felix123, I think the main point of having this debate is the question of whether the logical usage (Todd's logical usage, not sudanglo's idea) should be "permitted" in Esperanto.

As Esperanto stands today, you can technically answer in either the logical (Todd) or the illogical (sudanglo) way. Esperanto doesn't require you to choose one or the other. As I understand it, and sudanglo, forgive me if I misrepresent your views, sudanglo believes that speakers of languages that use the logical usage should modify their usage to the illogical (European-style) usage, since Esperanto is at its core a European language.

Todd's view, hopefully I am representing it correctly, is that it would be silly to disallow a usage that is perfectly logical, since Esperanto word usage is meant to be based on logic. Todd thinks that people should be able to use whichever manner of answering that they prefer, and that as necessary, they should add words to their answer to make the meaning clear (that is, instead of a simple "yes", a "Yes, we have no bananas"). Todd is not trying to stop anyone from using the European usage (the illogical one). But he wants to underscore that the European usage is NOT logical, and therefore that other logical variants should also be accepted in Esperanto.

In my opinion this is a well-founded view in Esperanto. In cases of Esperanto grammar where logic says one thing and tradition says another, generally the logical usage is never considered incorrect, even if it is not commonly seen.

This discussion isn't about "fixing" Esperanto to make it more logical, because what we're talking about isn't a problem in Esperanto. It's a problem in Esperanto usage--if it's a problem at all. Whether it's a problem is part of what's under discussion.

I know about lojban and had lengthy and enjoyable conversations about it with Bob LeChevalier back in the day. I'm not interested in making Esperanto more like lojban. The situation is that we have a way of answering negative questions that, while illogical, is predominant in many languages, including Esperanto. We don't seem to have a "ruling" on this usage issue in the Fundamento, so it's a question of whether to promote (in learning materials, etc) the logical usage, the illogical but dominant usage, or just make people aware of the issue, so they make the extra effort to make their meaning clear.

Personally, I think the latter is the only feasible way. But if one way must be promoted, I'd go with logic, for its universality.

Wouldn't something like lojban have the "yes" / "no" split up anyway into something like "yes (confirming statement)", "no (denying statement), "yes (confirming intention as positive)", "no (confirming intention as negative"?

I never can find a self-explanatory way to learn lojban, thanks to the insistence of using specialised english words or even just lojbanistani words. Instruction of lojban suffers from the chicken and egg argument - how do you teach people a logical language if you rely on them being logical thinkers in the first place?

ceigered:Wouldn't something like lojban have the "yes" / "no" split up anyway into something like "yes (confirming statement)", "no (denying statement), "yes (confirming intention as positive)", "no (confirming intention as negative"?

I asked around in the #lojban IRC channel at Freenode about this. If I understand correctly, there is a specific vocabulary item (called a "cmavo"), which in answer to a yes/no question "repeats the claim", thus giving the logical "eastern" answer of yes:

Chat log:well if you asked "will she not come tonight?" {xu lo ninmu ku na klama} then a response of {go'i} would mean she is not coming.

go'i = pro-bridi: preceding bridi; in answer to a yes/no question, repeats the claim, meaning yes.

Some more info on that here.

There are a number of dubious assumptions being made in this discussion. Perhaps it is worth making them explicit.

1. That Esperanto is a logical language and more logical form of expression should oust previous usage.

I am as guilty as the next man of having said at some time that Esperanto is a logika kaj facila lingo. But neither discription strictly applies. Esperanto is only easy at the beginning stage and what decides whether something is good Esperanto is clarity and ease of apprehension - not formal logic.

2. That some Oriental languages reverse the use of their equivalents of Jes and Ne in answer to negative questions.

Clearly this can't be the case for ALL questions. Suppose their words are SEJA ('logical' Jes) and ENA ('logical' Ne), then if the usage is consistently reversed in comparison to English and Esperanto then the bilingual dictionaries should translate SEJA as NO/NE and ENA as Yes/Jes. In other words, their system would be the same as ours.

But the isue here is how to respond to negative questions.

3. That it is more logical to respond to a factual negative question with the idea of Vi diris ion ĝustan or vi pravas rather than a statement about what is true in the real world.

Let's take an example. Ĉu ne pluvis en Francujo lastatempe?. In Esperanto (assuming it hadn't been raining) the short reply is Ne, the longer reply Ne pluvis (dum la lasta semajno).

The 'logicians' want to argue that Ĉu ne pluvis really is the positive question Ĉu estas vere, ke ne pluvis and therefore an answer of the form Jes, ne pluvis is the right one (with the short answer being Jes)

Very logical! Having a problem making your mind up? Is it Jes or Ne.

Which is clearer - that the short answer and the long answer are congruent or that you should change from Ne to Jes?

What does Ne pluvis mean. It means No rain. In logical terms NOT(it rained) No dispute about that.

I'm going now to make a bold assertion. If some oriental languages have words which are CORRECTLY translated by the dictionary as JES and NE (so that using their Ne word, Ne pluvis in their language means the same as Ne pluvis in Esperanto) then the reason why they might say Jes in a short answer but Ne in a long answer is nothing to do with logic but is a CULTURAL issue.

For them, therefore, faced with a negative factual question the prime consideration is to express the idea that the speaker pravis in the implied asumption in his question.

sudanglo:There are a number of dubious assumptions being made in this discussion. Perhaps it is worth making them explicit.

1. That Esperanto is a logical language and more logical form of expression should oust previous usage.

That would be two assumptions, not one. I don't know exactly what you might mean by "logical language." If you mean a language, such as lojban, that is based on predicate logic, then I don't think anyone in the discussion is assuming that Esperanto is a logical language.

As for whether logical usage should supplant dominant, but not universal, usage, that's one of the points under discussion, not an assumption.

2. That some Oriental languages reverse the use of their equivalents of Jes and Ne in answer to negative questions.

Is this an assumption or an observation?

Clearly this can't be the case for ALL questions. Suppose their words are SEJA ('logical' Jes) and ENA ('logical' Ne), then if the usage is consistently reversed in comparison to English and Esperanto then the bilingual dictionaries should translate SEJA as NO/NE and ENA as Yes/Jes. In other words, their system would be the same as ours.

Your analysis presupposes that using JES and NE logically involves some change in meaning. It doesn't.

3. That it is more logical to respond to a factual negative question with the idea of Vi diris ion ĝustan or vi pravas rather than a statement about what is true in the real world.

Nobody has said that it's "more logical" to respond that way, but it may be clearer, and it's not in any way illogical.

Let's take an example. Ĉu ne pluvis en Francujo lastatempe?. In Esperanto (assuming it hadn't been raining) the short reply is Ne, the longer reply Ne pluvis (dum la lasta semajno).

The 'logicians' want to argue that Ĉu ne pluvis really is the positive question Ĉu estas vere, ke ne pluvis and therefore an answer of the form Jes, ne pluvis is the right one (with the short answer being Jes)

Very logical! Having a problem making your mind up? Is it Jes or Ne.

ĈU ESTAS VERE KE NE PLUVIS is not a positive question. It is the very same negative question as ĈU NE PLUVIS? There is no semantic or logical difference.

Which is clearer - that the short answer and the long answer are congruent or that you should change from Ne to Jes?

That depends on what you're used to. You're repeating the erroneous claim that NE is being "changed". Nothing of the sort is happening. If it didn't rain, the truthful answer to ĈU NE PLUVIS is JES, or more fully, JES, NE PLUVIS. Nothing is "changed". JES indicates assent to the proposition embedded in the question, which is NE PLUVIS, just as it does in the positive question ĈU PLUVIS? JES always indicates assent.

...to be continued

Do we ever say Yes in reply to negative questions/statements in English. I think we do. IF they are not strictly factual (about the world) - more rhetorical, or a question of principle, or seeking agreement.

Thou shalt not kill. Yes, as a general moral principle I would agree, but .. (negative reply No, you shouldn't)

But - Isn't that painful (factual question) No, it doesn't hurt at all.

We don't want to upset her. Yes you're right (negative answer, No, we don't).

I take it that we are not going to vote for this proposal then? Yes, we are all agreed (negative reply, No, we are not going to vote for it).

sudanglo:
What does Ne pluvis mean. It means No rain. In logical terms NOT(it rained) No dispute about that.

NE PLUVIS doesn't mean "No rain", strictly speaking, because NE PLUVIS is a sentence and "No rain" is merely a noun phrase. To say "No rain" in Esperanto you'd use NENIOM DA PLUVO. More technically, the "no" in "no rain" functions as a quantifier, operating on noun expressions, and "not" functions as a logical operator, operating on propositions. It just happens that Esperanto uses the same word for both. It doesn't advance the cause of clarity to conflate the two.

I'm going now to make a bold assertion. If some oriental languages have words which are CORRECTLY translated by the dictionary as JES and NE (so that using their Ne word, Ne pluvis in their language means the same as Ne pluvis in Esperanto) then the reason why they might say Jes in a short answer but Ne in a long answer is nothing to do with logic but is a CULTURAL issue.

That may be true, but since the culture and logic are congruent in this case, it's impossible to know. In the case of the usual practice in English, however, we can be certain that it's cultural tradition and nothing more, since the practice defies logic.

To make the point as clear as possible, if we assume that in the real world it didn't rain, then the tendency of English speakers would be to answer both of the following questions with NE.

ĈU PLUVIS?
ĈU NE PLUVIS?

That is, even though the two questions involve propositions that are logically contradictory to each other, anglophones (and no doubt many others) would give them the same answer. That's the tradition, and it seems clear enough to those of us who have grown up with it. There is no way, however, that it can be described as logical. It's merely idiomatic.

I am under no illusion that it's possible to flip a switch and suddenly have all Esperanto speakers adopting the more logical usage. It is possible, however, to teach them to see how dominant "western" usage and logic part company, so they can recognize the risk of misunderstanding and do something about it.

ceigered:lojbanistani

Love your word, ceigered!

As Esperanto stands today, you can technically answer in either the logical (Todd) or the illogical (sudanglo) way. Esperanto doesn't require you to choose one or the other. As I understand it, and sudanglo, forgive me if I misrepresent your views, sudanglo believes that speakers of languages that use the logical usage should modify their usage to the illogical (European-style) usage, since Esperanto is at its core a European language.

Erinja, I can't let this pass, the more so because this is a site for learning the language.

I do think that Esperanto is a European language (with good reason), but that would not be my reason for rejecting the idea that you can answer anyway you want.

The overwhelming reason is that there is well established system in Esperanto, as any database reasearch of the literature will show, and you cannot overturn 100 years of history.

And of course I reject the idea that Todd is putting forward, that by rewriting questions in a form which retains the meaning but not the FORM justifies anything. When it comes to languages form is all important.

So often in this forum we argue against beginners who want to change the language (before having learnt it properly) and when you do this I'm in total agreement.

And among those who have learnt the language there are the Rauxmistoj and the Finvenkistoj. The Finvenkista camp are wedded to the idea that Esperanto must be fit for purpose for serious uses, and I think this is a good position to take even if you think that the Fina Venko will never come. So, for example, there should be certainty in its use in contracts and a court of law.

I certainly feel, personally, that the trouble with Rauxmismo is that it provides no framework for resisting arbitrary change.