پستها: 76
زبان: English
sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 5 فوریهٔ 2011، 18:07:19
If your logical analysis leads you to replacing the anwer Ne with Jes, to the question Cu vi ne renkontis ŝin, then shouldn't you disallow Neniam, if you have never met her.
Obviously it is possible to rewrite questions and retain the meaning but the issue is how to respond to the different FORMS of the question and there is no logical conflict between answering NE to ĉu vi ne volas veni but Jes to ĉu estas fakto, ke vi ne volas veni.
In one case the question doesn't use Ne (in the question) and in the other it does and it is irrelevant that the questions have similar meaning.
How am I supposed to know that you when you ask a simple question with Ne, that in your head you have re-written it 'logically' as, Is it true that.. - I'm not a mind reader.
The Esperanto system is coherent in using the negative word of the question for the short affirmative reply, and in using the same negative word in the long reply.
Even a partial adoption of the reverse/oriental system would led to unaccepable confusion in a court of law, or in a business negotiation.
This is not an area of the language in which one can be tolerant of different usages. No has to mean No.
PMEG is quite wrong to suggest that there are two systems. Though, at least, Bertilow points out that the 'oriental' system is not recommended.
T0dd (نمایش مشخصات) 5 فوریهٔ 2011، 18:59:11
sudanglo:But surely you should have a view on how to answer 'Ĉu vi neniam renkontis ŝin' with regard to the answer 'neniam'.If the question is ĈU VI NE RENKONTIS ŜIN, and I haven't met her, then it's logically correct to say JES, but it's not correct to say NE. I'm not replacing NE with JES; I'm simply answering the question. If the question is ĈU VI NENIAM RENKONTIS ŜIN then it's correct to say JES. Or I may say simply NENIAM, and JES is implied. Or I may even say JES, NENIAM.
If your logical analysis leads you to replacing the anwer Ne with Jes, to the question Cu vi ne renkontis ŝin, then shouldn't you disallow Neniam, if you have never met her.
Obviously it is possible to rewrite questions and retain the meaning but the issue is how to respond to the different FORMS of the question and there is no logical conflict between answering NE to ĉu vi ne volas veni but Jes to ĉu estas fakto, ke vi ne volas veni.The point is that the different forms do not change the logical meaning. If the logical meaning of the question is unchanged, the logical answer shouldn't change either. To answer JES to one of these two questions and NE to the other is incoherent, and there's no reason to expect someone not accustomed to that bit of illogic to understand it.
In one case the question doesn't use Ne (in the question) and in the other it does and it is irrelevant that the questions have similar meaning.They don't have similar meaning. They have identical meaning. In both cases, NE is used in the question, because the question is the whole sentence, not part of it.
How am I supposed to know that you when you ask a simple question with Ne, that in your head you have re-written it 'logically' as, Is it true that.. - I'm not a mind reader.You're supposed to know what ĈU means, and how it works. ĈU is equivalent to ĈU ESTAS VERE KE (or ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO KE) every single time. You don't have to do anything but read the question as written, or spoken.
Doing it your way, the listener must guess whether you're adhering to the logic of the words or taking liberties.
The Esperanto system is coherent in using the negative word of the question for the short affirmative reply, and in using the same negative word in the long reply.If what you're calling "The Esperanto System" is just the dominant usage that you favor, then no, it's not logically coherent.
This is not an area of the language in which one can be tolerant of different usages. No has to mean No.If only one usage is to be accepted, then it makes sense to prefer the logical one, rather than the illogical one that has dominated.
Genjix (نمایش مشخصات) 5 فوریهٔ 2011، 21:06:59
T0dd (نمایش مشخصات) 5 فوریهٔ 2011، 21:38:38
Genjix:I answer these in English using correct/incorrectThat's a good solution, since the usual approach in English is, as we've seen, illogical. The same could be done in Esperanto, using PRAVE (referring to the other person) or GXUSTE (referring to what the other person said).
(X-system used because posting from BlackBerry)
ceigered (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 9:21:16
"Prave" seems like a good solution indeed (or the more emotionless "ĝuste" for when it's appropriate)
sudanglo (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 12:12:51
horsto (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 13:21:50
sudanglo:I am supposed to know what Ĉu means. You too, kara amiko. And Ĉu doesn't mean rewrite the question, to turn it from a negative question to a positive one.I think T0dd is totally right here, and his explanations are really good.
Everyone knows that this system is ill, it cannot be that you have to give the same answer (ne) to the questions:
Ĉu vi venos morgaŭ?
and
Ĉu vi ne venos morgaŭ?
if you want to say that you will not come.
We also have this (ill) system in the german language, but I often refuse to give the expected answer and answer jes instead. That really confuses the people.
T0dd (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 13:57:07
sudanglo:I am supposed to know what Ĉu means. You too, kara amiko. And Ĉu doesn't mean rewrite the question, to turn it from a negative question to a positive one.Exactly! This is why I haven't changed any negative questions to positive ones, in this discussion.
In English, ĈU (used to make questions) means "Is it the case that"; nothing more and nothing less.
So the logical principle is very simple. For any proposition, P, whether it's positive or negative, it works the same.
ĈU P? means "Is it the case that P?
If P is true, then the truthful answer is "yes"; if P is false, then the truthful answer is "no".
So if P is VI NE VENOS, then the question would be ĈU VI NE VENOS?
In English, "Is it the case that you're not coming?"
If the fact of the matter is that you're not coming, then in either language, the proposition, P, from which the question is formed, is true. Thus, the truthful answer, in either language, is "yes".
The fact that you're not coming logically ought to make a difference to the answer of these two questions:
ĈU VI VENOS?
ĈU VI NE VENOS?
That is, if you're not coming, the answer to the first should be NE; the answer to the second should be JES. Logically, no one would expect the answers to be the same.
In terms of universality, logic trumps tradition. This means that speakers of English and other languages ("western" or not) that have illogical traditions should probably bear the burden of overcoming linguistic habits, in the interest of clarity and universality.
erinja (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 16:07:43
"Neniam" is not in itself a 'negative' response; it could constitute a negative or a positive response.
Ĉu vi neniam vidis lin? = it's true that I never saw him. True = positive. "Jes, mi neniam vidis lin.
Ĉu vi iam vidis lin? = It's false that I saw him some. My answer would be "Ne, mi neniam vidis lin".
To answer "neniam" is not the same as answering "ne". The part about "neniam" only explains your "yes" or "no" answer with more context.
feliz123 (نمایش مشخصات) 6 فوریهٔ 2011، 20:50:15
I mean, to be understood right now, I believe sudanglo in that probably most Esperanto speakers would answer "Cxu vi venos morgaux?" and "Cxu vi ne venos morgaux?" equally.
[henceforth I shall name "logical" the way of answering that T0dd supports]
In the long term, i.e., in order to have an as-perfect-as-possible language, perhaps a logical way should be recommended. However, supposing this way is really more logic-based*, is there any evidence that the human mind is more logical in this specific way? In my own language, I sometimes pay attention to a possible misinterpretation, and it seems I am not alone. But in languages where the answers are logical (if any), do the native speakers see the answers as perfectly natural or do they hesitate? Are there discussions of this kind in those languages? If so, I would infer that there is no point in trying to be "logical".
* Intuitively, I agree with that. However, I find this objectionable since a question is different from a statement. One might argue that before saying "ne" one must always analyse two cases (did my interlocutor say an affirmative sentence or a question?) and follow a rule according to the case.
PS.: I am almost sure that in lojban the logical way is used. I promise to rectify this soon if I am wrong. Anyway, T0dd, you do not need to theorize about the existence of a highly logical language. There does exist one.