What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand? • Hacker News Board

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#11

Post by maxsilver » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

yathern wrote: post #8

I think part of the reasoning behind this type of response is that each response is dealing with a different level of abstraction. > A: Did you see any birds at the park? > B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any. B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' - he did not see any. This can be done with the 'No, totally' exam…

Your second example is the one I'm most familiar with. I say stuff like that often. It's got nothing to do with all the article's other reasons -- it's usually just because my mind is racing faster than I can speak.

Someone : "I thought you really wanted to use the paintbrush. Did you see the if there were any rollers?"

Me (mental response): "No (I didn't want to use the paintbrush). Yes (I did see the rollers) but they looked bad".

Me (actually said out loud): "No. Yes, but they looked bad"

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#12

Post by ryguytilidie » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

One of my favorite racing drivers was recently interviewed, made this mistake and then immediately mocked himself for doing so, pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuJ4trSKS-0&feature=youtu.be...

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#13

Post by lazyant » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:26 PM UTC

Reminds me of German 'doch'

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#14

Post by polarix » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:31 PM UTC

Here's another possibility, the first one that occurred to me: the "no" is a rejection of the implicit alternative to what was stated.

The author ends up at a fairly convincing alternative explanation, though.

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#15

Post by vilhelm_s » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

shasta wrote: post #2

> At first blush, “no” does not appear to be the kind of word whose meaning you can monkey with. For one thing, there is its length. At just two letters and one syllable, it lacks the pliable properties of longer words. You can’t stuff stuff inside it. [...] I guess these 'long form' articles have to be long, but some of these paragraphs seem pretty forced.

This article seems particularly bad (I stopped reading halfway through), but a lot of articles published in The New Yorker seems to do this kind of meandering. The other day I was reading a story about Jake Leg[0], and if you compare it to the corresponding Wikipedia article[1] the difference is really striking---the Wikipedia article tells you straight away what caused the contamination, while the New Yorker story somehow tries to keep you in suspense.

I guess I just don't see what these authors are trying to do. If someone started reading an article about "no, yes", probably they want to know about "no, yes". Why intersperse a bunch of unrelated fluff?

[0] http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/Articles_files/Jake%20Leg,... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_ginger

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#16

Post by smcl » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

Weird, I remember when I was in NZ a few years back "yeah nah..." meant "yes" which confused me. I think Australia had it too, but I'm not sure.

Another semi-related but confusing thing was while I've been living in Czech Republic I visited South Korea. I ended up getting twisted up trying to answer yes\no in Korean because...

English: Yes | No

Czech[1]: No | Ne

Korean: Ye\Ne | Anio

Each language has one that's annoyingly similar to the opposite in at least one different language. Trying to get this right after a few beers is hard.

[1] = "No" is a common contraction of "Ano" but even then that conflicts with Korean "Anio".

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#17

Post by freehunter » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:41 PM UTC

kordless wrote: post #9

greggman wrote: post #5

No, English is messed up :P I learned about some of this from learning Japanese where I had to learn you answer the question directly rather than confirm the negative by repeating it. In Japanese: Q: You don't like cigars do you A: Yes (Yes I don't like cigars) In English Q: You don't like cigars do you A: No (it's effectively confirming the negative of "like") My Japanese friends learning English of course found Eng…

Your question is the part that is messed up. An ambiguous question leads to ambiguous answers, not the other way around. "Is it true you don't like cigars?" Yes, I don't like cigars. "Do you like cigars?" No, I don't like cigars. In either properly formed question, the answer will always be "no", if you really don't like cigars.

Unfortunately, the way sentences are constructed in English this is a common way to phrase a question.

"Is it true you don't like cigars?" is a completely different question from "Do you like cigars?". The first question implies the asker has been given prior knowledge that they are looking to confirm. In some cases, the asker might already know with certainty that they don't like cigars, but they're looking to bring up the subject of cigars and that's their icebreaker. There's a lot of hidden information in that one short sentence.

It's a poorly constructed question yes, but the straightforward alternative isn't always a good alternative because that poorly constructed question isn't actually a question, It's a statement dressed up like a question for the sake of subtlety. So in actuality, the responder shouldn't answer yes or no. That's not the correct response to a statement. If the subtlety is lost on the responder even momentarily, they may answer yes or no, in the same manner that when someone says "happy birthday", I might mistakenly answer the same thing back to them as if they had wished me a good afternoon.

If someone says "Is it true you don't like cigars", the correct response is not "no", it's "that's correct".

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#18

Post by ashmud » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

rasz_pl wrote: post #4

I would blame the French. Frenchmen speaking English badly often say Borat like phrases, for example "its great, no?". It happens when you learn vocabulary without grammar rules.

The French phrase is "n'est-ce pas?".

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#19

Post by robbyking » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:49 PM UTC

yathern wrote: post #8

I think part of the reasoning behind this type of response is that each response is dealing with a different level of abstraction. > A: Did you see any birds at the park? > B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any. B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' - he did not see any. This can be done with the 'No, totally' exam…

I agree completely. It looks weird in print, but in when spoken it makes much more sense.

Another example is "No (I don't disagree with you), I do want to do XYZ."

Re: What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand?

#20

Post by matkam » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

yathern wrote: post #8

I think part of the reasoning behind this type of response is that each response is dealing with a different level of abstraction. > A: Did you see any birds at the park? > B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any. B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' - he did not see any. This can be done with the 'No, totally' exam…

In a context where there is an assumption that conversation is a debate, "No, totally" means "no I am not disagreeing with you, you are totally right."