sudanglo: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.

It's not really about overturning history. Both systems are found in Esperanto literature, although certainly the 'western' (illogical) system is more common. No one here, not me, not Todd, is not talking about forcing anyone to answer in the logical way, over the illogical European way.

HOWEVER, both systems can be used in Esperanto. It isn't about changing the language. Esperanto grammar permits both systems, therefore it would be incorrect to tell someone that the logical system is grammatically wrong. It isn't.

And before anyone trots out PMEG to say "Look, PMEG says that we have to do it the illogical way", PMEG doesn't say that at all. You can agree or disagree with PMEG, but PMEG definitely doesn't say that the logical way is wrong, or that you should be discouraged from using it.

Part of teaching is to teach the language as it is. As it really is, not as you would wish it to be. Sometimes there is a minority view, a grammatical usage that is technically correct but that you personally don't like very much. As someone involved in Esperanto teaching, I think it's important to teach beginners both the minority and majority views on a given issue. They are smart enough to decide for themselves which view to take. And whatever view they take, it's important for them to realize that there are others who take the opposite view, so that when they see variants in usage (variants which are all correct), they will still understand. This is especially important because we are all trying to understand one another, so if there is a form that is potentially ambiguous, it's best to add some additional information to ensure clarity in comprehension.

I'm going to make another post in a few minutes, of what PMEG says on this topic, in English translation for the benefit of those who can't read Esperanto fluently.

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

There shouldn't be (a framework, at least not a strong one). Arbitrary change is what keeps EO from being outevolved by humanity. Due to the preexisting mentality that the EO speaker has that changing the language is a bad idea, a balance is kept.

As far as this entire, almost becoming redundant (I say that because it does feel like the last 3 pages are identical copies of each other with the comments shuffled around) thread goes, the problem is also a balance issue. It's easily solved with either adding context, or adding things like "prave"/"neprave"/"malprave" ko-to-po.

There is otherwise no way of solving this issue, since the language is not built with a rigid yes/no system. Jes and Ne have been left purposely ambiguous, or have evolved so, in order to meet the variety of uses various languages use. Their true usefulness and not just being abused for flowery-speech's sake only appears when being asked a straightforward question, e.g. ĉu vi iris al la diskotekon? (dunno if that's an EO word), or "ĉu vi volas iri kun mi al la stacidomo por aĉeti hungara frazarlibro"?.

The problem only becomes apparent when someone sticks a "ne" in, where they are clearly asking for extra information, just not confirmation.

So basically, case solved. Jes and Ne are not suitable to deal with "ne" questions alone and need some sort of context e.g. "vi pravas" or repeating the question in statement form.



@ Tommjames: cheers for that info, you're a very resourceful fellow! So they basically just have "correct" and "incorrect" put into interjection form and codified as such it seems.

@ Erinja: I honestly thought that was the correct name for it! (Lojbanese? Lojbani? Lojbanic? That word just doesn't like turning into an adjective! )

The original Esperanto text can be found on this page in the PMEG

Yes and No in negative questions

When answering positive questions, the use of the response words yes and no is fairly simple. But negative questions, questions with a negating word, are also used. The use of yes and no in answering these questions is unfortunately less clear.

There are two ways of using response words in negative questions. One system is more common in Western languages, the other is more common in Eastern language. Therefore we can speak of Western and Eastern use, although in fact, in many countries and languages, both systems are used in parallel. Also in Esperanto, both systems are at home. Zamenhof most often used yes and no according to the Western system, but he also used the Eastern system on multiple occasions.

Western System

In the Western system, yes represents a positive response phrase and ne represents a negative response phrase. A negative response phrase is a sentence with a negating word (ne or a NENI word) in the main clause. In the Western system, the meaning of the response word is independent of the form of the question. If the question is negative, you respond with the same answer that you would use if the question were without a negating word. The form of the response phrase, which the responding word represents, is the only important thing.

* Do you want coffee? (positive)
— Yes! (= I want coffee.)
— No! (= I don't want coffee.)

* Do you not want coffee? (negative)
— Yes! (= I want coffee.)
— No! (= I don't want coffee.)

* Do you want nothing?
— Yes! (= I do want something.)
— Ne! (= I want nothing.)

* You want that, right [esp: ĉu ne]?
— Yes, in fact I want that.
— No, in fact I don't want that.

* Ĉu ili ne mortas [..]? Ho jes, [..] ili ankaŭ devas morti.[FA1.58]
[-Don't they die ..]? Oh yes, [..] they also must die.]

* Sed ĉu mi ankaŭ ne povus vidi la florojn? — Ho jes! [..] nur ne forgesu, kiam vi denove estos tie, rigardi tra la fenestro, tiam vi certe ilin vidos.[FA1.19] Jes = You could also see them!
[But wouldn't I also be able to see the flowers? - Oh yes! ..] just don't forget, that when you're there again, to look through the window, then you'll certainly see them.

* Ĉu vi ne faros ian rimarkigon pri la aferoj de la poŝta administrado? — Ne, nenion.[Rz.60]
Won't you make some kind of notification about the business of the postal administration? - No, nothing.

* Ĉu vi konas la enhavon de la dramo? Ĉu ne estas en ĝi io malagrabla? — Ne, ne; ili nur ŝercas, ili iom venenas ŝerce; nenio malagrabla.[H.89]
Do you know the contents of the drama? Isn't there something disagreeable in it? - No, no; they are just joking, they are a bit poisonous in joking; nothing disagreeable.

To answer (with the western system) yes to a negative question, you can also use the emphatic response Jes ja! = Yes, it is that way (or similar):

* Ĉu vi ne volas trinki la malvarman kafon? — Jes ja! (= Yes, I do want to drink it.)

Some use tamen instead of jes ja.

Eastern System

In the Eastern system, yes confirms the exact contents of the question, but does not negate the entire interrogative phrase. In that system, yes and no exchange roles in negative questions:

* Do you want coffee? (positive)
— Yes! (= I want coffee.)
— No! (= I don't want coffee.)

* Do you not want coffee? (negative)
— Yes! (= I don't want coffee.)
— No! (= I do want coffee.)

* Do you want nothing?
— Yes, I want nothing
— No, I do want something.

* You want that, right [esp: ĉu ne]?
— Yes, I do not want that.
— No, I do want that.

* Ĉu ŝi ne edziniĝis? [..] — Jes, iele tiel fariĝis, ke [..] ŝi ne edziniĝis.[M.102]
Didn't she get married? [..] - Yes, somehow it happened that [..] she didn't get married.

* Kun maldolĉa sento de neplenumita espero vi eble demandos: ĉu en sia lasta kongresa parolo [..] li nenion pli havas por diri al ni? [..] Ho ne, miaj karaj amikoj [..]! Multe, multe, tre multe mi volus hodiaŭ diri al vi.[OV.411] Ne = I do have something more to say to you.

With a bitter feeling of unfulfilled hope, perhaps you will ask: In his last conference speech [..] did he have nothing more to say to us? [..] Oh no, my dear friends [..]! There is much, much, very much I would like to say to you today.

Two logics

Both systems are logical, but in different ways. It would be good if only one system were used in Esperanto. In principle you could recommend the Western system, since it is now the most common, and clearly more common for Zamenhof. But it seems that it is not possible to achieve the unified use of one system. Both are at home in the language. One should be careful when answering these questions, and give a clear response to avoid misunderstandings.

There are no citations in the PMEG article to support the claim that to a simple factual question like 'Ĉu vi ne ricevis leteron per la poŝto hodiaŭ' you may reply 'Jes, mi ne ricevis leteron'.

Just an illustration with an invented example of how the 'oriental' sistem would work.

If fact of the two quotations that are given to support Zamehof's usage of the 'oriental' system one is clearly a rhetorical device and the other an elaborate deviation from Jes, ŝi ne X-is, designed to make the meaning clear.

The trouble with logician's position is that appears to justify in all cases (incorrectly in my view) replies of the form 'Jes, Mi ne volas kafon' to assent to negative questions instead of the normal form 'Ne, mi ne volas kafon'.

Esperanto is overwhelmingly 'Ne, mi ne volas kafon' and NOT 'Jes, me ne volas kafon'. If you really believe Erinja that the second is in use in the literature, then show me the examples.

I picked up a Maigret in Esperanto, and found three examples of the normal replies in the first few pages.

Come to think of it, the second example of the two Oriental Zamenofian quotes is almost an example of Western usage.

Is there nothing more to be said on this subject (declaims the orator)? No my friends, there is plenty more to say.

A bit different to 'Is there no more Milk, Sorry, no' (there isn't).

Without the tone of voice to cue in the person expected to reply, the "yes"/"no" thing loses a lot of the effect really.

I just entered ĉu vi ne in the tekstaro. The phrase is usually part of a more complex question, often rhetorical. It is not usually answered with a simple Yes or No. Kial ne? was the shortest response I found on a quick look.

Debates about "right" vs "logical" answers are therefore likely not to be relevant to the way that this "negative form" is used in practice.

In my view, if we want a simple Yes or No, it may be better not to use the "negative form".

sudanglo:
The trouble with logician's position is that appears to justify in all cases (incorrectly in my view) replies of the form 'Jes, Mi ne volas kafon' to assent to negative questions instead of the normal form 'Ne, mi ne volas kafon'.

This response is indeed justified, in the sense that it is utterly logical violates no rule of Esperanto grammar or syntax. I can't agree with Bertilow's position that both systems are equally logical, since the "western" system, but not the "eastern", entails that
ĈU VI VOLAS KAFON? and
ĈU VI NE VOLAS KAFON
should get the same answer. I see no logical defense of that.

For a response to be "justified" is not the same as it being the best possible response. To minimize the risk of misunderstanding, negative questions shouldn't be answered with a bare yes or no. The risk exists not simply because of cultural differences but because the dominant usage is logically opaque.

I asked some students yesterday how they'd answer a negative question, if required to say only yes or no. The majority of them insisted that in practice they'd never say just yes or no. Put to a vote, the majority went for "western" usage, but a few went the other way. Of those few, one was a native Russian speaker; one was Korean; two were native English speakers.

In real speech, if you add the statement MI NE VOLAS KAFON, it doesn't matter much whether you say JES or NE at the start. If you seem to have contradicted yourself, no one cares, because the MI NE VOLAS KAFON (or whatever) overrides the JES/NE in explicitness. I suspect that if you were to search the literature for examples of negative questions with only JES or NE, and nothing more, in response, there would be far fewer examples, and Miland's search confirms that suspicion. I think there's a good reason for this.

As Miland points out, negative questions are often used rhetorically, with no expectation of being answered. At other times, as in ĈU VI NE VOLAS KAFON? it's a way of compressing several ideas into one question: Do you want coffee? I'd expect you to, but have some doubt that you do.

I don't argue that the "eastern" way is the only "right" way. In matters of language, the right way is the way that works best. I only argue, contra Bertilow, that the "western" way is, in fact, illogical. In actual usage, what works best is to add clarifying language to JES or NE to make the meaning explicit.

Warning: this post may disturb the flow of the discussion, as I have not read the more (most?) recent answers. Also, before proper comments I'll be a bit

OFF TOPIC: Erinja and T0dd, thank you for answering. Your replies were a quite useful guide while I (re)read the discussion.
Also, in retrospective I see my post was a sort of interruption of the discussion (as this one might be). I apologize.
ceigered, congratulations, in all of your comments you seem (to me, of course) to have something to say, that is, your relation meaning/sentence is high.

ON TOPIC:

Well, people, it seems to me that T0dd wants to convince as many people as possible that the "oriental" system is really more logical, but sudanglo has near zero interest in that comparisons. sudanglo is rather defending the system he thinks would work in practice. So there are communication issues here.

T0dd:

sudanglo:Ah, But Todd, you didn't quote me in full.

You missed out the central point, namely that 'ĉu estas fakto ke' is a positive qestion not a negative one - in the same way that 'ĉu pluvas?' is a positive question.

ĈU ESTAS FAKTO KE and just ĈU are equivalent. Either one appended to the beginning of a declarative sentence generates logically equivalent sentences.

ĈU + VI NE VENOS
ĈU ESTOS FAKTO KE + VI NE VENOS

There's no difference. Both are negative. ĈU ESTAS FAKTO KE is just a four-word way of saying ĈU, just as PRO TIO KE is a three-word way of saying ĈAR.

T0dd, I'd be a bit more careful. We are talking about questions, and no logic theory (as fair as I know) deals with questions. Only affirmative sentences are treated. In order to analyse them, I imagine you have supposed "cxu" is an operator, which it is not. It is a word. No grammar says it is a logical operator. Of course I know that the two questions demand the same thing, but the answers may be different - words are tricky. You agree with me since you don't classify the "western system" as more than "completely nonsense and unacceptable", right?

A little after you say:

T0dd:I imagine every language has its cases where logic and normal usage diverge. There's usually no misunderstanding because, as erinja pointed out, the whole speech community buys into the divergence. A language such as Esperanto, that's meant to function with people from various backgrounds, makes things potentially more confusing.

In this instance, the more common, but not universal, usage happens to be the illogical one, for historical reasons. I guess the question is whether that usage should be promoted because it's dominant, or challenged because it's illogical and therefore arbitrary.

(off topic again: this is an instance where it looks like you ignore lojban. Not that I speak it. Does lojban has its irrationalities as well?)

As I said in my last post, what is the merit of a more rational method? Are people more rational in that aspect? If not, is it easier to learn? Does it make any difference which is the chosen system? Why isn't it convenient to consider more "universal" the way more people speak? In order to find out which system is more common, do you have Chinese students? Finally, would you do the same questions and claims about your native language? (e.g., whether one should promote a rational system in English?)

Of course we are supposing that the "oriental" system is more logical, but I am going to ask reconsideration if necessary.

Rimarku ankaux (= observe also?) that sudanglo has argued that the current system should keep being used (he's said something like "what if an airplane is falling...?"). And I am not an experienced Esperantist, so that I trust him when he says the "oriental system" is not common. If the man says he's read many books in Esperanto without noticing any occurrence, and if he knows Esperanto from years, that means the "oriental" way is really rare, doesn't it? I conclude that it at least makes sense to keep the system instead of making an effortful change. On the other hand, T0dd says that

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.

That's why I think this discussion is not well-directed (or, is moving to arbitrary directions).

[continues...]

IMO, sudanglo has also made some confusing comments, but they were replied. But I still have a question, to clarify matters.

sudanglo, what exactly do you think that characterizes a negative question? Do the words "ne" and "neniam"? Is the first question of this thread a negative one?