Meddelanden: 76
Språk: English
erinja (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 14:58:50
Esperanto is meant to be a logical language, though some aspects of grammar are not carried out in an entirely logical way.
For example, we normally use logic determine whether a given preposition is suitable for a certain case. Other languages do it by tradition; we knock on a door, and not against a door, simply because "knock on a door" is the way it's said in English. We do it even though "knock against a door" is equally logical, if not more logical. In Esperanto, we may knock on a door, against a door, to a door, etc. Any preposition that you can logically argue in favor of, you can use it.
In this spirit, with regard to negative sentences, we have two systems that are in use; "Yes, I won't go" and "No, I won't go". It seems clear to me that "Yes, I won't go" is the logical answer to the Esperanto question "Will you not go?". Even though the answer "No, I won't go" is certainly more common, I think it would be wrong to say that "Yes, I won't go" is incorrect. It is, after all, even more logical than the other usage. Since both systems have historically been in use, I see no good reason to prohibit anyone from using the logical version (Yes, I won't go), even though it is less commonly found than the less logical version (No, I won't go).
For example, we normally use logic determine whether a given preposition is suitable for a certain case. Other languages do it by tradition; we knock on a door, and not against a door, simply because "knock on a door" is the way it's said in English. We do it even though "knock against a door" is equally logical, if not more logical. In Esperanto, we may knock on a door, against a door, to a door, etc. Any preposition that you can logically argue in favor of, you can use it.
In this spirit, with regard to negative sentences, we have two systems that are in use; "Yes, I won't go" and "No, I won't go". It seems clear to me that "Yes, I won't go" is the logical answer to the Esperanto question "Will you not go?". Even though the answer "No, I won't go" is certainly more common, I think it would be wrong to say that "Yes, I won't go" is incorrect. It is, after all, even more logical than the other usage. Since both systems have historically been in use, I see no good reason to prohibit anyone from using the logical version (Yes, I won't go), even though it is less commonly found than the less logical version (No, I won't go).
sudanglo (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 17:00:47
I really fail to see how Yes, I won't go is a more logical answer. If the long answer is Mi NE venos then it is surely more logical that the short answer is NE.
And Todd the debate is about how to reply to questions that contain NE. 'Ĉu estas fakto ke' does NOT contain NE.
Any NE in the subsequent subclause (which merely defines the fact) is not relevant.
Can anyone find me any quote from a published book in which the so called oriental system is used? Is it in any of the five translations of Maigret books, in the translation of Alice in Wonderland, the Hound of the Baskervilles, Metropoliteno, La Biblio, or La Fundamenta Krestomatio.
The idea that both the oriental and occidental systems are in fact in common use I find totally implausible.
And Todd the debate is about how to reply to questions that contain NE. 'Ĉu estas fakto ke' does NOT contain NE.
Any NE in the subsequent subclause (which merely defines the fact) is not relevant.
Can anyone find me any quote from a published book in which the so called oriental system is used? Is it in any of the five translations of Maigret books, in the translation of Alice in Wonderland, the Hound of the Baskervilles, Metropoliteno, La Biblio, or La Fundamenta Krestomatio.
The idea that both the oriental and occidental systems are in fact in common use I find totally implausible.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 18:15:41
sudanglo:I really fail to see how Yes, I won't go is a more logical answer. If the long answer is Mi NE venos then it is surely more logical that the short answer is NE.ĈU ESTAS FAKTO KE is not a question, or even a sentence, any more than ĈU, which also contains no negation, is a sentence. Again, ĈU and ĈU ESTAS FAKTO KE are logically equivalent, in that they act as operators, turning the proposition that follows them into a question. Whether the question is positive or negative depends upon that proposition, not the operator. They are just two different ways of forming the same question.
And Todd the debate is about how to reply to questions that contain NE. 'Ĉu estas fakto ke' does NOT contain NE.
Any NE in the subsequent subclause (which merely defines the fact) is not relevant.
darkweasel (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 18:31:19
Indeed the "Eastern" system of answering negative questions is theoretically more logical.
However, it is impossible to clarify language using logic. Language is generally not logical. No language is.
However, it is impossible to clarify language using logic. Language is generally not logical. No language is.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 19:11:19
darkweasel:Indeed the "Eastern" system of answering negative questions is theoretically more logical.It is indeed.
However, it is impossible to clarify language using logic. Language is generally not logical. No language is.You can use logic to clarify language, to some extent, by showing the logical structure of sentences. But I agree that it's inevitable that actual spoken languages will contain elements that aren't logical. In fact, I suspect that attempting to make a language logically impeccable would result in something pretty much unlearnable and unusable.
That said, it's an open question whether an effort should be made to discourage specific illogical usages. In some cases, there's nothing to be done because the illogical bit is in the Fundamento, which isn't open to revision (nor should it be). My sense of common usage is the same as sudanglo's, but then again I haven't had that much experience with non-Western Esperantists. I'm not convinced, however, that common usage should always go unchallenged.
erinja (Visa profilen) 2 februari 2011 19:30:38
sudanglo:I really fail to see how Yes, I won't go is a more logical answer. If the long answer is Mi NE venos then it is surely more logical that the short answer is NE.A ĉu question is asking Is it true that...
We form yes or no questions by making a statement of fact and adding ĉu.
You will come. [statement of fact]
Is it true that you will come? [Is it true that..., indicating yes or no, plus the original statement of fact]
- Yes. [the statement of fact, b]You will come[/b] is true]
- No. [the statement of fact, b]You will come[/b] is false]
It makes perfect sense to extend that to negative questions as well. It sounds strange to us because we aren't used to it in English but there's no good reason why a negative question should be treated differently than a positive question.
- You will not come. [statement of fact]
- Is it true that you will not come? [yes or no question marker, plus statement of fact]
- Yes. [the statement of fact is true - you will not come]
- No. [the statement of fact is false - you WILL come]
Plus, if you think about it, this whole thing with negative questions having a special format of answer in Western languages is only true when the verb is negated. If the question is phrased slightly differently, with a word other than the verb in negative form, we follow the logical (Eastern?) method of answering.
For example, Do you want that without nuts?[Is it true that you want it without nuts?]
Yes, I want it without nuts.
or
No, I want it with nuts;
The without part of the question makes it moderately negative; but it would sound strange to answer No, I want it without nuts.
Contrast that with the very similar question:
Do you not want that with nuts?
[Western]
- No, I do not want it with nuts.
[not congruent to: Yes, I want it without nuts]
- Yes, I do want it with nuts.
[not congruent to: No, I want it with nuts]
[Eastern]
- Yes, I do not want it with nuts. [congruent to: Yes, I want it without nuts]
- No, I want it with nuts.
[congruent to: No, I want it with nuts]
sudanglo (Visa profilen) 3 februari 2011 12:30:42
Apart from that fact that you will find very little usage of the 'oriental' system for short replies to negative questions in the literature, you can't, if you are serious about Esperanto, condone the circulation of two systems.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue in a court of law, or when a policemen is interrogating a suspect, or in a job interview, or when a pilot is communicating with the ground.
Todd can you really be suggesting that the answer to Ĉu tio estas fakto (positive question) and Ĉu tio estas fakto, ke vi ne venos should be different.
What matters here is not any negative idea in the question but whether a negative word is used.
Ĉu vi neniam renkontis ŝin? Neniam, mi laboras en alia fako.
Ĉu vi nenion scias pri tio? Bedaŭrinde, nenion.
Ĉu vi ne volas kafon? Ne, dankon, mi malŝatas kafon.
Erinja whilst the function of Ĉu may be to ask is it true that. The form of the question makes all the difference.
If I ask Ĉu estas vere, ke .... the answer is Jes or Ne for true or false respectively, irrespective of what follows the 'ke'. If I ask a negative question Ĉu vi ne X-as, the answer is Ne for true.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue in a court of law, or when a policemen is interrogating a suspect, or in a job interview, or when a pilot is communicating with the ground.
Todd can you really be suggesting that the answer to Ĉu tio estas fakto (positive question) and Ĉu tio estas fakto, ke vi ne venos should be different.
What matters here is not any negative idea in the question but whether a negative word is used.
Ĉu vi neniam renkontis ŝin? Neniam, mi laboras en alia fako.
Ĉu vi nenion scias pri tio? Bedaŭrinde, nenion.
Ĉu vi ne volas kafon? Ne, dankon, mi malŝatas kafon.
Erinja whilst the function of Ĉu may be to ask is it true that. The form of the question makes all the difference.
If I ask Ĉu estas vere, ke .... the answer is Jes or Ne for true or false respectively, irrespective of what follows the 'ke'. If I ask a negative question Ĉu vi ne X-as, the answer is Ne for true.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 3 februari 2011 14:19:33
sudanglo:Apart from that fact that you will find very little usage of the 'oriental' system for short replies to negative questions in the literature, you can't, if you are serious about Esperanto, condone the circulation of two systems.But if two systems are in use, which should be preferred, the merely dominant one, or the logical one?
Todd can you really be suggesting that the answer to Ĉu tio estas fakto (positive question) and Ĉu tio estas fakto, ke vi ne venos should be different.They are two different questions, as you've written them. ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO without a further clause leaves the referent of TIO unspecified. If you specify it as the same proposition, you might have:
VI NE VENOS. ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO? That is indeed the same question as ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO, KE VI NE VENOS? If the fact is that you're not coming, then the correct answer to both is JES. Both of those questions are logically equivalent to ĈU VI NE VENOS?, so the logical answer to that one is JES as well.
ĈU + P
ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO KE + P
ĈU ESTAS VERE KE + P
These are all logically equivalent, if the same proposition is substituted for P in each case. If that proposition is negative, as in VI NE VENOS, then they are all negative and all are logically equivalent ways of asking one and the same question. Logically, they therefore should have the same answer. If you answer NE to the first and JES to the other two, you have contradicted yourself.
Really, the logic is very clear. There's no question that the eastern system, so-called, is more logical than the western system. There's also no doubt that the western system is more entrenched, due to the western roots of Esperanto.
What's not clear is whether it's too late to do anything about it, or even whether it's worth trying. It's not possible to purge Esperanto of all logical glitches. Perhaps the best course is to point out the glitch and its probable origin, and move on.
sudanglo (Visa profilen) 4 februari 2011 23:03:14
But Todd, apply your argument and you get the result that the answer the question Ĉu vi neniun vidis' should not be 'Absolute neniun'.
But since the long answer to the question is 'Mi vidis neniun' it is perfectly natural (logical) that the short answer should be 'Neniun'.
The long answer (regardles of the subclause) to 'Ĉu estas vere ke ..' is 'Estas vere ke..' or 'Ne estas vere ke .. corresponding to short answers Jes and Ne respectively. Jes doesn't change the truth of an assertion. Mi jes X-as = Mi X-as.
How would you answer 'Ĉu li estas tiu, kiu ne ŝlosis la pordon?', under your 'logical interpretation. Are you going to allow the occurrence of 'ne' in the relative subclause to change your answer.
I suspect that the Japanese (in their own language) reverse the usage of their dictionary equivalents to Esperanto's Jes and Ne in their replies to some questions, is more to do with a cultural value which produces focus on the person speaking to them rather than the external reality.
Isn't their language one in which you have to use different forms depending on whether you are speaking to someone of the opposite sex, a superior, someone younger etc.?
So in Japanese culture perhaps it is better to answer the question 'Ĉu vi ne komprenas' with the idea of 'Vi pravas' rather than referring to themselves. To know what's going on, we would have to ask a Japanese speaker.
Already in another thread I have seen a Japanese poster say that it is ony in answer to SOME Yes/No questions that they reverse.
If it was a question of pure logic and them being more logical than us, then they would have to answer ALL the yes/No questions in the reversed manner, not just SOME.
But since the long answer to the question is 'Mi vidis neniun' it is perfectly natural (logical) that the short answer should be 'Neniun'.
The long answer (regardles of the subclause) to 'Ĉu estas vere ke ..' is 'Estas vere ke..' or 'Ne estas vere ke .. corresponding to short answers Jes and Ne respectively. Jes doesn't change the truth of an assertion. Mi jes X-as = Mi X-as.
How would you answer 'Ĉu li estas tiu, kiu ne ŝlosis la pordon?', under your 'logical interpretation. Are you going to allow the occurrence of 'ne' in the relative subclause to change your answer.
I suspect that the Japanese (in their own language) reverse the usage of their dictionary equivalents to Esperanto's Jes and Ne in their replies to some questions, is more to do with a cultural value which produces focus on the person speaking to them rather than the external reality.
Isn't their language one in which you have to use different forms depending on whether you are speaking to someone of the opposite sex, a superior, someone younger etc.?
So in Japanese culture perhaps it is better to answer the question 'Ĉu vi ne komprenas' with the idea of 'Vi pravas' rather than referring to themselves. To know what's going on, we would have to ask a Japanese speaker.
Already in another thread I have seen a Japanese poster say that it is ony in answer to SOME Yes/No questions that they reverse.
If it was a question of pure logic and them being more logical than us, then they would have to answer ALL the yes/No questions in the reversed manner, not just SOME.
T0dd (Visa profilen) 5 februari 2011 14:30:02
sudanglo:But Todd, apply your argument and you get the result that the answer the question Ĉu vi neniun vidis' should not be 'Absolute neniun'.My position has nothing at all to say about how you would answer a yes/no question when you choose not to use "yes" or "no".
But since the long answer to the question is 'Mi vidis neniun' it is perfectly natural (logical) that the short answer should be 'Neniun'.
ĈU VI NENIUN VIDIS? has the same meaning as ĈU ESTAS VERE KE VI NENIUN VIDIS, as has already been pointed out. If in fact I saw nobody, then the logically correct answer is JES, MI NENIUN VIDIS, which amounts to the more pedantic JES, ESTAS VERE KE MI NENIUN VIDIS. Or I could simply say JES, NENIUN, or just JES, or just NENIUN. All of those answers are logically correct.
The long answer (regardles of the subclause) to 'Ĉu estas vere ke ..' is 'Estas vere ke..' or 'Ne estas vere ke .. corresponding to short answers Jes and Ne respectively. Jes doesn't change the truth of an assertion. Mi jes X-as = Mi X-as.That's correct, and is exactly consistent with the analysis I just gave.
How would you answer 'Ĉu li estas tiu, kiu ne ŝlosis la pordon?', under your 'logical interpretation. Are you going to allow the occurrence of 'ne' in the relative subclause to change your answer.If I'm the one who didn't lock the door, then of course it's true that I'm the one who didn't lock the door, so my truthful answer should be JES, MI ESTAS TIU.
If it was a question of pure logic and them being more logical than us, then they would have to answer ALL the yes/No questions in the reversed manner, not just SOME.Well, I don't know anything about Japanese, and although I'm following the casual usage of these terms "eastern" and "western", I'm not making a case for "Japanese usage." I do know something about logic, however, and the logic of these sorts of questions is not in doubt, as far as I'm concerned. The so-called "western" way of answering the negative questions, however well entrenched by tradition, is simply illogical. That it seems "natural" to us doesn't change that. There are many other instances of established usage that don't make logical sense.
Dominant usage favors illogic in this case. Maybe that's reason enough to rule in favor of it. That's fine with me, as long as we don't try to pretend that it's logical after all. And since there will always be people who will successfully read the logic of the questions, it will be a good idea to avoid simple yes/no answers to negative questions.