Live data from Hacker News

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

suggger.substack.com

81–90 of 154 posts

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

#81
post #32

I find the original post confused. What it has to with code? Why putting the US as "the West"? Why the Eastern void is bad? (Oftentimes it's the Western void which is oblivion, Eastern which is nirvana.) In Polish, 'niezły' (literally 'not bad') means 'very good'. Even in English there are many such things, e.g. 'indestructible', 'immortal'. When it comes to labels on food there is "no preservatives" or similar. It e…

> Why putting the US as "the West"?

This line of thought seems to be extremely common among Americans, and honestly it is quite annoying for the rest of us.

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

#82

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

Western culture is predicated on a sort of positivist metaphysics, and our language reflects that. Whereas in the east, the langauges and cultures have both long ago (as in, thousands of years ago) assimilated the precepts of non-dualism, which brings with it a greater degree of subtlety, through its embedded understanding of equanimity, dependent arising, and so on. It's a different ontological root, and therefore a…

Ever read Plato?

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

#83
I suspect these sort of differences, which exist not only between Chinese and English, but also between different western cultures/languages (and I assume similarly eastern ones as well, although I'm not so familiar with them), is one of the reason why multi-lingual children typically test higher on empathy and adaptability. They learn through language the inherent different perspectives/thinking processes.

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

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Yes we also invented drinking coffee.

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

#85
post #8

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…

> If I'm understanding the author's account of Chinese assertion-by-negation correctly, doesn't it sound like assertion-by-negation is the ordinary case in that linguistic tradition, and it's the assertive case that jars the ear?

No? Assertion by assertion is the ordinary case, just like you'd expect for everything.

But it's easy to say 他没猜错, because it takes advantage of a common element of Chinese grammar that doesn't match well to English.

Think of 猜错 as a verb with an inherently negative polarity, like "fail" or "miss". There is no difficulty in saying "he didn't miss", even though there is difficulty in saying "he didn't not hit" and missing is always the same thing as not hitting. 猜错 is similarly easy to use. (Though it's less opaque; it is composed of the verb 猜 "guess" and the verbal result complement 错 "wrong".)

The opposite of 猜错 is 猜对 ("guess right"), and it's very common.

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

#87
I really need to caution against looking too deep into taking these generalized words literally and deriving some insight from them that does not have independent evidence for the insight. "great" literally means big and is related to "gross", "perfect" literally means "completed", "passion" literally means "suffering", but people who use such words these days don't even have such imagery in mind at the point that they utter these words in everyday use.

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

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Well, if you must…

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

#89

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

I made my own top level comment below about the ambiguity of "I don't want x" and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x" I didn't know about semiotic square, and appreciate learning about it. It points at exactly the property that I keep tripping over (and seeing others trip over). Given that wants are an expression of values, and understanding other…

Agreed. The flaw seems to be subtle though, a kinda sorta mismatch between intuition and deliberation (intent?) [0]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314666472_The_Exact...

[0] by which I mean people prefer to use intuition when thinking on their own, but prefer others to be deliberate -- however inappropriate levels of intent also provokes suspicion?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00320-8

Personally, I feel that jokes have the potential to cut through all that (barriers to empathy)

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

#90
> English would say: “He was right.” Or “He guessed correctly.” Direct. Affirmative. Landed. Right is right, wrong is wrong. You don’t say ‘not wrong.’

Is the article's assertion about English true, though? And specifically about British English and maybe a slightly outdated version of the language?

Because George Mikes in the humorous "How to be an Alien" (which is a comical book giving advice to foreigners like himself on how to integrate into UK society) explains again and again that "the English" [1] never say things directly. For example (I'm quoting from memory) he explains how a man may refer to his fiancé affectionately: "I don't object to you, you know". And if he's mad with love: "in fact, I rather fancy you". He also explains that when an Englishman says you're "clever", he's disgusted with you, as being "clever" is a bad trait, very un-English.

So it seems Chinese and (some versions of) English are not that different.

Do note Mikes book was written in the 40s though. And of course it's a work of humor, but there's truth to it.

[1] according to Mikes, when people say "the English / England" they sometimes mean the British Isles, sometimes Great Britain -- but never England.

Post reply on HN