Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

suggger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 154 posts

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#51

Post by astrange »

tomlockwood wrote: post #48
astrange wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I remember from languagelog is that almost all English speakers have a form of "yeah no" and they all think they invented it. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=30758 Might be Scottish.

Not only did Australians invent it, we also invented Pavlova, Sam Neill, etc.

This is like when Australians tell me they invented drinking coffee.

(Conversely, I've seen Australians who dislike Halloween because they think it's an American invention, but it's also Scottish.)

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#52

Post by dgoodell »

Every single example given under “In Chinese, affirmation is often compiled through negation:” sounds completely natural to me, as a midwestern American English speaker.

However the direct affirmations are also acceptable. Maybe the difference is more that both are pretty acceptable in English, but that is less true for Chinese. Or at least the version he speaks.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#53

Post by [deleted] »

alwa wrote: post #8
BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #4

The 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…

[deleted]

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#54

Post by emporas »

Inserting negation to words is a very bad practice.

Instead of saying: "Not cloudy at all today", say "Clear sky today, some scattered clouds though".

In general, always speak in a positive straightforward way, even when you want to confuse someone.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#55

Post by Telemakhos »

Glyptodon wrote: post #30

English does construct things this way, maybe just not with the frequency of Chinese. In fact, "not bad" is a common expression. That said, it's true that certain flavors of US English, like marketing speak, will avoid many phrases in this family. This is because many American English speakers will see expressions like this, particularly when not used in a directly complementary way, as either bureaucratic and avoida…

Kids in the Pacific Northwest use litotes constantly, to the point of annoyance, and possibly more often than they use the straightforward positive. Everything is "not bad" or "not great" or, if really bad, "super not great." I've always taken it to be a kind of avoidance of confessing one's real feelings.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#57

Post by dmoy »

Ah ha, so.... come to Minnesota, there's talk with !False all the time. It fits very naturally brain-wise coming from Chinese. Just, hope you're from Dongbei or similar 'cus lol weather.

Actually in Minnesota it goes way past just !False construction, in a way that also translates well from Chinese, because you get a lot of face saving phrases. Like "that's different" as a polite way of saying something is bad.

I suspect you just learned a different kind of English.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#58

Post by thedrexster »

Telemakhos wrote: post #55
Glyptodon wrote: post #30

English does construct things this way, maybe just not with the frequency of Chinese. In fact, "not bad" is a common expression. That said, it's true that certain flavors of US English, like marketing speak, will avoid many phrases in this family. This is because many American English speakers will see expressions like this, particularly when not used in a directly complementary way, as either bureaucratic and avoida…

Kids in the Pacific Northwest use litotes constantly, to the point of annoyance, and possibly more often than they use the straightforward positive. Everything is "not bad" or "not great" or, if really bad, "super not great." I've always taken it to be a kind of avoidance of confessing one's real feelings.

"super not great" IS a real feeling :)

(fellow PNWer, I'd never before thought of this as a regional thing!)

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#59

Post by thedrexster »

Telemakhos wrote: post #55
Glyptodon wrote: post #30

English does construct things this way, maybe just not with the frequency of Chinese. In fact, "not bad" is a common expression. That said, it's true that certain flavors of US English, like marketing speak, will avoid many phrases in this family. This is because many American English speakers will see expressions like this, particularly when not used in a directly complementary way, as either bureaucratic and avoida…

Kids in the Pacific Northwest use litotes constantly, to the point of annoyance, and possibly more often than they use the straightforward positive. Everything is "not bad" or "not great" or, if really bad, "super not great." I've always taken it to be a kind of avoidance of confessing one's real feelings.

also, TIL the word "litotes" -- thank you, brother!

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#60

Post by marmarama »

decimalenough wrote: post #39
samus wrote: post #33

There are some direct ways to express agreement in Chinese, like 對 or 好. At the same time, the negative statements described are not unique to Chinese at all. It's not that deep, really.

The author states outright that this is not unique to Chinese, it's just much more prevalent than in American English. 不错 is literally "not bad", but it's more positive than the American English equivalent, being basically semantically equal to 很好 (lit. "very good", although in practice just plain old good/OK). You can even say seemingly absurd things like 很不错 "very not bad" (= excellent); or you can tamp it down wit…

In British English, rather than "very not bad", you might say "not bad at all", which is higher praise than just "not bad".
Post reply on HN