Questions for our British friends

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Google says she's a "Reality TV star". In other words, she's nobody.

I would say there's some "body" there . . .

[Roubignol]

In French, Italian and German languages, when someone ask us a closed question, we reply by "Yes" or "No".

British people reply by "Yes I do", "No, I don't".

If someone reply in English, only by "Yes" or "No", without the verb "do", is it rude or only a grammatical mistake? How do you see this?

[rupertramjet]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In French, Italian and German languages, when someone ask us a closed question, we reply by "Yes" or "No".

British people reply by "Yes I do", "No, I don't".

If someone reply in English, only by "Yes" or "No", without the verb "do", is it rude or only a grammatical mistake? How do you see this?

Using just 'no' is not rude at all, in fact it is really the normal use of language, if someone asked me if I liked something. I would just say Yes or No, if they asked me if I wanted something, I would usually say Yes or No thank you, that is merely courtesy, the usual in English for a closed question is just yes or no, the only time you would add anything is a courtesy, to continue a sentence, or denial; 'I did not do that!' It is not a grammatical mistake!

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In French, Italian and German languages, when someone ask us a closed question, we reply by "Yes" or "No".

British people reply by "Yes I do", "No, I don't".

If someone reply in English, only by "Yes" or "No", without the verb "do", is it rude or only a grammatical mistake? How do you see this?

You've made me realise how hard we must make it sometimes for those for whom English is not their first language.

I would tend to say more than just yes or no - simply because I am quite chatty. So if, for instance, someone asked if I'd like a drink I might say "That'd be splendid. Thank you" - and never even use the word yes.

I'll have to think about that when I am overseas or addressing a non- English person.

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

Using just 'no' is not rude at all, in fact it is really the normal use of language

Just as an aside to this, when I started out in the fire service the radio procedure we were given meant that we had to say "affirmative" for "yes" and "negative" for "no" when answering questions put to us over RT..
(I know one bloke who used to talk like that even in the mess. Used to drive us nuts...)

This changed years ago - we simply answered "yes" or "no" to questions. There was one brigade though that insisted on the format being different.. They had to answer the question "answer yes" or " answer no" each time...

Strange how language develops...

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In French, Italian and German languages, when someone ask us a closed question, we reply by "Yes" or "No".

Languages are subtly different on just what the response of "yes" or "no" is referring to, particularly when you've got a negative interrogative.

English can be ambiguous on occasion-- If I ask you "don't you have any more beer?", and I do not have more beer, is the correct answer supposed to be "yes" (as in "yes, that's right, we don't have any beer") or "no" (because there's no beer)? As a matter of logic, the answer is clear, but as a matter of language it isn't.

So most English speakers will respond to a question like that by throwing in a little more than "yes" or "no" -- like "Nope, we're all out".

There was a famous novelty song of the 1920s called "Yes, we have no bananas" which played on this ambiguity.

[Grouchy]

The "double negative" trait now seems to be part of everyday use.. sadly.

We hear it on TV and even in serious documentary - people saying things like "..I haven't got nothing" when in fact, they mean the opposite.

Another word that has had me baffled for years is "inflammable". Surely, inflammable means it is not flammable - i.e., is not subject to easy combustion. Yet we take it to mean the opposite..

[haroldeye]

I've always wondered about that one Grouchy. Another one is Gruntled, we say disgruntled if we are not happy but don't say that we are gruntlrd if we are happy.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

Another word that has had me baffled for years is "inflammable". Surely, inflammable means it is not flammable - i.e., is not subject to easy combustion. Yet we take it to mean the opposite..

Comes from the confusion of Latin meanings as used in English.

English has an awkward relationship with Latin, we maintain it as separate vocabulary, particularly for technical subjects, but there are many Latin meanings that don't mesh naturally with English.

"Inflammable" is a Latin term, "flammable" is an invented new word due to the confusion latin terms create in English

Apparently, in the 1920s, "the National Fire Protection Association urged people to start using the word "flammable" instead of "inflammable" (which is the original word) because they were concerned some people might think inflammable meant not-flammable."

[Sprocketman]

You're wrong there Grouchy. Inflammable means it can be inflamed, ie it can catch fire. Something that can't catch fire is uninflammable ie it can't be inflamed, like asbestos, which can kill you anyway....
Sprocketman.