Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 October 31

= October 31 =

Yeah, no, absolutely.
I'm listening to an interview in which the elder professional asks now and again "Does that make sense?" and the young journalist's reply (which seems, from other evidence, to intend an affirmative) always begins "Yeah, no, ..."

Who can explain this "no"? Am I right in thinking it was invented by those horrid people younger than myself? Is it a relic (like "is is") of some context in which it made sense, but from which it has come unmoored? —Tamfang (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe it means "You're not putting me to any inconvenience." —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The wider linguistic community has been examining the "yeah no" phenomenon for quite some years. There are numerous theories about how it ever got started and what it actually means.  But what's not in doubt is that it's here to stay.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like him much, but this is funny.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it's not "Yeah I know", where the I is elided between the "yeah" and the "know"? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Read some of the links in my post above, Tammy. Here are some more. It is definitely "yeah, no".  For some reason, Australia has provided extremely fertile ground for this expression, but it's certainly encountered elsewhere.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I say "yeah I know" and so do others here in the UK. I've heard Aussies use "look" or "yeah, look" or "yeah, no, look" to introduce their speech, but it is different over here.--TammyMoet (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Yeah, no" is attested in the States as well. It is definitely not "I know". --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I say "Yeah, no," and it's definitely not "Yeah, I know." RNealK (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This early 2002 study called 'Yeah-no He's a Good Kid': A Discourse Analysis of Yeah-no in Australian English' by Kate Burridge & Margaret Florey, in the Australian Journal of Linguistics, needs a subscription to access, but I've seen it referred to in a number of other pieces. Maybe get it through WP:REX.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Tammy, I'm sure it's not "I know", both by the rhythm and because "I know" would make no more sense in context. —Tamfang (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See "Yes! We Have No Bananas".—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These things are hesitation markers, and in adults they are often signs poor speech habits, poor thinking processes, or a resulting or general lack of confidence. Specifically, "yeah, no" can mean "yeah, I hear you" but "no, your implication is false". μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's in response to another speaker who has directly or implicitly made a negative claim; the responder is agreeing with the speaker, and denying that which the speaker is denying. At least that's my intuition. --Trovatore (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That usage also exists, but it's different from the one being discussed here. --Trovatore (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The one we're talking about here is like the typical post-sports match interview with one of the key players. Interviewer: "You had a cracker of a game today, Brock".  Brock: Yeah, no, I didn't do too bad, did I.  The claim is positive and he's in total agreement with it, but there's still a "no" in there.  Whatever the function of the "no" is, it has nothing to do with negating or denying anything.  It's unfortunately very infectious; even I have caught myself saying it in conversation.  I try not to, but sometimes it just sorta comes out.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But "Yeah (I) know" would make perfect sense wouldn't it? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A normal response to "You didn't do too badly today" would be "No, I didn't do too badly." The "Yeah" in front of that would seem to be almost a separate sentence, acknowledging and agreeing with the interviewer, followed by the self-deprecating sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider this exchange: "Did you go to the store today?" The response could be, "No, I did not go to the store today." The response could also be just "No". That might figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A related idiom in one dialect of American English, New England English, is "So don't...", which is used to mean "also..." In New England, "So don't I" means what " Me too" means in other dialects.  See  and .  These sorts of phrases like " yeah, no" and " so don't I" are idiomatic, and so resist analysis under the strict rules of grammar and syntax.  -- Jayron  32  11:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. People unfamiliar with "yeah no" always try to analyse it as two words, which is understandable.  On its face it doesn't make any sense, and so it's also understandable that people come up with ideas and theories about what the speaker "must have meant". But in its functioning, it is much more like one word than two.  Indeed, the Australian study I linked above calls it "yeah-no".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Who vs. Whom
I am trying to write an article relating to the labeling of people as something by an outside entity. If the people are going to be labeled and categorized, would I want to write "Who would be labeled as X" or "Whom would be labeled as X"? 37.221.244.23 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the subject of the (passive) verb, so it's "who". --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) If you rewrite it as a statement, it would be "They would be labelled as X", so it's "who", not "whom". The people are the subject of the passive construction "would be labelled". If the question were to be written in the active voice (which I do not recommend) it would be "Whom would they label as X?" (because "they [the labellers] would label them"), though the who/whom distinction is disappearing in speech and informal writing, so "who" would not stand out as obviously "wrong" to many people in this case. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Or, if you're more comfortable getting your learnin' via comics: How and why to use whom in a sentence. Dismas |(talk) 12:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

--Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Use who when he is appropriate, and whom when him is appropriate. Ignore the rest. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the consistent rule, it would wreak some havoc with "Who's on First?" :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it wreak havoc with "Who's on first"? Do you answer "Him's on first"? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "... and I throw it to Who?" "That's the first sensible thing you've said all day." Tevildo (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Her is the kinda dame what drives a fella bats isn't her? her is


 * Dear friend from the Czech Republic, be aware Bugs is talking about a famous 70 year-old American comedy routine where people intentionally misuse words. It has nothing to do with writing proper English. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not "misuse of words", it's a masterful employment of the use-mention distinction to humourous effect. We (naturally) have an article (Who's on First?) on the sketch. Tevildo (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to call it, Sauron, our non-English speaker seeking guidance above would do best to ignore it. The comedy skit is in no way normal speech or even easy for native speakers to follow. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a "misuse" of words in that Who, What, I Don't Know, etc., are not normally surnames. Someone who does not know English well might get as lost as Costello did, though maybe for different reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

what is the opposite of 'good governance' (catchier than, 'bad governance')
There is a framework: the good things are 'security', 'empowerment', 'opportunity', 'good governance'. We want to talk about increasing those good things, and decreasing the opposites. Security - insecurity. Empowerment - dependency. Opportunity - exclusion. Good governance - ?? Of course, it could just be 'bad governance'. But that doesn't read nicely. What word, phrase could be used in a table/chart/framework, to mean the opposite of 'good governance', without just saying 'bad governance'. Thanks if you have a 'good' suggestion. (Sorry this is a little bit of a bend to the intentions of the refdesk. I usually try to avoid the opinion questions and stick to the facts, but ... ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.222 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just plain "governance"? --Trovatore (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Bad governance" sounds awkward because it is vague. It could refer to "incompetent governance", "corrupt governance", or both.  I would choose one of those, or "corrupt and incompetent governance" in the case of both. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Or "inept" if the people in government meant well but weren't up to the job. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Misgovernance, or malgovernance (the former sounds more natural). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are the words malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, but they are more specific in meaning than just "bad governance". I've not heard of malgovernance before. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Malgovernance is most widely used in South Asian English; don't have an OED handy to give you dates. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED has not noticed this. It lists "malgovernance" as obsolete rare-1, which means that they know of only a single example of it; that is from 1673. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED may not have noticed, but it is true nonetheless. If you type malgovernance into Google, you find many reliable sources using the word in relation to places like Bangladesh and India.  It does appear to be a standard term in South Asian English.  -- Jayron  32  10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the business world, "mismanagement" comes to mind. Also, I question "opportunity" as the opposite of "exclusion". The opposite of "exclusion" is "inclusion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Business as usual, or the normal state of affairs. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my experience, "poor governance" is the most idiomatic broad term. Depending on the context, other terms, such as "corruption," may be more appropriate.  John M Baker (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese help: Further reading for Sai Jinhua
What are the Chinese names of the books and authors in Sai_Jinhua that do not already have Chinese names?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)