# Disagreeing with a negative statement



## ger4

In German we distinguish between _ja_ (= 'yes', agreeing with a positive statement ~ French _oui_) and _doch_ (= 'yes', disagreeing with a negative statement ~ French _si_). What expressions do you use in your language?  

An example:
A: This question hasn't been asked before.
B: Yes, (it has been asked before).

In German:
A: Diese Frage ist noch nicht gestellt worden.
B: _Doch, (sie ist schon gestellt worden)._


----------



## rusita preciosa

In Russian this distinction does not exist, so learning the French *oui* vs. *si* represents some difficulty.
I think it is handy though.


----------



## apmoy70

Greek uses the common adverbs for affirmation or negation, i.e. *«ναι»* [ne] --> _yes_ < Classical affir. particle *«ναὶ» naì*, Attic *«νὴ» nḕ*, Boeotian and Arcadocypriot *«νεὶ» neì*  --> _yes, indeed, surely_ (possibly from PIE demonstrative *no, _there, see there_ cf Tocharian B nai, _indeed, surely_); *«όχι»* [ˈoçi] --> _no_ < Byz. neg. particle *«ὄχι» ókhi *and *«οὐχὶ» oukì* < Classical neg. pcle *«οὐκ» ouk*, antevocalic *«οὐχ» oukʰ*, Homeric and Attic *«οὐχὶ» oukʰ**ì *--> _not_ (PIE *ne/*n̥-, _not_ cf  Skt. न (na); Proto-Slavic *ne > Rus./Ukr. не, Cz. ne, Pol./Svk. nie, OCS нє > BCS не/ne, Bul. не).  

But the problem with your example is that we'd use negation as an affirmation of your hypothesis:
A: This question hasn't been asked before.
B: _No_ it hasn't been asked before.


----------



## ger4

@ Rusita
@ Apmoy
Thanks a lot for your early replies!

Wiktionary explains it like this:


> *si* *(French)*
> - yes (*used to contradict a negative statement*)
> - Moi, je *n*'ai *rien* fait ! — *Si!*
> - I *didn't* do anything! — *Yes*, you did!
> *doch (German)*
> - (*in response to a negative question or statement*) yes; surely; really; *on the contrary*
> - Du wirst *nicht* kommen? — *Doch!*
> - You *won't* come? — Oh, *yes*, I will!
> *jo (Swedish)*
> - yes; *used as a disagreement to a negative statement*.
> - Du har *inte* borstat tänderna, eller hur? - *Jo,* det har jag.
> - You *haven't* brushed your teeth, have you? - *Yes*, I have.
> - Usage notes: *Ja (yes) can be interpreted as an agreement with the person replied to. Jo is used instead of ja if this agreement could cause ambiguity. In the example above agreement with the person asking the question would be the opposite of a confirmation that one actually did brush the teeth. As such ja would be ambiguous. The answer jo removes the possibility of agreement with the speaker.*


Wikipedia:


> _Like Early Modern English, the Romanian language has a four-form system. The affirmative and negative responses to positively phrased questions are da and nu, respectively. But *in responses to negatively phrased questions they are prefixed with **ba* (i.e. ba da and ba nu). nu is also used as a negation adverb, infixed between subject and verb. Thus, for examples, the affirmative response to the negatively phrased question "*N*-ai plătit?" ("*Didn't* you pay?") is "*Ba da*." ("*Yes*."—i.e. "I did pay."), and the negative response to a positively phrased question beginning "Se poate să ...?" ("Is it possible to ...?") is "Nu, nu se poate." ("No, it is not possible."—note the use of nu for both no and negation of the verb.)_
> 
> _Japanese also lacks words for yes and no. The words "はい" (hai) and "いいえ" (iie) are mistaken by English speakers for equivalents to yes and no, but they actually *signify agreement or disagreement with the proposition put by the question: "That's correct." or "That's incorrect."*[34][40] For example: If asked, "行かないのですか" ("ika*nai* no desu ka" / "Are you *not* going?"), answering with the affirmative hai would mean "Correct. I am not going"; whereas in English, answering "yes" would be to contradict the negative question. Echo responses are not uncommon in Japanese._


So, it looks like the concept of 'yes' and 'no' is much more complicated than it seems to be - and that's why I was wondering how different languages express disagreements with negative statements (or negative questions).

Would you say your language has a system more similar to English, or more similar to French/German/Swedish, more similar to Romanian, more similar to Japanese - or are there perhaps completely different systems?


----------



## francisgranada

Hungarian:

In case of the negative statement "This question _hasn't_ been asked before" the reaction could be:
A: De  (it has been asked before).
B: Nem (it has not been asked before). 

And in case of the positive statement "This question _has _been asked before":
A: Igen  (it has been asked before).
B: Nem  (it has not been asked before).


----------



## sound shift

Holger2014 said:


> An example:
> A: This question hasn't been asked before.
> B: Yes, (it has been asked before).


I know your example is intended to illustrate the situation, but I feel I should point out that an English speaker would not respond with just "Yes" here. If B believes that the question has been asked before (if B disagrees with A), B will say, "Yes it has."


----------



## ger4

francisgranada said:


> Hungarian:
> 
> In case of the negative statement "This question _hasn't_ been asked before" the reaction could be:
> A: De  (it has been asked before).
> B: Nem (it has not been asked before).
> 
> And in case of the positive statement "This question _has _been asked before":
> A: Igen  (it has been asked before).
> B: Nem  (it has not been asked before).


That is very clear. Thanks!


sound shift said:


> I know your example is intended to illustrate the situation, but I feel I should point out that an English speaker would not respond with just "Yes" here. If B believes that the question has been asked before (if B disagrees with A), B will say, "Yes it has."


Thanks, I'll rephrase the example to make it sound less 'abrupt', more idiomatic perhaps:

*A: "This question hasn't been asked before."
B: "Yes it has." = it has been asked before --> B disagrees with A*


----------



## Encolpius

Yes, we have a very short form of the German "doch" as Francis mentioned "de"...it means "but", Germans can also say "aber ja" and Czechs used the same expression "ale ano or ale jo in colloquial Czech just like Slovaks....But we Hungarians put the words of many languages together and made a nice long expression....  dehogyisnem. I find the short form not only colloquial but rather vulgar, while dehogyisnem, dehogynem is the standard phrase.... What does it mean: "but-that-too-not (German: aberdassauchnicht )...


----------



## francisgranada

Szia Encolpius. Allow me some reaction/precision (nem rosszból ):


Encolpius said:


> Yes, we have a very short form of the German "doch" ... "de"...it means "but" ...


 The word "de" has two separate meanings, one is "but" and the second is the one this thread is about  (in this case you cannot substitute "de" with other words that express the concept of "but" like _ám, hanem, azonban, ellenben, etc_ ..). Etymological dictionaries treat these two meanings separately, even if they both have a  common origin: the primary function of "de" was to express _surprise _as reaction to a statement or to what has been told, the "modern meanings" (attested from the 12th century) have developed later. 


> But we Hungarians put the words of many languages together ... dehogyisnem


Only to avoid any possible misunderstanding: all the components of this nice word (_de, hogy, is, nem_) are of Hungarian origin. 


> I find the short form not only colloquial but rather vulgar, while dehogyisnem, dehogynem is the standard phrase ...


I am very sorry, but I cannot agree. A simple _igen _or _nem _(yes/no) can be also "impolite" in certain situations ... _Dehogynem/dehogyisnem_ is an emphasized version of "de" and is used probably more frequently than the simple "de", but in my personal opinion, it doesn't make it neither non-standard nor vulgar.


----------



## Encolpius

francisgranada said:


> Szia Encolpius. Allow me some reaction/precision (nem rosszból ):
> The word "de" has two separate meanings, one is "but" and the second is the one this thread is about  (in this case you cannot substitute "de" with other words that express the concept of "but" like _ám, hanem, azonban, ellenben, etc_ ..). Etymological dictionaries treat these two meanings separately, even if they both have a  common origin: the primary function of "de" was to express _surprise _as reaction to a statement or to what has been told, the "modern meanings" (attested from the 12th century) have developed later. ...



So you think it's a big coincidence Germans use "aber ja" [de igen], Czechs "ale jo" [de igen] and we can say: 
- Ezt még senki sem kérdezte? 
- De igen!  / De! / Dehogyisnem!

Star to consult the etymology of the Hungarian word "de" is rather fun...


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> So you think it's a big coincidence Germans use "aber ja" [de igen], Czechs "ale jo" [de igen] ...


No. (The same way as e.g. the worlds for "moon" and "month" are related in many languages independently, but not coincidentally).

This is a linguistic forum, so we have to take in consideration some "nuances" as well. The Czech _ale _and German _aber _do not correspond to Hungarian "de" in cases we are talking about, even if _aber ja/ale jo_ can be perfectly translated as "de igen" to Hungarian. You can read more about this question for example here (especially the part "Three-form systems").


----------



## Encolpius

Sorry, but you cannot convince me.... ...those nuances have little practical sense....for me at least...


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> Sorry, but you cannot convince me....


Never mind . 

The substance  is (from the point of view of Holger's question) that the Hungarian represents a "three-form system", independently on the etymology and the other possible meanings/usage of the word "de". Finally, the German "doch" has also various meanings.


----------



## Encolpius

The substance is I usually haven't got the slightest idea what some people are talking about in some threads. ...I am more interested in practical linguistics...that's all...


----------



## Zsanna

"Dehogy(is)nem" reminded me how surprised I was to hear _come no_ for the first time in Italian. It immediately evoked the (aforementioned) Hungarian word without the help of any dictionary.


----------



## Gavril

A common way of disagreeing with a negative statement seems to involve repeating the verb of this statement, sometimes with inverted word order.

For example,

Finnish
_Hän ei ollut läsnä eilisessä kokouksessa._ "He wasn't there at yesterday's meeting"
_Oli hän!_ "Yes, he was!" [Here, the verb _oli _"was" precedes the subject pronoun _hän_]

As far as I know, Finnish does not have a specific word corresponding to French _si_ and the like, but the verb-subject word order in contradictory statements like this is somewhat marked: usually, declarative sentences in Finnish do not begin with a verb.


----------



## Encolpius

already discussed here


----------



## ger4

@ Encolpius:
Thanks for the link. I've been searching this forum for a similar thread but didn't find anything - that's why I started this one. If anyone is still interested in the topic all new posts could perhaps be added to the other thread...

@ Gavril:
Thanks for your reply, I think the issue of repeating the verb is interesting and seems to be quite common in other languages as well (and in Irish English, if I'm not mistaken)


----------



## Perseas

apmoy70 said:


> But the problem with your example is that we'd use negation as an affirmation of your hypothesis:
> A: This question hasn't been asked before.
> B: _No_ it hasn't been asked before.



Hi apmoy,

I think «κι όμως» would fit here. By the way, «όμως» translates in many instances the German "doch".
κι = and
 όμως = but, yet, still

A: This question hasn't been asked before.
B: _Κι όμως_ (it has been asked before).


----------



## ger4

Thanks Perseas and Apmoy, I'm trying to combine both posts here once again:


apmoy70 said:


> Greek uses the common adverbs for affirmation or negation, i.e. *«ναι»* [ne] --> _yes_ < Classical affir. particle *«ναὶ» naì*, Attic *«νὴ» nḕ*, Boeotian and Arcadocypriot *«νεὶ» neì*  --> _yes, indeed, surely_ (possibly from PIE demonstrative *no, _there, see there_ cf Tocharian B nai, _indeed, surely_); *«όχι»* [ˈoçi] --> _no_ < Byz. neg. particle *«ὄχι» ókhi *and *«οὐχὶ» oukì* < Classical neg. pcle *«οὐκ» ouk*, antevocalic *«οὐχ» oukʰ*, Homeric and Attic *«οὐχὶ» oukʰ**ì *--> _not_ (PIE *ne/*n̥-, _not_ cf  Skt. न (na); Proto-Slavic *ne > Rus./Ukr. не, Cz. ne, Pol./Svk. nie, OCS нє > BCS не/ne, Bul. не).





Perseas said:


> Hi apmoy,
> 
> I think «κι όμως» would fit here. By the way, «όμως» translates in many instances the German "doch".
> κι = and
> όμως = but, yet, still
> 
> A: This question hasn't been asked before.
> B: _Κι όμως_ (it has been asked before).


The example sentence was predictive: the question of this thread _has_ been asked before (here)... but thanks again for all contributions!


----------



## apmoy70

Perseas said:


> Hi apmoy,
> 
> I think «κι όμως» would fit here. By the way, «όμως» translates in many instances the German "doch".
> κι = and
> όμως = but, yet, still
> 
> A: This question hasn't been asked before.
> B: _Κι όμως_ (it has been asked before).


You're absolutely right Perseas, thanks (it didn't even cross my mind)


----------



## Encolpius

Holger2014 said:


> In German:
> A: Diese Frage ist noch nicht gestellt worden.
> B: _Doch, (sie ist schon gestellt worden)._



And if I am not mistaken another (Southern German?) variant is *wohl*...


----------



## ger4

Encolpius said:


> And if I am not mistaken another (Southern German?) variant is *wohl*...


You could say: "(Doch), die Frage ist *sehr* *wohl *schon gestellt worden." Another alternative would be: "*Und ob* die Frage schon gestellt worden ist!" 

Children often say something like "jaaawoooohl!" when they're arguing (from generation to generation these childrens' expressions always seem to be similar; at a certain age we stop using them, then the next generation takes over...)


----------



## Encolpius

no Holger, I mean: doch = wohl...    but I am sure you'll say I am wrong...


----------



## ger4

As far as I'm aware... ... "wohl" can't be used on its own in this context but I'll keep thinking... Did you hear it in Southern Germany or Austria?


----------



## Gavril

Holger2014 said:


> You could say: "(Doch), die Frage ist *sehr* *wohl *schon gestellt worden." Another alternative would be: "*Und ob* die Frage schon gestellt worden ist!"
> 
> Children often say something like "jaaawoooohl!" when they're arguing (from generation to generation these childrens' expressions always seem to be similar; at a certain age we stop using them, then the next generation takes over...)



That reminds me: the word *too* is sometimes  used in English, especially by younger children, to disagree with a  negative statement. It is usually placed after the auxiliary verb of the  negative statement:

A: _I didn't ask that question before._
B:_ You did too!

_Is this the sort of context where German-speaking children might use "jaaawoooohl"?


----------



## ger4

Exactly...
A: _Ich hab' die Frage noch nie gestellt! _(~ more colloquial way of saying:_ I didn't ask that question before_)
B: _Jaaawooohl!

_


----------



## Encolpius

Interesting comments Gavril & Holger. I think only "deeeeee!" would work in Hungarian in that case...


----------



## miguell

Omg. In Polish it is so easy 

Yes - tak
No - nie 

And it's all. But "tak" means also "this way". For example Do it this way. Zrób to tak. 
Tak means also "right" or "yeah" For example

Right/Yeah, but you need to... 
Tak, ale musisz... 

"Tak" means also "that" in the context like:

Why are you behaving like that?
Dlaczego się tak zachowujesz?


----------



## ger4

Dziękuję! So... how would you answer this question, for instance:
A: _Czy nie wiesz?_ - 'Don't you know?'
B: ... - 'Yes, I *do* know!'
... would it be enough to say _Tak_ or would you repeat the verb (_Tak, wiem_) ?


----------



## miguell

The most optimal and natural would be "Tak, wiem" but "Tak" or just "Wiem" is ok for me.
What's more, in the colloquial Polish we use "taa" to say "Tak" and to make it even shorter. Hah.
It depends on an speaker but "taa" could be sarcastic (but not  not necessarily, it depends on what he wants to say)
It could be: Taaa, wiem but I don't care

If you say "tak" twice it could be sarcastic too. For example:
- Tom jest zawsze taki zabawny (Tom is always soo funny)
- Tak, tak, wiemy.  (Yeah, we know that)


----------



## wildan1

Holger2014 said:


> Thanks, I'll rephrase the example to make it sound less 'abrupt', more idiomatic perhaps:
> 
> *A: "This question hasn't been asked before."
> B: "Yes it has." = it has been asked before --> B disagrees with A*


That's possible of course, with the right intonation and stress, the statement is polite and perhaps a bit understated. Something you would say firmly yet respectfully.

But I think more a more clear rendition of _doch_ here would be *It has too!*


----------



## Encolpius

I've learned here in WR it might be very difficult to explain something to speakers who do not know a certain word (grammatical phenomenon) from their own mother tongue or at least form another tongue they are fluent. That doch-phenomenon is missing in Slavic languages..
We should make a resume which languages use it: 
German, French, Hungarian, Greek?


----------



## sound shift

wildan1 said:


> But I think more a more clear rendition of _doch_ here would be *It has too!*


"It has too!" would be very unusual in BE. In BE, a forceful way of expressing disagreement here would be "Oh yes it has!"


----------

