Mandatory reference tonthe Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
111–120 of 154 posts
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#112As a Brit, I'm not quite sure this article is right in it's declaration it's a universal "English" thing and not more "American English".
I would say Australian English relies on this negation even more than British English, to the point of being confusing without more cultural context.
Yeah, Kiwi English also, e.g. describing something as "not bad" rather than "good" is normal.
> How's things? > Not bad.
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#113ok but Germans also use not bad as their highest praise and are from the west etc.
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#114ok but Germans also use not bad as their highest praise and are from the west etc.
All these languages!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes#Dutch_and_German
Well, except American, I suppose
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#115The author wrote,"Because there is a vast interval between “good” and “bad,” it accommodates complex relationships." which, to me, shows they don't truly grasp the cultural context of his Chinese environment. There is the same interval between good and bad in both Chinese and Western values and thinking and terminology. What makes it seem there is a difference is the hesitancy to be affirmative in Chinese culture. To…
I think your issue is just that your grammar was wrong. 是的(Shide) is the closest thing to yes in Mandarin, but it's as universal. Answering 是的 on the question 你会中文吗 is like answering "yes I am" on the question "do you speak English?". 可以 isn't correct either, unless they asked 你可以说中文吗？, which is more like "Can you switch to English?" And not "are you able to speak English?" if I'm not mistaken. Answering 我会 is perfec…
Almost related:
Check out the various translations of the subtext of this manga (to Chinese.. etc)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%8F%E3%81%9F%E3%81%97%E3...
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that all non-western practices, language included, have a deep and amazing and metaphysical quality that westerners simply couldn't understand is so tiresome. No language is more expressive than another, some are more expressive for particular very specific things , like Inuit languages might be much better at describing the varieties of snow, but no language has a monopoly on describing dualism of ideas . I…
How about tripartism of ideas? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08886... https://www.academia.edu/45462252/The_Logic_Structure_of_Tao... Okay, these are probably posthoc retcons
I've just noticed this hierarchal tripartism so I'm happy to see that other people have retconned it too.
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#117The language pattern the author refers to is called litotes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes ), but to say that English doesn’t use them is… not quite right.
Not quite right, but not quite wrong, no? The pattern seems similar, but I think of litotes (as the Wikipedia article suggests) as a rhetorical device: the assertion-by-negation carries an ironic charge, and strikes the (Western) ear by standing out from the ordinary affirmative register. If I'm understanding the author's account of Chinese assertion-by-negation correctly, doesn't it sound like assertion-by-negation…
I (American) regularly use litotes both for ironic emphasis (like saying "not bad" at an amazing restaurant) and when I genuinely mean "it's not great but it's not terrible". Honestly not sure which is more common. It all depends on context and tone.
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that all non-western practices, language included, have a deep and amazing and metaphysical quality that westerners simply couldn't understand is so tiresome. The author did not say this; this is your unnecessarily negative take. However the author is comparing Chinese with English where this is somewhat true and well studied; eg. A Comparison of Chinese and English Language Processing - https://www.scienc…
Thank you. Exactly the frame of reference I was speaking from.
See also the psychologist Richard Nisbett's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett) works specifically;
The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Thought
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#119not a native chinese speaker, but couldnt this have to do more with requiring qualifiers?
There seems to be a very strong preferrence to adding qualifiers, especially to single character words. And 不 is just one of them
很好 (very good) is strongly preferred to just a plain 好 (good). similarly youre seldom going to just say 錯 差 or 行.
So if you want to say good, and not verrryyy good, youre left with "not bad" 不錯
it still holds for 2 character words. i was told that just saying 無聊 (boring) can have a very rude conotation, though i dont quite understand the subtext (maybe someone can elucidate). But if you say 很無聊 (very boring) it weirdly enough sounds better
unqualified words as far as i understand also often look archaic. tied to the preference for 2 character words vs 1 character words (my guess is bc classical chinese is written and its hard to make out a single character word with tone when speaking)
hopefully a native speaker can weight in...
Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void
#120The language pattern the author refers to is called litotes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes ), but to say that English doesn’t use them is… not quite right.
Not quite right, but not quite wrong, no? The pattern seems similar, but I think of litotes (as the Wikipedia article suggests) as a rhetorical device: the assertion-by-negation carries an ironic charge, and strikes the (Western) ear by standing out from the ordinary affirmative register. If I'm understanding the author's account of Chinese assertion-by-negation correctly, doesn't it sound like assertion-by-negation…
American english doesn't use them as much. But british english uses them more. English spoken by someone from finland, sweden or norway would use them even more