Meldinger: 76
Språk: English
sublimestyle (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 15:25:04
darkweasel (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 15:42:44
I would in such a case recommend to explicitly tell what is the case rather than just answering jes or ne. In your case: ne, mi ne lasos
More details are available here: Jes kaj ne ĉe neaj demandoj
ceigered (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 15:46:25
Nonetheless, it works the same way in Esperanto. Someone might say "Jes, mi lasos al vi nek la domon nek la arbon" (I normally avoid using "neither/nor" so forgive me if I've missed any mistakes), where as someone else might confusingly say "Jes, mi lasos al vi la domon kaj la arbon".
Or someone might say "Ne, mi lasos al vi nek la domon nek la arbon". But of course it should only ever get really confusing if one doesn't add that valuable context.
I guess it comes down to what kind of answer the asker is expecting. Are they expecting you to say "yes" if the mail's come, even if they asked the question negatively? Are they expecting you to reply relative to their sentence, e.g. "no the mail has come". Or are they expecting you to reply keeping the positivity/negativity of their question? e.g. If they ask a negative question and you're confirming what they said, you say "no, it hasn't come" etc.
So really I guess it's up to spur of the moment intuition. I'd hope EOists don't usually ask such annoying questions though
. 
erinja (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 16:05:10
Part of speaking Esperanto is to be aware of these cultural differences and to speak perhaps more clearly than we would in our native languages.
If we are asked in English "Will you not give it to me?", a simple "yes" or "no" would be a clear answer. In Esperanto, a simple "yes" or "no" would not be a clear answer, so it's better to follow it with "Yes, I will give it to you" or "Yes, I will not give it to you".
...a little off-topic but I definitely notice this when watching the Korean historical dramas that I love. Someone asks a negative-form question. The other person's reply is given as "No" in the English subtitles; but I can hear that they have said the Korean word for "Yes". I don't speak Korean but it is obvious from these situations that Korean is one of the languages that would answer, "Will you not come?" with "Yes, I will not come" rather than "No, I will not come".
horsto (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 17:14:12
erinja:If yes is not a clear answer, why then using it at all?
If we are asked in English "Will you not give it to me?", a simple "yes" or "no" would be a clear answer. In Esperanto, a simple "yes" or "no" would not be a clear answer, so it's better to follow it with "Yes, I will give it to you" or "Yes, I will not give it to you".
erinja (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 19:14:33
horsto:If yes is not a clear answer, why then using it at all?Yes is a clear answer to someone who comes from the same cultural background. Yes could be an unclear answer if the person came from a different background.
Certainly the person could avoid the yes or no part and simply answer "I will give it to you" or "I will not give it to you".
But since the question has "ĉu" and is phrased like a yes or no question, most people will be inclined to give a yes or no answer. The important thing is to include enough information with the answer that even someone from a different linguistic background can understand clearly, with no doubts about the meaning.
If I say "Ĉu vi ne venos?", and an English speaker says "Jes", then as an English speaker, I would assume that this person will come. But if a Korean speaker says "Jes", as an English speaker, I will likely think that they will come - when really, the Korean speaker may be saying that they will *not* come. (or, the Korean speaker, knowing that I am an English speaker, might be using "Jes" with the English meaning, thereby meaning that they will come).
To get around these logical intricacies for these negative questions, it's easiest to give an explanation, so not to create any doubt.
Yes, I will come.
Yes, I will not come.
Whether you agree or disagree with the "yes" part of the answer, the part about "I will come" or "I will not come" is quite clear.
sudanglo (Å vise profilen) 2011 1 31 21:48:00
To allow tense usage (for example) to vary according to the learner's mother tongue, rather than to conform to the normal patterns of Esperanto, would lead to chaos.
Would it be unreasonable to expect non-Europeans to follow the established (European) patterns with regard to jes and ne? There is so much in Esperanto that is European in character anyway - and not surprisingly so given its history.
If I were learning Korean and found that the jes and ne were reversed, I wouldn't argue for a change on the grounds that they should respect my culture.
erinja (Å vise profilen) 2011 2 1 01:34:41
But as darkweasel has already explained in his post (and posted a link to PMEG saying the same thing), both systems are in use in Esperanto, and both are equally logical. Even Zamenhof sometimes used the "Eastern" way of answering (analogous to my Korean answer). And in fact apparently some Western languages do handle negatives in the "Eastern" way, and vice versa, so you can't even say that there is only one unified Western way of doing this.
Both systems are well established in Esperanto, so it's best to add additional words when answering these negative yes or no questions, to make sure everyone understands.
ceigered (Å vise profilen) 2011 2 1 06:39:56
"If someone were to ask "Won't you give it to me?", and you wanted to say "I am going to give it to you", but you could only say "yes" or "no", how would you do it - without overthinking it, e.g. how you'd respond in a natural situation".
Perhaps there's a larger pattern. Perhaps the distinction isn't geographical but rather formal/informal.
"Se oni demandus al vi "Ĉu vi ne donos ĝin al mi?", kaj vi volus diri "Mi (ja) donos ĝin al vi", sed vi nur povus diri "jes" aŭ "ne", kiel vi respondus - sen tropensado pri tiu ĉi demando!
"(sorry if that's not well proofread the mouse conked out for some reason so I decided to send this off ASAP)
sudanglo (Å vise profilen) 2011 2 1 11:16:02
The bald statement that both systems are in use gives the wrong impression about what the norm is.
I wouldn't be overly surprised to find that eavesdropping on native English speakers speaking English you might find a use of the 'oriental' system occasionally.
However if you set the test in the form you suggested Ceiger I think this would elicit the norm.
I certainly can't remember an occasion, when speaking Esperanto, on which I have had a confusing reply. That experience was quite common however when I did a stint as a TEFL teacher.
For teaching puposes, obviously the standard pattern should be instilled.
In any case, the thing about Esperanto that makes it universal is the basic mechanism of the combination of unchanging roots - which is intelligible and learnable, regardless of mother tongue, being a simple structural feature.
If this mechanism happens to be close to that underlying Chinese or Vietnamese, this neither here nor there. Anybody with half a brain cell can apprehend this mechanism.
However, the actual roots and their use/function have pretty much been determined by European language influence.
PS Might be quite useful in Esperanto to have a root corresponding to the French 'Si' - Tu ne viens pas? - Si, je viens.