feliz123:
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.

Actually, the branch of logical theory known as erotetics deals with questions.

I was careful (I think) not to apply the term "truth conditions" to questions, but only to their propositional contents.

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 agree that ĈU is a word. It's a word with at least two roles. In one role, it means the same as the English word "whether"; in the other role it functions as an operator, turning declarative sentences into questions. This may not be what grammars say, because grammars don't always analyze things in these terms. For example "or" is treated by grammars as a conjunction, whereas logic regards it as a disjunction. So yes, I'd say that ĈU is a word that functions as an operator

But I agree that words are tricky!

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.

(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?)

I am ignoring lojban, because I don't know it well enough to comment on its irrationalities, if any.

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?

[/quote]The merit of a more rational method is that the fact that it can be more readily explained makes it more teachable, and it can also be figured out without being explicitly taught.

That said, I don't have any strong opinion about whether those advantages superseded the advantage of established dominance. I don't have a real feel for the extent of the dominance anyway. Contrary to what it may seem, I'm not trying to convert the Esperanto world to the "eastern" system. I am, however, making the point that it is, in fact, more logical.

If the "western" usage is in fact overwhelmingly dominant, then that's the end of it. Bertilo, however, says that "both systems are at home in Esperanto". If that's so, then it's worthwhile to consider what the best response to that fact might be.

I say we adopt the Gaelic[1] system, in which you neither say yes nor no, but instead repeat the question in either the affirmative or negative.

Q: Are you going to the store?

A:
I am going to the store.
OR
I am not going to the store.

A mite wordy, but I've heard the Irish[2] don't have a problem with wordiness[3]. It is entirely unambiguous, in any case.

----------
[1] Not guaranteed to be correctly named.
[2] Assuming it is actually a quality of Irish Gaelic. See point 1 (above).
[3] My company's European HQ is in Shannon, and I deal with the Irish a LOT. As a general rule, they ARE very wordy compared to their American counterparts. So it's not inconceivable that Irish Gaelic uses this form - anyone here speak Gaelic who can confirm or deny?

Just a brief note for those who are questioning Todd's logic. Since he as a professor of philosophy, I think that he really does know what he is talking about.

-----

feliz123, a brief note for you. The "eastern" response method is rare. No one here is disputing that it's much rarer than the western response. But it isn't against the rules in Esperanto to say something in a way that is grammatically correct but rare. And if someone chooses to say something in a way that is grammatically correct but rare, that's fine.

Speaking correctly in Esperanto involves not only speaking in a way that doesn't break the rules of Esperanto grammar, but also not disallowing constructions that are logical according to Esperanto grammar. They may not be preferred forms but if someone chooses to use them, that's their choice. I do have a special soft spot for the "eastern" response method, just because I do see it as so much more logical, though I do not use it personally.

----

Welsh also repeats the verb in yes or no questions. Are you going? I am / I am not, etc. This must be a feature of Celtic languages.

I understand (though I have not studied it) that Chinese also does not have a real yes or no, and repeats the verb.

Do you like it?:
Question: "Like not like?"
Answer: "Like" or "Not like".

Is it ok?:
Question: "Good not good?"
Answer: "Good" or "Not good".

From my understanding, in Irish "Tá" means yes, but actually means "it is", so basically you're saying "it is (true)". Not sure how you say "no" though!

Also, I think I'm now getting where this strange label of "Oriental system" comes from, because it's certainly not all that oriental . Chinese has "shi" (yes) and "bushi" (no), but in actual fact this is just "is" and "isn't" (I'd assume that because of Chinese' syllabic nature you can just say "not-go" or "not-come" or "not-see" instead of having "is" in everything). Thus, for such languages, it's perfectly logical to say "yes I'm not going" and "no I'm going" given what words are being used as "yes" and "no".

European languages on the other hand have, probably through being in a giant Sprachbund, their own "yes" and "no" interjections.

Thus, the logic problem is that the Esperanto "yes" and "no" really have multiple definitions associated with them.

Anyway, I think as Miland and some others have said, context or simply avoiding negative questions* is easier.

-----

*RE Positive questions, if I ask "Hello, are you going to the dance this evening" and someone goes "Yes I am", that might explain why when asked a negative question e.g. "Aren't you going to the dance" the answer may be "no I'm not" - because "yes" is firmly associated with *positive sentences*, where as "ne" is firmly associated with *negative sentences*

Thus for European speakers used to that pattern, if it's natural to have these as responses to positive questions:

Jes mi ĉiam iras al la stacidomo
(Ne mi neniam iras al la stacidomo)
Jes mi ŝatas cinodontojn
(Ne mi ne ŝatas cinodontojn)
Jes mi havas grandan vizaĝon
(JNe mi ne havas grandan vizaĝon)

then it'd seem natural to then have for the lesser used negative questions the exact same thing, since it's been imprinted on the speakers mind from experience with positive questions that "Jes" is used with positive responses and "ne" is used with negative responses.

Thus, there is a logical procession there. Whether the system itself is logical, I'll just go with whatever T0dd says, but I think the above can serve as a reason for why this "mallogikeco" arose.

--

Thus I propose a system for learners, based on what seems a decent compromise. Jes is used for a response that is entirely positive, and Ne is used for a response with negative elements. However context should be given, either as "Jes vi pravas"/"Ne vi ne pravas" (Jes, prave/(Ne,) ne prave), or by repeating the entire question, e.g. "Jes/Ne, mi (ne) ŝatas cinodontojn".

I think you make a fair point, Erinja, in saying that if something is grammatical, but infrequent, in Esperanto you could say it.

So the question is how do you establish that Jes, mi ne volas kafon (in answer to Ĉu vi ne volas kafon) is grammatically correct?

Surely to establish whether something is grammatically correct you have to look at usage.

PMEG is pretty reliable, I have rarely disagreed with it when I have consulted it on some point. But his particular article on the response to negative questions, could I think benefit from some revision.

By the way I am still waiting for someone to find citations from the literature of convincing examples of the 'oriental' usage for simple factual questions.

Jes and Ne and the following statement have little to do with grammar though and are more about someone expressing themselves correctly I'd assume, so I guess it's more about semantics and culture? And from my understanding both of those are a lot more complex and harder to understand and put down to a science than grammar...

Thank you for answering, T0dd! To clarify, the whole thing is that I think this issue is much subtle and perspective dependent, and we have not much knowledge about the human mind, so that it is difficult to say something really worth believing. Continuing:

T0dd:

feliz123:
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.

Actually, the branch of logical theory known as erotetics deals with questions.

That's surprising, and I'd be happy if I discovered the theory had some idea which could shed light on the topic. Does it? Anyway, the point is that just because two questions ask the same thing, it does not mean they must have the same answer (even if it is yes/no), so it is not clear what it means for two questions to be "logically equivalent".

As for the cxu, I understood you agree it is not an operator. That was the idea, and in this matter I just wish to express my opinion that, in this case, the equivalence (with respect to the answer) of "cxu X?" and "cxu estas fakto ke X?" depends on how much cxu acts as one (operator).

The merit of a more rational method is that the fact that it can be more readily explained makes it more teachable, and it can also be figured out without being explicitly taught.

As I said, I don't think this is clear. Do you have evidence for that, in this particular case?

erinja, I think your comments seem quite correct. Probably anyone should be authorized to say anything. As you say, it is a choice. Even grammatically incorrect sentences, though that is more bizarre. I am arguing more in the direction that it might be a bad idea to explicitly teach that use, since it might cause more confusion/ambiguity.

feliz123:Anyway, the point is that just because two questions ask the same thing, it does not mean they must have the same answer (even if it is yes/no), so it is not clear what it means for two questions to be "logically equivalent".

That part is actually pretty interesting. Logical equivalence propositions amounts to having the same truth conditions. That is, two propositions are logically equivalent if and only if they would be true or false under the same circumstances. That's an oversimplification, but it's fair enough for our purposes. Questions are not merely propositions, so they aren't true or false, and therefore don't have truth conditions. But questions have propositional content, and so they have "answer conditions" (there may be a better term for this, but I've forgotten it) that depend upon the truth conditions of the contained proposition. The details of that dependence are simpler in the case of yes/no questions.

That was the idea, and in this matter I just wish to express my opinion that, in this case, the equivalence (with respect to the answer) of "cxu X?" and "cxu estas fakto ke X?" depends on how much cxu acts as one (operator).

To show that ĈU doesn't function as an operator in yes/no questions, you'd want to show some proposition, such that ĈU X and ĈU TIO ESTAS FAKTO KE X require different answers.

Of course, you could just say that negative questions are the needed example.

The merit of a more rational method is that the fact that it can be more readily explained makes it more teachable, and it can also be figured out without being explicitly taught.

As I said, I don't think this is clear. Do you have evidence for that, in this particular case?

I'm a philosopher! I don't need no steenkin evidence!

Seriously, I have no evidence in this particular case. In general, I think that if you can show that a rule conforms to logic, it makes it easier to learn the rule. For example, in music certain keys are represented with sharps, others with flats. There's a logical reason for this, but if you don't know that reason, you simply have to remember which are which. If you do know the reason, your memorization burden is lessened by the underlying logic of the practice.

In all the hot air that has been generated on this topic, there is one obvious question that has not been asked.

Do Esperanto text books for Japanese or Korean learners adequately deal with the topic of short replies to negative questions?

I'll ask in the Japanese forum (and the Korean, if there is one) and post the answer.

It would clearly be a shortcoming in a text book for Japanese to learn English if the book did not alert the students to the serious misuderstanding that would arise if they were to reply to negative questions in English with the subkomprenita penso - via neeado estas ĝusta.

Incidentally my 1985 revised edition of PAG appears to have little to say on the subject, confining comment to a small print remark (RIM V in section 91). (If it were a real problem then you would expect a more detailed treatment in such an exhaustive work).

This remark begins with a quote from a presumably Japanese gentleman, a certain S-ro K. Ossaka, suggesting that there is a problem. So not necessarily Waringhien's view.

There are only two quotes suggesting the oriental usage can occur in Esperanto, one of which is requoted in PMEG, the other being from Z's translation of Hamlet together which the original passage in English. Neither really supports the PMEG suggestion in the case of Ĉu vi ne volas kafon.

Out of the horse's mouth!! This is the comment of a Japanese contributor in one of Esperanto forums.

Tamen la okcidenta sistemo estas pli simpla ol la orienta. Oni ne bezonas tutzorge aŭskulti la demandon. Ĉu la demando estis pozitiva aŭ negativa, tio ne koncernas al la respondo. Nur respondu Jes(kiam vi volas diri pozitivan frazon) aŭ Ne(kiam negativan).

En la orienta sistemo oni devas zorge aŭskulti la demandon por precize respondi Prave aŭ Malprave. Tio estas malfacila en senzorga parolado, do ni ofte respondas al la kaŝita demando, kiam la demando ne atendas precizan respondon. Kiam ni tro precize respondas per la orienta sistemo, fojfoje estos cinike.