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

61–70 of 154 posts

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

#61

Post by p1necone »

I think the writers classification of this being a Chinese vs English distinction is a bit presumptuous - the portion of the USA OP is familiar with maybe, but I'll jump on the bandwagon to say this kind of negated negative language is very very common in New Zealand.

Not bad, not wrong, no problem etc etc are all very common, and we have the following too:

Nah yeah = yes

Yeah nah = no

Yeah nah yeah = yes

Nah yeah nah = no

...extend outward to your hearts desire

(yes people commonly say all of the above)

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

#62

Post by FloorEgg »

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want.

Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:

- they see no value in x

- they see small enough value in x that they don't care

- they see negative value

So much time and energy is wasted on misunderstandings that stem from this ambiguity.

It ruins products, is loses deals, it screws up projections, it confuses executives, etc.

It gets in the way of accurately empathizing with and understanding each other.

Because "I unwant x" means something extremely different than "I don't want x". Unwant implies some other value that x is getting in the way of. Understanding other peoples' values is what enables accurate empathy for them. Accurately empathizing with customers is what enables great products and predictable sales.

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

#63

Post by gsf_emergency_6 »

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…

According to Wikipedia, bu-chuo is a Chinese litotes

You're quite not wrong :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes#Chinese

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

#65

Post by layer8 »

FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

I think you mean https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diswant, or “reject”.

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

#66

Post by jjmarr »

FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

"I don't care about x" clearly indicates a lack of want but is considered ruder than "I don't want x".

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

#67

Post by gsf_emergency_6 »

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.

Best examples of litotes can be found in social media, Chinese or English or any language

My guess is that "bu chuo" _was_ a litotes (or originated as one) but the ironic component evaporated with familiarity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes#Chinese

The literal English translation still seems to be a litotes

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

#68

Post by layer8 »

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…

> In fact, "not bad" is a common expression.

“Not too bad” is also common and even weaker.

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

#69

Post by gsf_emergency_6 »

FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want. Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:…

"unalive" is an empathetic mood.

Unwant could be too familiar, conjuring "unwanted".

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

#70

Post by mbg721 »

thedrexster wrote: post #59
Telemakhos wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The verbal construction words you learn in Classics are excellent. Litotes, chiasmus, synecdoche...
Post reply on HN