# Nope and yeah



## emma42

Hello forer@s!

I have been given to understand, by a moderator, that "nope" and "yeah" (for "no" and "yes") are acceptable, standard words to use in the Forums.

I understand that some AE dictionaries have them as "informal", but not non-standard, whereas BE dictionaries usually have them as "non-standard".

Notwithstanding what the AE dictionaries say, I do take a dim view of the use of these words on the Forums, which does ask us to use standard forms.  I don't think they are "standard", as I have understood the word with regard to WRF.

Surely, there is a danger that non-native English speakers will think these words are as acceptable as "yes" and "no" in all circumstances.  This is doing them a disservice.

Of course, it is up to the mods to decide what is and is not acceptable, but I would be interested to hear the views of other forer@s on this.  I would like the current policy/practice to be changed.


----------



## Saoul

Nope
Yeah, yup, yep
MERRIAM WEBSTER YEP
MERRIAM WEBSTER NOPE
THE FREE DICTIONARY YEP
THE FREE DICTIONARY NOPE

Ciao Emma, 

on the other hand, we have to consider that these words are often used by English speakers.

I'm afraid, though, that the Rule you are referring to, isn't really about "standard language" per se, but as "standard language" as in "no SMS Style or Chat Speak", and even in those cases, unless "they are the topic of the thread".

As far as I see it, as non-native English speaker and forero, as long as a word is codified in (a) dictionary/ies, I'm fine with it, and as far as there are threads explaining that such forms are not to be used in formal writings or similar, I'm super-fine with it. 

If you were studying Italian, I guess that knowing that we can say "See", "Sì", "Come no", "Figurati", "'azzo"  as different ways of saying "Sì" (Yes), would make a great difference. Same thing here, IMHO. 

Saoul


----------



## elroy

1. One of the distinctive features of this forum is that it does not give one variety of a language more importance than another, or encourage claims that one variety is more correct than another.

ERGO American English is just as highly regarded as other varieties of English.

2. In American English, _nope_ and _yeah_ are not non-standard but simply colloquial.

3. There is no forum rule prohibiting colloquialisms, whether or not they are peculiar to one specific variety of the language (in keeping with #1 above).

ERGO Nope, I don't think we need to amend any rules, and yeah, I think that's fair.


----------



## emma42

Thank you for your views.  I strongly disagree with them.


----------



## ErOtto

emma42 said:


> Thank you for your views. I strongly disagree with them.


 
It´s your right. 




emma42 said:


> Hello *f**orer@s*!




But, you don't seem to have problems with that.


----------



## emma42

ErOtto said:


> It´s your right.
> 
> 
> [/color]
> 
> But, you don't seem to have problems with that.



Your post is entirely off-topic.  However, since you bring it up, "forer@s" has been a generally accepted, useful coinage for a long time in WRF. As you have brought it up,  do you have a problem with it?  If so, perhaps you would like to open a separate thread.


----------



## elroy

There's already is a thread about it.  The general consensus in the thread is actually _against_ this use of the @ sign in the forum, and my general impression is that most of our Spanish-speaking regulars agree with that view.

Anyway, I would say that _nope_ and _yeah_ have been generally accepted, useful colloquialisms for a long time throughout the English-speaking world.


----------



## emma42

elroy said:


> There's already is a thread about it.  The general consensus in the thread is actually _against_ this use of the @ sign in the forum, and my general impression is that most of our Spanish-speaking regulars agree with that view.  Still, it is accepted in the Forums.  I have never been asked by a mod not to use it.  My general impression is that most of our English-speaking regulars agree with that view.
> 
> Anyway, I would say that _nope_ and _yeah_ have been generally accepted, useful colloquialisms for a long time throughout the English-speaking world.  Of course they have.  I have not said they haven't.



Thanks for the links provided by Saoul and Elroy.   I can see there is a lot of disagreement about "yeah/nope" etc.

I have been thinking about this, and reading the links.  I can see that there is some merit in the argument for "nope/yeah".  I couldn't see any merit at all before, so thanks for making me think.  

I have to say that comments like that in Post #5 do not help.


----------



## Vanda

As a non-native I'd like to add my 2 cents about the way non-native students see expressions like _nope and yeah_: these are the very first things they want to learn.  And now because of Internet and cable TV they read/hear things like that and want to know how and when to use it. 
On the other hand, as Saoul has already mentioned above, most of language learners want to know the way people use colloquial expressions in their daily lives. So when someone is learning Portuguese, for example, they want to know exactly things like that.  I think this is valid for any language.


----------



## emma42

Of course non-native students want to learn these words and forms, and so they should - they are part of the language.  This is/was not my point.  I don't know how I can make it any clearer.


----------



## Saoul

So what's your point Emma? 

- The standard - non standard issue... not an issue;
- Formal - informal... not an issue;
- English vs American... not an issue;
- "Surely, there is a danger that non-native English speakers will think these words are as acceptable as "yes" and "no" in all circumstances. This is doing them a disservice." Not an issue...

I mean, I don't get the point, then.


----------



## emma42

My point is about the use of these words in the Forums, which ask us to use standard forms.  I don't agree that they are standard.  I understand that some AE dictionaries say they are.  Moreoever, in order to make things clear to non-native speakers, someone would have to explain the possible problems with these forms every time they are used.  Ergo, it would be better if they weren't used as standard _in the Forums._


----------



## Saoul

I thought I had explained what standard stands for in our rules. 

4ever
i don't know
i luv ya

None of these forms are included in any dictionaries, and yet we at WRF do discuss them if necessary... Nope and yeah, on the other hand, are!

And we're not talking about "nuclear engineering" here. We're talking about "yes" and "no" which is something that even my gramma, 87, Sicilian only speaking woman knows.


----------



## emma42

Yes, Saoul, you have explained what standard stands for in WR rules, and I  have said I don't agree with the definition.

I am aware that forms such as "4eva" are discussed in WRF.  My point was not to suggest stopping discussion of any point of language.


----------



## cuchuflete

I am a defender of the right of foreros to use _yeah_ and _nope_.  Both Oxford University Press's dictionaries, and the better AE dictionaries, consistently label these as "informal". They are not notated as either sub-standard, non-standard, or slang.

That said, there is a problem, not with the use of these words, but with the frequent misuse of them.  They are often juxtaposed with otherwise formal–or at least higher–register statements.  This sets a very poor example for non-native learners of English.

It is not the role or posture of the moderator team to correct every instance of such stylistic slop.  These forums are chock-full of examples of good writing.  There are also posts that could use attention from a good copy editor.


----------



## emma42

Indeed, it is the frequent juxtaposition of these forms with higher-register language, as well as the use of them per se (I just find "yeah" vile to the eye (not "nope" so much), and it's one letter longer than "yes", for goodness sake!) to which I have been objecting.

However, I do now have a better understanding both of the term "standard", and of the role of the mods in dealing with "stylistic slop".

Chambers English Dictionary has "yeah" as colloquial, and "nope" as slang, just for information and balance.


----------



## danielfranco

I suppose "nah, yah, na-hah, yah-HAH," _und_ "yep" are right out.

D


----------



## emma42

What do you think, daniel?


----------



## Loob

I wasn't planning to post in this thread. But I was pondering on it while out walking my dogs in the never-ending rain that seems to have settled over my part of the worldmad; and I think emma has raised an important point.

I see two inconsistencies in the current WRF stance.

Inconsistency 1

- 90% of the time, I (and most people I know) pronounce "yes" as "yeah"
- 90% of the time, I (and most people I know) pronounce "want to" as "wanna".

- when writing PMs and emails, I use "yeah" to convey a particular 'tone of voice'
- when writing PMs and emails, I use "wanna" to convey a particular 'tone of voice'.

- second-language learners are interested in learning that "yes" is often pronounced "yeah"
- second-language learners are interested in learning that "want to" is often pronounced "wanna".

- it is acceptable for me to write "yeah" in a forum post
- it is *not* acceptable for me to write "wanna" in a forum post.



Inconsistency 2

(1) WRF rule II states that 





> The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


 
(2) at least some of the posts in this thread are saying that "if a word is codified in a dictionary, it's OK"

(3) there are many words in dictionaries which I, personally, would not use in a "serious, academic, collaborative" context.



I do think something needs clarifying here


----------



## Hakro

I don't know much about English, but as a professional user of my own language (in written form) I would never accept similar colloquial/slang pronunciations in a written text (except for a quotation).

'Yeah' and 'nope' are longer words that 'yes' and 'no', so it doesn't make sense to use them in written text. 

If we accept these colloquial/slang words, where do we put the limit? (See Danielfranco #17.)

I totally agree with Emma.


----------



## elroy

Loob, I do not think _yeah_ and _wanna_ are equivalents.  

_Yeah _is not a perfect synonym of _yes_, so there are situations in which one is more suitable than the other.  

_Wanna_, on the other hand, is simply a representation of the way _want to_ can be *pronounced*. Writing _wanna_ is akin to visually representing any other colloquial pronunciation alternatives, such as _Howdja do dat? _for _How did you do that?_.  _Want to_ can be read as _wanna_ if the context is sufficiently informal, whereas _yes_ cannot be read as _yeah_.  

As for your second point, no one is saying that *any* word codified in a dictionary is acceptable.  Of course there are words that are recognized by dictionaries but not appropriate in a serious, academic, collaborative context.  However, I do not feel that that can be said of _yeah_ or _nope_.  I hope you're not suggesting that we should all sound like we're presenting an academic paper.  

Hakro, _yeah_ and _nope_ are not simply different *pronunciations *of _yes_ and _no_; they are words in their own right that serve different functions and have different connotations.  Some of this is discussed in the threads Saoul linked to.


----------



## emma42

What different connotations can "yeah" and "nope" have that "yes" and "no" cannot?


----------



## elroy

I think we may be heading into EO territory, Emma.   The topic was touched upon in the second thread on Saoul's list.


----------



## emma42

You're right, Elroy.


----------



## Flaminius

In conversation, *emma42*, I find _yeah_ almost the norm for the English speakers I have observed (plus *Forero* in this thread).  In writing, _yeah_, _yep_, _yah_, _nope_, and _nah_ are extraneous.  I don't have many style variations for my written English other than rather formal ones (thus no _yeah_'s at least consciously) but more confident learners and native speakers often write as they speak.  They are both standard forms even if for different media.  The real question is to what extent forum discussions should allow mixing spoken styles with written styles.

This certainly depends on the context of a post.  Conversational styles can be off-putting in a thread where everyone else tries to deliver his Nobel award lecture but they add a warm, human touch in most WR discussions I have read.  If I could presume to define what standard writing forms should mean, I would come up with a clever wording that accepts any stylistic variations that are not too dialectal (_done_ instead of _did_, for example) or vulgar.  Readers, including non-natives like this one, should have wits to discern what the differences connote.


----------



## timpeac

I think there is a difference between standard versus non-standard (rule of thumb - is it in the dictionary or not) and standard versus other registers (formal, colloquial etc). Now, the first distinction is very easy, or at least relatively easy, to define and thus police - the second isn't. What may be normal usage for some, is not for others etc (although in all fairness I don't think anyone would claim that "nope" was "neutral" register for a written context such as this). 

An example could be "to orient(ate)". When I used to hear "oriented", before I joined these forums, that sounded almost illiterate to me. Now I know that to Americans "orientated" has a similar effect! I had never thought of that rule being used to proscribe anything other than gr8, thanx, (forer@ ?) etc that clearly sit in the first group. I think that "standard" as a term is perhaps not the clearest but was chosen to get around people claiming their "dialect" allowed them to use terms which may or may not be used within 1 square mile of a field in Hampshire or New England.

 I do see your point, but I think that to proscribe "nope" based on its undeniable air of colloquialism is a dangerous way to go. We have another requirement that messages comply with


> The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is* serious, academic* and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone


and I think that, if anything, it would be on this rule that "nope" could be proscribed. That said - I think it would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut for all the endless debate it would create.


----------



## emma42

Yes, I thought of the "serious academic" angle, but then that would proscribe some of the delightful jokes and chats sometimes allowed.

No need for endless debate.  Just tell 'em* to stop it, and threaten the birch.

*Chambers Dictionary - "(colloq) _pronoun_ them..."
    Dictionary.com - "_pronoun_ informal..."


----------



## emma42

Flaminius said:


> Readers, including non-natives like this one, should have wits to discern what the differences connote.



Should they, indeed?  Since when did having "wits" relate to knowledge of a language?  You have wits, Flaminius, but perhaps no knowledge of Welsh.


----------



## timpeac

emma42 said:


> Yes, I thought of the "serious academic" angle, but then that would proscribe some of the delightful jokes and chats sometimes allowed.
> 
> No need for endless debate.  Just tell 'em* to stop it, and threaten the birch.
> 
> *Chambers Dictionary - "(colloq) _pronoun_ them..."
> Dictionary.com - "_pronoun_ informal..."



You can have as many 'ems as you like Ems - as long as the apostrophe is there! (Does that count as a delightful joke and chat? Well perhaps not delightful).


----------



## emma42

This is becoming ridic'.


----------



## TimLA

emma42 said:


> This is becoming ridic'.


 
Chaos is come again, and I am not bound to please thee with my answer.

And never come mischance between us twain, we speakers of BE and AE.
“Nope” and “yeah” is the winter of your discontent.
But what's in a word?
That which we call a “nope” by any other name would smell as sweet or sweeter.
That simplistic “nope” often provides a more curt and nuanced response than the “standard” no,
while a “yeah” in appropriate context can often portray irony, excitement, calm or haughtiness in a single "non-standard" syllable.

My AE words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
AE words without thoughts never to heaven go, yet they can express subtlety not easily accessible to “no” and “yes”.
Linguistics looks not with the eyes but with the mind, and these two offensive words are common speech,
and should be known by those learning a language, and, that heaven forbid, even used.
Used in these linguistic forums.

“Notwithstanding what the AE dictionaries say” - this was the most unkindest cut of all.
“I would like the current policy/practice to be changed…I strongly disagree with them” …but oft expectation fails.

But speakers of AE, screw your courage to the sticking place, and we'll not fail against dim views.
And thus the whirligig of time and of language evolution brings in his revenges.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks...yeah...


----------



## Loob

elroy said:


> _Wanna_, on the other hand, is simply a representation of the way _want to_ can be *pronounced*. Writing _wanna_ is akin to visually representing any other colloquial pronunciation alternatives, such as _Howdja do dat? _for _How did you do that?_. _Want to_ can be read as _wanna_ if the context is sufficiently informal, whereas _yes_ cannot be read as _yeah_.


I don't think I agree, Elroy.

If I write "wanna" instead of "want to", it's for stylistic effect - to convey a different 'tone of voice'.  The same is true, for me, of writing "Howdja do dat?" instead of "How did you do that?" - and writing "yeah" instead of "yes".  I don't see the difference between the three cases.

And I can certainly read "yes" as _yeah,_ in just the same way as I can read "want to" as _wanna_


----------



## JamesM

The difference is that two of your three stylistic examples are not in the dictionary. I am not saying that all words in the dictionary are automatically great examples of the best English, but surely it must be a simple conclusion that it is _not_ standard English if it's not even _in_ the dictionary.

I don't think it is common to read "yes" as "yeah." You are certainly welcome to do it, Loob, but that does not make it typical.  I would think you would give the writer the same credit for intentional stylistic effect that you give yourself as a writer.

The question, I think, is "does the requirement for Standard English on a forum that is "serious, academic, and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" translate to _formal_ English. Personally, not speaking as a moderator but just as a forum member, I don't think so. Too many of the questions here are about conversational English. This is not a forum focused only on the written word.

I don't particularly like "yeah" and "nope", but I imagine I might have used "yeah" (and possibly even "nope") here before. They can be used in a disrespectful way, but they can also be cordial. A simple "No" in American English in some contexts can be considered much more stern-sounding than "Nope". "Nope" can imply equality between people where "No" can sound like a reprimand from a superior. I know that "nope" can seem presumptiously familiar to some people, but "no" can be considered presumptuosly authoritative by others. 

Since both characteristics ("respectful" and "cordial") are included in the mission statement of the forum I suppose it's a matter of checking the context to see what is intended, leaving some room for cultural and stylistic differences within the boundaries of standard English.


----------



## timpeac

I think that the volume of discussion already created of just how "non-standard" "wanna" is compared to "yeah" or "nope" goes to show the tip of the ice-berg of the monster in Pandora's box we would unleash if we started proscribing actual words beyond chatspeak. 

Personally I don't see a problem in someone using all three under very certain circumstances, deliberately trying to create a more chatty nuance, in a light-hearted thread - once in a blue moon. Equally a post saying "yeah, I wanna understand the post-deconstructualist effects of this simile..." would seem incongruous in the extreme.

The rule was basically created to forfend chatspeak, it's not robust to do more than that in my opinion - and I wouldn't want it to be. Much more seems arbitrary censorship.

Now, it's past 5 here which means that it's practically mandatory for me to go and mix myself a nice cool cocktail metaphor. Yeah right!


----------

