Seems simple enough to me. The "No" is directed at defusing a redundant introductory lecture.
Translate as:
"No, you don't have to explain further, I completely understand"
"No, stop, I've already heard of that and I'm totally onboard with your opinion"
I spend a lot of time being introduced to topics I'm already familiar with, but just nodding politely or saying "yeah" is interpreted as active listening, as "I'd like to hear more" rather than "Yeah, you can stop right there", which is too confrontational to use directly. What's your preferred way of expressing this sentiment, of interrupting someone in order to claim knowledge in their present topic, without indicating hostility or belittling them?
Extending one of the other posts, "No, your assumption is incorrect, I am in fact already familiar with this subject and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment".
Exactly. I read it as an abbreviated 'no question'
A twist on this is the Irish vernacular I grew up with where one repeats yes/no on a sharp intake of breath. Where I think breathing is some form of social cue for agreement.
Pat: Shure didn't O'Duffy make a right clown of himself in the pub last night
Mick: (breathing in) ehhYeah Yeah yeah, (nod head to one side and wink knowingly) no, he shure did.
I think this is the correct explanation. Can someone find a counter-example where "no" is used in the weird way the New Yorker piece is describing, but where it can't be taken to mean "No, you don't have to go on; I know exactly what you're talking about/asking"?
The example given by yathern...
> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?
I think part of the reasoning behind this type of response is that each response is dealing with a different level of abstraction.
> A: Did you see any birds at the park?
> B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any.
B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' - he did not see any.
This can be done with the 'No, totally' example as well.
> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?
> B: No, totally! Definitely want to go.
B is first saying 'No' to the implied "You don't want to go.". B is essentially saying 'The assumption you made was wrong - I do indeed want to go'.
Granted, I made these examples to be easy to dissect, and it's likely that from this pattern, it devolved into common vernacular despite being used in this way. But I think it still holds up for most uses.
Your second example is the one I'm most familiar with. I say stuff like that often. It's got nothing to do with all the article's other reasons -- it's usually just because my mind is racing faster than I can speak.
Someone : "I thought you really wanted to use the paintbrush. Did you see the if there were any rollers?"
Me (mental response): "No (I didn't want to use the paintbrush). Yes (I did see the rollers) but they looked bad".
Me (actually said out loud): "No. Yes, but they looked bad"
In a context where there is an assumption that conversation is a debate, "No, totally" means "no I am not disagreeing with you, you are totally right."
The different possible origins of this phrase are interesting. The article mentions a couple, and there's some in the comments here.
I've always seen it as I'm saying "no" to alleviate any doubt the other person had that I did not agree with their statement.
The conversation might go:
A. I really think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album.
B. No, totally!
But the implication is more like:
A. I think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album. Am I crazy for not picking "Kid A" or "In Rainbows?"
B. No, I don't think you're crazy for liking "OK Computer" the best. I totally agree with you.
Does anybody else see it this way? (Please respond with "No, totally!" (It's okay if you don't like "OK Computer"))
I agree with this. in the lena DUNHAM case she seems to be affirming maron's assumptions. The question implies that if you don't agree with me I have totally misunderstood you as a person. If she replied with yeah, ok(or any other negative word), she would be communicating her new knowledge of marons inability to relate and the either dismissing the statement or rejecting it. Much conversation is to relate as apposed to communicating specific ideas. on a slight tangent that new usage of random to mean unexpected is more actually meant to me of all the actions I've seen you take I would not have predicted this on.
I learned about some of this from learning Japanese where I had to learn you answer the question directly rather than confirm the negative by repeating it.
In Japanese:
Q: You don't like cigars do you
A: Yes (Yes I don't like cigars)
In English
Q: You don't like cigars do you
A: No (it's effectively confirming the negative of "like")
My Japanese friends learning English of course found English very confusing. I'd point out if you answer the question with more than just "Yes" or "No" it's almost always clear.
A: Yes, I don't like cigars
A: No, I don't like cigars
Both have the same meaning, whereas just Yes or just No is ambiguous.
Of course the article had examples of just yes or just no. To someone of the same language background they are probably unambigious
I like the way Mandarin does this. There's no pure "yes" or "no," just a negation you can apply to a verb. The answers would be either "like" (yes, I like cigars) or "not like" (no, I don't like them).
As I've gotten older, and more direct with my speech, I find myself just repeating the second part of the yes/no question as my answer. Maybe it has something to do with the programming that I've been doing or dealing with programmers.
In reality, as someone who grew up talking like that, answering yes to such a question is really awkward and in no way the expected answer.
I think this is cultural lingo though, as you should probably be asking 'do you like cigars', while the negative form of the question shows familiarity, is less formal and leads to a lot of unwritten rules.
In South Africa we say "Ja, Nie" (which translated is "Yes, No" or "Yes and No"). In this case there does happen to be a theory as to where it came from. The story goes that during the Anglo-Boer War[1] when Afrikaaners were captured they would use it as a response during interrogations - an exceptionally defiant phrase. There is no explanation or story for how it entered common use but you do hear it almost on a daily basis.
This is great because he says "Yeah, no", notices it, calls himself out for it, and then immediately does it again, and he stops and calls himself out a second time, and then you can see him make a visible effort to omit the "no" the third time around.
I think with "No, Totally" in particular, the "no" is refuting something implied. So with "Makes you want to hit them", you are instinctively saying "no" the cultural prohibition against violence. "No that's not normal behavior, but yeah, totally I want to hit them."
For "Would you like ice cream?" you'd say "Totally" because the connotation is good. "Don't you just want to eat the whole tub of ice cream" -- "no, totally", is a reasonable response because you're resisting the negative connotation of pigging out.
I think this is actually unrelated to the "Yeah, No" phenomenon.
This is pretty crazy analysis for what I see to be a pretty simple phenomenon. Put the truncated "Oh" in front of the "no", in order to indicate emotional sentiment, and you have your simple explanation.
"oh no" = hat tip to an [unexpected] unpleasant feeling
"oh yes" = hat tip to an [unexpected] pleasant feeling
Take the "Did you see any birds at the park?"
"yeah, no, I didn't see any" = "Oh yeah, it would have been nice to, but no I didn't see any.
> At first blush, “no” does not appear to be the kind of word whose meaning you can monkey with. For one thing, there is its length. At just two letters and one syllable, it lacks the pliable properties of longer words. You can’t stuff stuff inside it. [...]
I guess these 'long form' articles have to be long, but some of these paragraphs seem pretty forced.
This article seems particularly bad (I stopped reading halfway through), but a lot of articles published in The New Yorker seems to do this kind of meandering. The other day I was reading a story about Jake Leg[0], and if you compare it to the corresponding Wikipedia article[1] the difference is really striking---the Wikipedia article tells you straight away what caused the contamination, while the New Yorker story somehow tries to keep you in suspense.
I guess I just don't see what these authors are trying to do. If someone started reading an article about "no, yes", probably they want to know about "no, yes". Why intersperse a bunch of unrelated fluff?
Weird, I remember when I was in NZ a few years back "yeah nah..." meant "yes" which confused me. I think Australia had it too, but I'm not sure.
Another semi-related but confusing thing was while I've been living in Czech Republic I visited South Korea. I ended up getting twisted up trying to answer yes\no in Korean because...
English: Yes | No
Czech[1]: No | Ne
Korean: Ye\Ne | Anio
Each language has one that's annoyingly similar to the opposite in at least one different language. Trying to get this right after a few beers is hard.
[1] = "No" is a common contraction of "Ano" but even then that conflicts with Korean "Anio".
This is sort of what I've assumed recently. I hear this a lot and it always sounds like there is an implicit "do you disagree?" after the first statement to which the person is responding "no, I agree with you."
Words flipping from positive to negative and visa versa is very common in language. Just the other day I was talking to some younger kids about hockey and they were going on about a goal being "filthy" and "Dirty". In my day a dirty goal was one that didn't look nice. To them these goals were so naughty(as in sexy) you wanted to take a shower after seeing them.
Probably by means of partial understanding. Someone talks about "an awful battle", or "the awful day of judgment", and people (especially children) might understand it as fearsome and potentially very bad, and use the word exclusively in that sense. It's easy to imagine the definition migrating to simply, "very bad".
This part, though somewhat unrelated to the topic, is pleasantly insightful:
> Saying yes as often as possible is, famously, the first rule of improv, vital to maintaining energy, imagination, and humor. It is also, I have long thought, a sure sign that you’re falling in love, not to mention crucial to sustaining that love over the long haul. And, while sometimes impractical, dangerous, or just plain dumb, saying yes to as much stuff as possible is, over all, a pretty good strategy for getting through life.
'Back when English was a four-form system, it, too, had a si—a word used specifically to contradict negative statements. That word was “yes.” To affirm positive statements, you used “yea”'
(Then continues about the similar no / nay.)
Anyway, I'm surprised the writer did not work in the joke about the lecturer saying:
"As you know, a double negative becomes a positive, but the reverse does not happen."
It kind of grates on me when someone always answers in the affirmative with 'No, [affirmative]'. It has become more and more common (especially when I speak with people from California).
I think there's combination of forces at play. But I think a big factor is that people are afraid of appearing too agreeable. It would just be way to overt and enthusiastic to just say 'Yeah, totally' for Californian sensibilities.
[+] [-] mapt|11 years ago|reply
Translate as:
"No, you don't have to explain further, I completely understand"
"No, stop, I've already heard of that and I'm totally onboard with your opinion"
I spend a lot of time being introduced to topics I'm already familiar with, but just nodding politely or saying "yeah" is interpreted as active listening, as "I'd like to hear more" rather than "Yeah, you can stop right there", which is too confrontational to use directly. What's your preferred way of expressing this sentiment, of interrupting someone in order to claim knowledge in their present topic, without indicating hostility or belittling them?
Extending one of the other posts, "No, your assumption is incorrect, I am in fact already familiar with this subject and I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment".
[+] [-] radiorental|11 years ago|reply
A twist on this is the Irish vernacular I grew up with where one repeats yes/no on a sharp intake of breath. Where I think breathing is some form of social cue for agreement.
Pat: Shure didn't O'Duffy make a right clown of himself in the pub last night
Mick: (breathing in) ehhYeah Yeah yeah, (nod head to one side and wink knowingly) no, he shure did.
[+] [-] jessriedel|11 years ago|reply
The example given by yathern...
> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?
> B: No, totally! Definitely want to go.
...seems to fit.
[+] [-] hackaflocka|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yathern|11 years ago|reply
> A: Did you see any birds at the park?
> B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any.
B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' - he did not see any.
This can be done with the 'No, totally' example as well.
> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?
> B: No, totally! Definitely want to go.
B is first saying 'No' to the implied "You don't want to go.". B is essentially saying 'The assumption you made was wrong - I do indeed want to go'.
Granted, I made these examples to be easy to dissect, and it's likely that from this pattern, it devolved into common vernacular despite being used in this way. But I think it still holds up for most uses.
[+] [-] maxsilver|11 years ago|reply
Someone : "I thought you really wanted to use the paintbrush. Did you see the if there were any rollers?"
Me (mental response): "No (I didn't want to use the paintbrush). Yes (I did see the rollers) but they looked bad".
Me (actually said out loud): "No. Yes, but they looked bad"
[+] [-] matkam|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbyking|11 years ago|reply
Another example is "No (I don't disagree with you), I do want to do XYZ."
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BFay|11 years ago|reply
I've always seen it as I'm saying "no" to alleviate any doubt the other person had that I did not agree with their statement.
The conversation might go: A. I really think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album. B. No, totally!
But the implication is more like: A. I think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album. Am I crazy for not picking "Kid A" or "In Rainbows?" B. No, I don't think you're crazy for liking "OK Computer" the best. I totally agree with you.
Does anybody else see it this way? (Please respond with "No, totally!" (It's okay if you don't like "OK Computer"))
[+] [-] mrebus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggman|11 years ago|reply
I learned about some of this from learning Japanese where I had to learn you answer the question directly rather than confirm the negative by repeating it.
In Japanese:
Q: You don't like cigars do you
A: Yes (Yes I don't like cigars)
In English
Q: You don't like cigars do you
A: No (it's effectively confirming the negative of "like")
My Japanese friends learning English of course found English very confusing. I'd point out if you answer the question with more than just "Yes" or "No" it's almost always clear.
A: Yes, I don't like cigars
A: No, I don't like cigars
Both have the same meaning, whereas just Yes or just No is ambiguous.
Of course the article had examples of just yes or just no. To someone of the same language background they are probably unambigious
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kordless|11 years ago|reply
"Is it true you don't like cigars?" Yes, I don't like cigars. "Do you like cigars?" No, I don't like cigars.
In either properly formed question, the answer will always be "no", if you really don't like cigars.
[+] [-] emehrkay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ownagefool|11 years ago|reply
I think this is cultural lingo though, as you should probably be asking 'do you like cigars', while the negative form of the question shows familiarity, is less formal and leads to a lot of unwritten rules.
[+] [-] notahacker|11 years ago|reply
In which case "You're quite correct, I prefer not to smoke cigars" should work just as well as its closest Japanese equivalent.
[+] [-] arfar|11 years ago|reply
We've even got ad campaigns with it now:
http://www.alcohol.org.nz/alcohol-activities-services/campai...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQzcWkKbbA
[+] [-] zamalek|11 years ago|reply
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
[+] [-] ryguytilidie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CocaKoala|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasallen|11 years ago|reply
For "Would you like ice cream?" you'd say "Totally" because the connotation is good. "Don't you just want to eat the whole tub of ice cream" -- "no, totally", is a reasonable response because you're resisting the negative connotation of pigging out.
I think this is actually unrelated to the "Yeah, No" phenomenon.
[+] [-] hamburglar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aptimpropriety|11 years ago|reply
"oh no" = hat tip to an [unexpected] unpleasant feeling
"oh yes" = hat tip to an [unexpected] pleasant feeling
Take the "Did you see any birds at the park?" "yeah, no, I didn't see any" = "Oh yeah, it would have been nice to, but no I didn't see any.
[+] [-] dotsamuelswan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shasta|11 years ago|reply
I guess these 'long form' articles have to be long, but some of these paragraphs seem pretty forced.
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|11 years ago|reply
I guess I just don't see what these authors are trying to do. If someone started reading an article about "no, yes", probably they want to know about "no, yes". Why intersperse a bunch of unrelated fluff?
[0] http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/Articles_files/Jake%20Leg,... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_ginger
[+] [-] mbubb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smcl|11 years ago|reply
Another semi-related but confusing thing was while I've been living in Czech Republic I visited South Korea. I ended up getting twisted up trying to answer yes\no in Korean because...
English: Yes | No
Czech[1]: No | Ne
Korean: Ye\Ne | Anio
Each language has one that's annoyingly similar to the opposite in at least one different language. Trying to get this right after a few beers is hard.
[1] = "No" is a common contraction of "Ano" but even then that conflicts with Korean "Anio".
[+] [-] polarix|11 years ago|reply
The author ends up at a fairly convincing alternative explanation, though.
[+] [-] jere|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrebus|11 years ago|reply
Here's some reading http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/15/1284995/-Origins-of...
[+] [-] JasonFruit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jsbg|11 years ago|reply
> Saying yes as often as possible is, famously, the first rule of improv, vital to maintaining energy, imagination, and humor. It is also, I have long thought, a sure sign that you’re falling in love, not to mention crucial to sustaining that love over the long haul. And, while sometimes impractical, dangerous, or just plain dumb, saying yes to as much stuff as possible is, over all, a pretty good strategy for getting through life.
[+] [-] ableal|11 years ago|reply
'Back when English was a four-form system, it, too, had a si—a word used specifically to contradict negative statements. That word was “yes.” To affirm positive statements, you used “yea”'
(Then continues about the similar no / nay.)
Anyway, I'm surprised the writer did not work in the joke about the lecturer saying:
"As you know, a double negative becomes a positive, but the reverse does not happen."
Voice from the back of the room: "Yeah, yeah ..."
[+] [-] sukilot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesrom|11 years ago|reply
I think there's combination of forces at play. But I think a big factor is that people are afraid of appearing too agreeable. It would just be way to overt and enthusiastic to just say 'Yeah, totally' for Californian sensibilities.
[+] [-] grownseed|11 years ago|reply
For lack of a better explanation, it's essentially a negative "yes", used to negate a negation.
For instance:
Meaning "No, I don't agree with you, but yes, I do understand".I find it very simple yet quite powerful.
[+] [-] AngrySkillzz|11 years ago|reply