|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
February 20th, 2018, 07:34 PM | #4211 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,205
Thanks: 47,953
Thanked 83,435 Times in 7,199 Posts
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to deepsepia For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 09:18 AM | #4212 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mice Planet
Posts: 3,882
Thanks: 15,974
Thanked 29,726 Times in 3,826 Posts
|
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? |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Roubignol For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 10:14 AM | #4213 | |
R.I.P.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 4,300
Thanks: 26,852
Thanked 54,117 Times in 4,288 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to rupertramjet For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 01:20 PM | #4214 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Unaffordable housing
Posts: 4,923
Thanks: 31,646
Thanked 68,928 Times in 4,921 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 21st, 2018, 01:28 PM | #4215 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 396
Thanks: 6,240
Thanked 4,389 Times in 372 Posts
|
Quote:
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... |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Grouchy For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 02:05 PM | #4216 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,205
Thanks: 47,953
Thanked 83,435 Times in 7,199 Posts
|
Quote:
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. |
|
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to deepsepia For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 02:20 PM | #4217 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 396
Thanks: 6,240
Thanked 4,389 Times in 372 Posts
|
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.. |
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Grouchy For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 03:15 PM | #4218 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Halfwitistan
Posts: 5,715
Thanks: 113,479
Thanked 59,962 Times in 5,707 Posts
|
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.
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to haroldeye For This Useful Post: |
February 21st, 2018, 03:29 PM | #4219 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,205
Thanks: 47,953
Thanked 83,435 Times in 7,199 Posts
|
Quote:
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." |
|
February 21st, 2018, 03:29 PM | #4220 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Derby UK
Posts: 30
Thanks: 245
Thanked 246 Times in 29 Posts
|
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|