all the time
In verbal communication, you use the negative form of the verb in question instead.
In computer dialogues you see いいえ, also if im not mistaken people say いいえ when they are flattered.
In computer dialogues you see いいえ, also if im not mistaken people say いいえ when they are flattered.
The casual equivalent of いいえ, to my knowledge, is ううん.
There are a lot of languages which don't have words which map neatly onto the English 'yes' and 'no'.
Yes, such as Chinese.
But there's also no word for negation which is how Chinese gets around not having no
Bu is one of maybe thirty words in Chinese I know.
You've never been asked "yao bu yao"?
You've never been asked "yao bu yao"?
I think you misunderstood what I meant
I was saying Chinese has no word for "no" but does have a negation word "bu" instead, so it's not the same as the language featured in the article which has no negation word at all
I was saying Chinese has no word for "no" but does have a negation word "bu" instead, so it's not the same as the language featured in the article which has no negation word at all
Yes, on a more careful reading I am able to infer the subject of the sentence, which you elided.
Note that both comments replying to you misunderstood in the same way.
Note that both comments replying to you misunderstood in the same way.
Yeah I think the English phrasing that would make more sense (at least to me) would be
> But there's also a word for negation which is how Chinese gets around not having no
> But there's also a word for negation which is how Chinese gets around not having no
Sure, Chineses has a word for negation. In cantonese, it's "mh", and can be attached to nearly every verb.
No, Cantonese is a prime example of "mh" being only a prefix, not a word by itself. It doesn't even have a vowel. There is no way that you answer a question with just "mh". In Mandarin Chinese the corresponding prefix is "bu", so you can sometimes hear broken Chinese from English speakers answering a question with just "bu".
??? I'm not saying you can use it on its own as "no" -- indeed that was the whole point of this discussion. But gramatically mh is absolutely a word. Similarly you can't just say "not" on its own except if you're a cast member of Wayne's World. "Not!" But "not" is certainly a word. Also: since when did the presence of a vowel dicate wordness? Next you'll tell me that "ng" (five) isn't a word.
Because there is no spacing in Chinese so there can be some ambiguity about word boundary. The more important thing is that you and I both agree that "mh" cannot be used by itself.
In Chinese numbers are also prefixed to measure words or classifier. eg; "How many brothers do you have?" No one will answer "m" but "m'go". So, I don't believe in colloquial Chinese that a pure number is a word. You are welcome to disagree.
By the way, it is "m" for 5 in Cantonese. Unless you were talking about Shanghainese, but then is "n". "ng" is a common starting consonant in Cantonese, like "ngao" (cow) or "ngo" (I). but it doesn't have a standard meaning.
In Chinese numbers are also prefixed to measure words or classifier. eg; "How many brothers do you have?" No one will answer "m" but "m'go". So, I don't believe in colloquial Chinese that a pure number is a word. You are welcome to disagree.
By the way, it is "m" for 5 in Cantonese. Unless you were talking about Shanghainese, but then is "n". "ng" is a common starting consonant in Cantonese, like "ngao" (cow) or "ngo" (I). but it doesn't have a standard meaning.
> Because there is no spacing in Chinese so there can be some ambiguity about word boundary.
Reasonable people can disagree, but I think it's safe to say that mh would be broadly considered a word by most. And anyway, languages are generally not defined by how they are written, but by how they are spoken. Indeed many languages have no formal written form (heck, in cantonese there are major grammatical words with no written form at all.)
> By the way, it is "m" for 5 in Cantonese.
It is ngh, low rising tone. I'm sure you can verify this online.
https://www.google.com/search?q=5+in+cantonese
Reasonable people can disagree, but I think it's safe to say that mh would be broadly considered a word by most. And anyway, languages are generally not defined by how they are written, but by how they are spoken. Indeed many languages have no formal written form (heck, in cantonese there are major grammatical words with no written form at all.)
> By the way, it is "m" for 5 in Cantonese.
It is ngh, low rising tone. I'm sure you can verify this online.
https://www.google.com/search?q=5+in+cantonese
> It is ngh, low rising tone. I'm sure you can verify this online.
There is no official romanization of Cantonese. Both the negative prefix `mh` and 5 are bilabial nasal, not velar nasal. They are of different tones though. Ans also as I pointed out earlier, there are velar nasals in Cantonese. to use your own logic:
> languages are generally not defined by how they are written, but by how they are spoken
So here is my understanding: one nasal that is never used in isolation is not a word.
There is no official romanization of Cantonese. Both the negative prefix `mh` and 5 are bilabial nasal, not velar nasal. They are of different tones though. Ans also as I pointed out earlier, there are velar nasals in Cantonese. to use your own logic:
> languages are generally not defined by how they are written, but by how they are spoken
So here is my understanding: one nasal that is never used in isolation is not a word.
> There is no official romanization of Cantonese.
There is, it is called 粵拼 or Jyutping (https://www.lshk.org/jyutping). However, its use is not enforced, and the original British colonial era romanisation remains frequently used in HK.
There is also the Yale system that predates Jyutping and is still also in wide use in teaching materials and dictionaries.
Therefore, 唔 is romanised as «m4» in Jyuping and as «m̀ h» in Yale. «4» in Jyutping and the backtick over «m» indicate the low falling tone.
There is, it is called 粵拼 or Jyutping (https://www.lshk.org/jyutping). However, its use is not enforced, and the original British colonial era romanisation remains frequently used in HK.
There is also the Yale system that predates Jyutping and is still also in wide use in teaching materials and dictionaries.
Therefore, 唔 is romanised as «m4» in Jyuping and as «m̀ h» in Yale. «4» in Jyutping and the backtick over «m» indicate the low falling tone.
In fact, in cantonese to say no you would just add negation to ‘yes’.
hai/mh hai
‘Hai’ is basically used as yes but it’s actually the verb to be, so essentially yes is more like ‘{subject} is’.
hai/mh hai
‘Hai’ is basically used as yes but it’s actually the verb to be, so essentially yes is more like ‘{subject} is’.
Sure but it's not just haih. For example, if I were to ask you if you have any snakes, in english, you'd say "no". But in Cantonese you'd say "mouh" (effectively mh yauh: "don't have" or "without").
Oh okay, I think I get it now.
(It's weird to think about grammar sometimes in a language you just grow up with.)
(It's weird to think about grammar sometimes in a language you just grow up with.)
If you can negate a verb regarding action, what about a presumed statement of fact. Are there still equivalents of 'true' and 'false'?
That's how a lot of older Latin does it. For example if the question is "Did you go to the forum today?", the questionee might respond "I did not go to the forum today" (or something more concise like "I didn't go", or if they were being super informal just say the equivalent of "didn't")
the verbs "to be" and "to have" are used to make affirmative statements so you would just negate those, which is also valid English.
e.g. "Is he coming to the meeting?", instead of "Yes/No", you would basically say "They are/They are not" (Chinese also doesn't really distinguish "him/her" for third person pronouns)
e.g. "Is he coming to the meeting?", instead of "Yes/No", you would basically say "They are/They are not" (Chinese also doesn't really distinguish "him/her" for third person pronouns)
Not sure about Mandarin and other dialects, but Cantonese has no words for yes or no as well. Instead, cantonese speakers generally repeat the verb asked in a question in a positive or negative way, as in [Speaker A] Will you or will you not go to the dance? [Speaker B] Will not. Or in other circumstances they'll just use the be-verb ("haih"), or its negation ("mh-haih"); or the have-verb ("yauh") or its negation ("mouh") when appropriate.
Similar in Mandarin (`shi` and `bu shi`), but you can also just use `shi` and `bu` by themselves. Not sure if thats just colloquial or what, I'm not a native speaker.
In Cantonese you can't just say "mh" (the equivalent of "bu"). It's a negator like "not". You have to say "mh [verb]".
Yes, it's the same in Mandarin.
> When saying "I saw a bird" compared to "I will see a bird", a Kusunda speaker might indicate the past action not by tense, but by describing it as an experience directly related to the speaker. Meanwhile, the future action would remain general and not associated to any subject.
Nothing strange about this. I think Chinese is similar too. The intention of the speaker is more important than the words he/she says.
Related (and one of my fav papers in linguistics) - Interality as a Key to Deciphering Guiguzi: A Challenge to Critics https://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/3187
Nothing strange about this. I think Chinese is similar too. The intention of the speaker is more important than the words he/she says.
Related (and one of my fav papers in linguistics) - Interality as a Key to Deciphering Guiguzi: A Challenge to Critics https://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/3187
I'm learning Chinese, and it was also quite tricky to realize that it also does not have a word for yes and no. (Despite what translators will tell you, yes is not 是 (shi), no is not 不 (bu), rather 是 means 'to be' and 不 negates whatever verb comes after)
Rather, Chinese responds indicates affirmative or negative by repeating the verb of the question in either plain or negated form.
e.g.
Q: Do you like hot pot? A: like | not like Q: ni xihuan huoguo ma? A: xihuan | bu xihuan
Q: Do you have covid? A: have | not have Q: ni you mei you wuhan feiyan? A: you | meiyou
Q: Are you american? A: is | is not Q: ni shi meiguoren ma? A: shi | bu shi
etc.
This was quite strange to get used to, but makes perfect sense once internalized.
Rather, Chinese responds indicates affirmative or negative by repeating the verb of the question in either plain or negated form.
e.g.
Q: Do you like hot pot? A: like | not like Q: ni xihuan huoguo ma? A: xihuan | bu xihuan
Q: Do you have covid? A: have | not have Q: ni you mei you wuhan feiyan? A: you | meiyou
Q: Are you american? A: is | is not Q: ni shi meiguoren ma? A: shi | bu shi
etc.
This was quite strange to get used to, but makes perfect sense once internalized.
English is missing some seemingly basic answer words too, which are present in other languages. Like no single word for unambiguously answering a negative question.
E.g. Q: Aren't you finished yet?
Answering 'yes' or 'no' would be ambiguous
E.g. Q: Aren't you finished yet?
Answering 'yes' or 'no' would be ambiguous
"Aren't you finished, yet?"
"Yes."
"Is that yes, you aren't finished, or yes, you are finished?"
"No."
"Is that no, you aren't finished, or no, you are finished?"
"Why did you ask me a yes or no question if neither yes nor no answers your question?"
"Yes."
"Is that yes, you aren't finished, or yes, you are finished?"
"No."
"Is that no, you aren't finished, or no, you are finished?"
"Why did you ask me a yes or no question if neither yes nor no answers your question?"
Since the meaning of no and yes aren't good enough, what do the one word answers other countries have mean?
As long as it uses NAND they are fine
This must be yaml
Marathi, a language in the western part of India, does not have a word for thank you. Instead the word "aabhar" - roughly meaning indebted - is used. Thus, if I do something for you, then you respond with "aabhar", meaning I am indebted to you.
[deleted]
"Yes" and "No" are just shorthand forms of all sorts of longer sentences like:
"What you said is true."
"I agree with what you said."
"What you said is false."
"I will do what you said."
"I will not do what you said."
"I did that."
"I didn't do that."
"The ball is blue."
"The ball isn't blue."
"What you said is true."
"I agree with what you said."
"What you said is false."
"I will do what you said."
"I will not do what you said."
"I did that."
"I didn't do that."
"The ball is blue."
"The ball isn't blue."
[deleted]
Lisp (nothing is impossible)
[deleted]
Chinese doesn't either (technically).
好 = OK,
是 = Is,
Both are used to mean yes
不要 = Don't want,
不用 = Don't need,
Both are used to mean no
好 = OK,
是 = Is,
Both are used to mean yes
不要 = Don't want,
不用 = Don't need,
Both are used to mean no
This is not that unusual. Nepali also doesn't have a clean-cut yes/no translation.
Definitely not prolog that would be a complete failure!
see what I did there?
see what I did there?
A Great language for politicians then
So.. newspeak?
> Their language, also called Kusunda, is unique: it is believed by linguists to be unrelated to any other language in the world. Scholars still aren't sure how it originated.
Languages with no known relatives are called isolates, and there are a lot of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_isolate And languages do not normally "originate", unless they are constructed, like Esperanto, or arise in unusual circumstances, like spontaneous sign languages in isolated deaf communities.
> And it has a variety of unusual elements, including lacking any standard way of negating a sentence, words for "yes" or "no", or any words for direction.
As pointed out in other comments, not having words for "yes" or "no" is not very surprising. As for a "standard way" of negating a sentence, I wonder what that means. Kusunda has negative verbal suffixes, which vary based on some grammatical features, but so do many other languages. Location and direction is also usually specified by suffixes like in, e.g., Hungarian or Finnish.
See a grammatical overview for details: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/83v8d1wv