Talk:Yes and no

Is English a 3-Form System?
I claim no expertise in linguistics but do I have a remark I think needs consideration. I am a native English speaker from Ireland, we and the British commonly use an alternative to 'yes', namely 'yeah'. I suspect one would only find 'yes' in written English and very formal social situations. I am not certain that I would classify 'yeah' as informal as the dictionary classifies it (excuse me for digressing). Would the very common use of 'yeah' not mean that English is a three form system?


 * In informal comtexts where I (a native English speaker from England and formerly resident in Scotland) use "Yeah" (or sometimes "Yep") for "Yes", I also use "Nah" (and potentially "Nope") for "No". This would make it at least a four-form system, if such colloquialisms fulfil the criteria. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm from California and I use yeah and nah as described. However, this is a distinction of formality. I wouldn't say that English has a three- or four-way system because we don't base our distinction on whether we're answering a positive or negative question, which is what French does for oui [wi] and si [si]. And, like with English yes, French is also able to distinguish formality. Teenagers say [we] instead of [wi], I think spelled ouai. True (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.203.205 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Under "3: Three Form Systems," I believe the German "doch" is misused, or miscategorized, nicht war? (I'm no language major, but I have a good "feel" for German.) See:  --gnomeselby (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "doch" when given as an answer to a negatively phrased question would be translated to "jo" when translated into Norwegian. Taemyr (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not a scholar in the grammar matters, so I would like for someone to check this before posting in the article - In Romanian language we have "da" for "yes" and "nu" for "no", but we also have " ba da" and "ba nu". Ex.: "You didn't bring that", "Ba da" = "Yes, I did"; "You forgot it at home", "Ba nu" = "No, I didn't". MihaiC (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

-Bellroth- As an Englishman who has lived for 25 years in Germany I hear "doch" used in the sense of correcting a statement of the sense, "You didn't feed the cat", "Doch! I did". The word on its own doesn't mean "yes". But, on the other hand, there is another 'yes' word that I don't see mentioned here. "Jawohl". This can be used on its own, or in addition to "ja" in order to strengthen it. "Jawohl ja" for instance.

Bellroth (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Doch' is in a way synonymous to 'aber', and may be approximated by english "but": "You didn't feed the cat" - "But I did!". Laudak (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we have that in Denmark/Scandinavia as well. It's also used in saying yes to orders (specifically in the military), which I think is the same in German. - wikigeek at gmail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.213.226 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Should yes and no be merged with No (word). No way would the answer to that be no. No! Yes! So, now! It should be merged. Yes! Not not be merged! No! Yes! No! But yes!--Sky Attacker   Here comes the bird!  22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles should be merged. AlexWangombe (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF????????????
How can you merge Yes and no???!!! It's like merging right and wrong; good and bad!!!!

--Jorge Francisco Paredes 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24 biggest fan (talk • contribs)


 * It was done, and yet the fabric of the universe remains unperterbed by this fact. Go figure.  Since the universe did not end when this article was written, it seems like we're all going to be OK.  So I wouldn't worry about it further.  -- Jayron  32  04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MERGE FOR SIMPLENESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollathon (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Logical Not
If I understand the 4 value system correctly, 'yes' used to neutralise the word 'not' in the question. So, why is 'not' there in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary Ellipses
What is the purpose of the "..." at the end of several sections in this article? Is there something I'm missing, or are they just unnecessary and un-encyclopedic? I'd really be worried about that quality of the details of an article about such an important subject if the section names are so obviously unpolished.68.84.58.190 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and No in Finnish
In the Related words in other languages and translation problems section, it is claimed that Finnish doesn't have yes/no words, and instead questions in Finnish are answered with a repetition of the verb. A native-speaker tells me that this echo-answer is extremely formal, and that Finnish has both 'jo' (borrowed from Swedish) and 'kyllä' for 'yes', and 'ei' for 'no'. I don't have any source for this at present, but if someone else does, please correct the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O Graeme Burns (talk • contribs) 10:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless a specific ref is given to support the assertion you question you can consider it unsupported. Please, please edit this page inserting the "citation required" tag wherever you like, on anything you know or suspect not to be true. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finnish does indeed have yes/no words: kyllä and joo (not "jo") for "yes" and ei for "no". Kyllä is the form used in writing, and in most everyday speech too. Joo is very casual and colloquial. There are indeed two ways to answer yes/no questions in Finnish: either with these words, or by repeating the verb (as such for "yes", negated for "no"). Negating verbs in Finnish is actually done by conjugating ei as an auxiliary verb for the verb in question. This is done for both ways of answering "no", the actual verb can be present or omitted. J I P  &#124; Talk 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

German "ja" and "jawohl"
As a German native speaker (but in no way a linguist) I would like to add the fact that in German there is a stronger form than "ja" (yes) - the word "jawohl". I do not know if it is just an archaic form of "ja", but it is used in the meaning "affirmative" by a recipient for orders in formal language. For example in the military or an upper class restaurant: "A glass of wine, please." - "With pleasure." This could be translated as "Ein Glas Wein, bitte!" - "Jawohl, der Herr." (or more litterary: "Sehr gern." --Rkql (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a Dutch native speaker and no linguist either (more like very, very interested in language and it's etymology), but isn't "jawohl" a contraction between "Ja" and "wohl", in which "Ja" means "yes", of coarse, and "Wohl/wohl" to express one's agreement, obedience and so forth, from OHG "wola". Ja is, of coarse, older than the "wohl" part.


 * Compare with the Dutch "jawel", which could mean the same, but also disagreeing to a negation. Like: "Hij doet het niet, toch? - Jawel, door er met je vuist op te slaan." "It doesn't work, does it? - Yes it does, by hitting it with your fist."


 * So I think the ja/jawohl difference is a wiktionary thing, not a subject worth mentioning on Wikipedia, unless an paragraph is added about emphasis on the yes and no.
 * 80.60.122.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC).


 * I would suggest that German jawohl and Dutch jawel are not additional affirmatives but merely affirmative+intensifier, corresponding to English yes indeed; accordingly, I agree with 80.60.122.127, that they should not be given as examples in this article. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The same goes for Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, the point is that it talks about a stronger affermative form, the same goes "jawohl/jawel", therefore I dont see why "jawohl/jawel" should not be included, however it should be made clear jawel in Dutch specifically is both the negative confirmer as the strong affermative form. These two words are not at all the same as "yes indeed". 84.84.50.147 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

German "ja" and its variants
The following sentence is total nonsens implicating the German language knows solely "ja". "The German ja has no fewer than 13 English equivalents that vary according to context and usage (yes, yeah, and no when used as an answer; well, all right, so, and now, when used for segmentation; oh, ah, uh, and eh when used an interjection; and do you, will you, and their various inflections when used as a marker for tag questions) for example." → yes=ja, yeah=jupp,japp, (as in english) no when used as an answer, well=gut, all right=klar, jawohl, sehr wohl, doch, natürlich, selbstverständlich for example... Auf-7-Meeren (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Aye
While learning Latin I wondered, if the term "aye" derives from the latin word "aiere" which has the first person singular "aio". Do you think that this is plausible? -- 79.224.163.59 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My trusty Concise Oxford says it comes from Old English agg, ai, ei, from Old Norse ei, ey, cognate with Latin aevum (age), and comparable with Greek aei (always). Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Aiwen is looking at the wrong aye, the adverb meaning, "forever", and pronounced /eɪ/. The affirmative particle aye, pronounced /aɪ/, is of unknown origin.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 13:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: The word "aye" is a frequent synonym for "yes". A frequent synonym? Today? Yeah, right.HowardJWilk (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh aye, it is that, especially amongst hipsters, and other youth demographics. Everything in cycles, dude. The past is a totally rad place to take style ideas from. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Frequency of use of "aye" depends on the region of English. In Scotland for instance it's incredibly common partly due to influence from Scots, where it is the usual form of "yes" (it is also relatively commonly borrowed into Gaelic as "aidh", partly due to the language having echo response rather than a catch-all word for the positive or negative). However, in light of this the court example should most probably be removed, as the witness was most likely held in contempt not for using an alternative English form of "yes"; but because answering "aye" twice would be seen as speaking Scots and thus refusing to use English for official purposes. English is the only language of Scotland which would be considered acceptable to use in a courtroom or other official situation in most circumstances, with Scots or Scottish Gaelic still being seen as parochial, overly informal, downright rude or (in the case of Scots) just deliberate bad English, by many people. So the contempt of court really doesn't have anything to do with English word useage at all but with the choice of which language they used. Foolish Child (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye appears in U.S. parliamentary procedure as a synonym for yea. The chair ordinarily calls for affirmative votes by saying, "As many as are in favor, so signify by saying, 'Aye';" but in order to obtain a roll-call vote, a member will commonly call for "the yeas and nays", rather than "the ayes and noes".  Are aye and yea synonyms historically?


 * The article treats aye as chiefly a colloquial or dialectal affirmative, but makes it a synonym for yes. To the extent that English historically distinguished between yea and yes, to which of those does aye historically correspond? J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A note perhaps?
I just spent ten minutes trying to get my head round More's statement that "No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative" when he then gave a contradicting example. I googled it to see if it was a misprint... etc. And then read on, only to find that below the text mentions that he himself made a mistake. Now, while I'm proud of spotting it on first reading, perhaps a note could be used to warn other readers of this problem. I'd suggest sticking in a [sic] (the traditional warning of a mistake in a text), which I shall do, but maybe there's a better way.Malick78 (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah
What is the origin of English yeah, and what is its relationship to yes, yea, and aye? Is it the modern version of yea, or is it a casual shortening of yes? It would be useful if the article addressed these questions. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mm-hm and M-mm
The article implies that mm-hm and m-mm (or unh-hunh and unh-unh, or however they may be spelt or articulated) are universal in English as substitutes for yes and no, respectively. My impression, however, is that they are not found in British English, or at most are fairly recent imports from American English. British English has mm, with a falling tone, meaning yes, but I don't think I've ever heard a Brit say mm-hm or m-mm.

I have, on the other hand, heard a Brazilian say mm-hm and m-mm, and he assured me that those forms are widely used in Brazilian Portuguese.

That make me suspect that we U.S. English speakers, and the Brazilians, may get mm-hm and m-mm from Africa.

I would therefore appreciate it if some knowledgeable persons would address these questions in the article:

1. Are mm-hm and m-mm current in British English?

and

2. Do mm-hm and m-mm come from some African language?'

14:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to sign the foregoing. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I always thought those were pretty universal. I'm German, and I've heard them used all over (Continental) Europe. ~sera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.219.165 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They may be widespread in Europe now, but query whether or not they were introduced from America, as "OK" was? Do people in European movies from before 1945 say "mm-hm" and "m-mm"?  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No-uh (hyperarticulation)
Often in informal American English, short interjections like "ew", "ow",and "no" are pronounced disyllabicly (The word "no" sometimes sounding like the name "Noah") adding an extra schwa at the end of the word: e.g. [ˈnoʊ̯] becomes [ˈnoʊ̯ə], and [aʊ̯] becomes [ˈaʊ̯ə]. Are there any documented sources I can cite to explain this phenomenon without it being original research?Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all I could find, but it still wouldn't qualify as a usable source. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3426Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that those extra syllables are purely phonological, not phonemic, and consequently of no significance for this article. They don't affect the meaning of the words they attach to, do they?  Also, where is Nayrb Rellimer hearing these extra syllables?  I can imagine an angry teenager saying, "No-ah!" for emphasis, but that still just means "No", doesn't it?  That seems to be the sense of the blogger Nayrb Rellimer cites, and I tend to agree. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm astounded
This is, by far, the worst article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It's authors have no understanding of linguistics, it's summary and it's main content are total garbage. It should be elected for deletion. I have seen bad entries, but this is truly astounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So make it better! You have the power.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some 'facts' in the article are beyond ridiculous. I just deleted a phrase on Russian language (on да and нет being adverbs – wow much fail.). Source: Частица_(часть_речи). I also removed a similar phrase on Polish (In Polish, for example, tak (thus, so) and nie (not) are adverbs.) – in fact, clicking through to the linked words in Polish reveals that they are classified as particles or interjections ( Partykuła) 217.107.197.87 (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2015
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus tp move numerically....arguments about the title specifying English have no basis as half the content....is about other languages. In fact the material is rather essay-like and should be examined as to whether it would be better upmerged, split etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no → English affirmatives and negatives – It also goes into detail about the previous four-word system, not just "yes" and "no." Proud User (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article goes into detail about systems in other languages (and should be expanded with more of it), and the current title is more concise than the requested title even after an omission of "English". I would prefer that the article be re-scoped to include more of the non-English nuances and usage, as that would better reflect the intention for a worldwide view of the topic. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per CONSISE. Yes and no is where it should be. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Yes and no in the English language -- because this article is not about affirmative and negative as concepts in general, but about it in the English language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Yes and no in the English language we have another article for affirmative and negative as concepts in general don't we? Yes and No (disambiguation) should list media products. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That suggestion (whether used with "yes and no" or "affirmatives and negatives") fails both WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY; cf. Quotation marks in English, etc.; including "the ... language" is redundant. If we were to stick with "Yes and no" we would not add anything about "English" since it's already implicit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either variant with the English inclusion (specifically eith the nom or IIO/IPs proposal). While other languages are included, they appear to be in the context of the English translation or contrasting against English. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yes and no in English" or "Yes and no in the English language" would be redundant and fail WP:CONCISE, since we already know they're words in English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Affirmatives and negatives in English, per actual scope of article and for consistency with Quotation marks in English and other articles of this sort. Nom is correct that the article is not entirely about "yes" and "no"; we simply don't use the form "English foo" for articles of this sort, but "foo in English".  Affirmative and negative is already the article on the general linguistic concept.  The plural form of "Affirmative and negatives in English" is valid under WP:PLURAL, because the article is actually about specific affirmatives and negatives (plural) in the language, not the singular concept of affirmative and singular concept of negative in the language.  — SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too much nonsense
The article as it currently stands attempts to do far too much, with its would-be tour d'horizon of the world's languages -- and the result is an overlong piece includes some truths but also too many half-truths and misleading what-look-like truths, as well as instances of downright nonsense.

For example:
 * It is often said falsely that Welsh has no words at all for yes and no. It has ie and nage [however, and in certain circumstances].

The next paragraph then goes on to declare:
 * The Goidelic languages (Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx) do not have words for "yes" or "no" at all.

This statement is as false as the claim we have just been told is wrong in relation to Welsh. Irish, for example, has the words is ea ('sea) and ní hea, corresponding to the Welsh ie and nage and used in almost exactly the same restricted circumstances.

Another example:
 * Latin has no single words for yes and no. Their functions as intensifiers and interjections are taken up by using the vocative case.

In the absence of any examples, I struggle to imagine how this could be realized. Does the writer even understand what "vocative case" means?

Factual errors can be corrected -- and if I had more time available at present I'd undoubtedly try to tackle some of that work myself -- but I'm not encouraged to do so by the fact that (as I began by stating) the article is too much of a rag-bag, has bitten off more than it can chew, raising questions that it then fails to answer. In the long run it would do better, I feel, if it dealt with the particularities and history of English usage (an interesting enough story in itself) but then, when it comes to "translation problems" and contrasts with other languages, treated those other matters as succinctly as possible, with "pointers out" (internal links) to the more detailed articles on those languages themselves. -- Picapica (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Problem in the "Early English four-form system" section
The last sentence of the first part of the first paragraph in this section runs:


 * Yes and no were the responses to a question posed in the negative, whereas yea and nay were the responses to positively framed questions.


 * Will they not go? — Yes, they will.
 * Will they not go? — No, they will not.
 * Will they go? — Yea, they will.
 * Will they go? — Nay, they will not.

The classification of the particles with respect to the formulation of the question omits the actual function of the particles. Yes contradicts a negatively formulated question, No affirms it; Yea affirms a positively formulated question, Nay contradicts it. This description of the formulation of the questions and the function of the particles is complete and accurate. Wordwright (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Spanish?
I'm not a Spanish speaker, but as an English speaker with a competence in French and from some general knowledge of a few languages, I feel the Spanish section is a bit rendundant.

"The affirmative sí can... intensify it [a verb] (I don't believe he owns a car. / He does own one! = No creo que él tenga coche. / ¡Sí lo tiene!)." You could equally do this in French, ''"c'est vrai?" "mais si!" (Is it true? YES) or "tu ne m'a pas déjà dit ça" "ben, mais oui! on l'a discuté!" (you didn't tell me that" "au contraire - we have already talked about it!")'' Indeed you can get away with this affirmative "yes" in English. It doesn't appear me to be special to Spanish, so it seems a little pointless to include it.

The second French example is a bit clunky, but you get the gist. The other two claims about Spanish aren't, in my view, particularly noteworthy or interesting. I feel that the Spanish section in its current standing is a bit of a detraction? Don't know... That's my tuppence worth. Takk EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Request transliteration and glossing of Malayalam examples
The section "Three-form systems" features some (allegedly) Malayalam examples. (I cannot verify: I do not know the language.) Interesting though the contribution may be, unfortunately it does not reach me because I cannot read the (probably) abugida script. That is different for the languages rendered in Latin script, even if I would not know those languages: I can still make sense of the examples in Danish, Swedish and Hungarian.

I suspect my "frustration" may be shared by other readers unfamiliar with Malayalam (script). It would be very helpful for an English-reading audience if the Malayalam examples would be both transliterated and glossed.Redav (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nope" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nope and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)