# 'Yes' distinction in Romance



## Joannes

Hi all,

As you may know, to answer yes/no questions, French distinguishes between two 'yes's. One to answer positive questions (*oui*) and one to answer negative questions (*si*).
*Est-il là? - Oui.* 'Is he there? - Yes, (he is).'
*N'est-il pas là? - Si.* 'Is he not there? - Yes, (he is).'

I wonder whether the forerunners to Romance languages that at present only use some cognate to *si* (*sí*, *sì*, *sim* etc. are all derived from Latin *sic*) used to have another 'yes', possibly cognate to *oui* (< *oïl* < Lat. *hoc ille*). I've read that Catalan should have had *oc*, like Occitan still has. How about the other languages?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Outsider

Portuguese never had any cognate of _oui_, as far as I know. There aren't different words to distinguish between the two kinds of "yes", but to clear such ambiguities you can repeat the verb, instead of just saying "yes":

*Ele não está aí?* (Is he not there?)
*Está.* (He is) / *Não está.* (He isn't.)


----------



## Lumia

Joannes said:


> I wonder whether the forerunners to Romance languages that at present only use some cognate to *si* (*sí*, *sì*, *sim* etc. are all derived from Latin *sic*) used to have another 'yes', possibly cognate to *oui* (< *oïl* < Lat. *hoc ille*). I've read that Catalan should have had *oc*, like Occitan still has. How about the other languages?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


 
The Catalan form is *sí*.

There was the form *hoc*, but nowadays it has disappeared.


----------



## Joannes

Outsider said:


> Portuguese never had any cognate of _oui_, as far as I know. There aren't different words to distinguish between the two kinds of "yes", but to clear such ambiguities you can repeat the verb, instead of just saying "yes"


 
I've read that this kind of verb echoing is actually the preferred method to give _affirmative_ answers in Portuguese, not only after negative questions. A response with *sim* would be a less categorical one, often implying some kind of reservation ("Hence the frequency of *sim, mas*"). Do you agree with this explanation?



Lumia said:


> The Catalan form is *sí*.
> 
> There was the form *hoc*, but nowadays it has disappeared.


 
Thank you, Lumia! Do you know more about their distribution? Was *sí *originally rather used to respond to negative questions and *hoc* to affirmative ones? Or the other way around perhaps? Or was it a matter of 'free variation'?


----------



## Outsider

Joannes said:


> I've read that this kind of verb echoing is actually the preferred method to give _affirmative_ answers in Portuguese, not only after negative questions.


That's correct. 



Joannes said:


> A response with *sim* would be a less categorical one, often implying some kind of reservation ("Hence the frequency of *sim, mas*"). Do you agree with this explanation?


To be honest, I've never stopped to analyse what particular connotation using _sim_ instead of the verb may have. I agree that in some contexts a simple _Sim..._ implies that you have reservations, or that you're confirming a detail which is secondary to the conversation, but I can't tell you whether it always has this kind of connotation.


----------



## Joannes

Thank you, Outsider.


----------



## Funihead

In Spanish I've heard sí and sip both of which mean the English for "yes".


----------



## OldAvatar

Romanian for _yes_ is *da*, a Slavic word. However, the word *şi *(_and_) is considered to be related with Latin _*sic*_.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> Romanian for _yes_ is *da*, a Slavic word. However, the word *şi *(_and_) is considered to be related with Latin _*sic*_.


 
All true. But what about "_desigur_" and "_fireşte_"? I know that they're stronger than "da", but can't they also be used as equivalents for "yes"? 

 robbie


----------



## OldAvatar

robbie_SWE said:


> All true. But what about "_desigur_" and "_fireşte_"? I know that they're stronger than "da", but can't they also be used as equivalents for "yes"?
> 
> robbie



Honestly, I don't know the answer. I've never thought of that.
But are the words *sure *or *of course *or *naturally *equivalents of *yes*, for instance? I tend to believe that they are not.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> Honestly, I don't know the answer. I've never thought of that.
> But are the words *sure *or *of course *or *naturally *equivalents of *yes*, for instance? I tend to believe that they are not.


 
You might be right. But they do convey the same affirmation don't they?

 robbie


----------



## Joannes

OldAvatar said:


> Honestly, I don't know the answer. I've never thought of that.
> But are the words *sure *or *of course *or *naturally *equivalents of *yes*, for instance? I tend to believe that they are not.


I agree. 

What did Romanian use to answer affirmatively before it borrowed *da* from Slavic?


----------



## robbie_SWE

Joannes said:


> I agree.
> 
> What did Romanian use to answer affirmatively before it borrowed *da* from Slavic?


 
I honestly don't know. The problem is that Latin never had a word that expressed the assumption of "yes". That's the reason why all the Romance languages have interpreted it so differently. 

 robbie


----------



## OldAvatar

Joannes said:


> I agree.
> 
> What did Romanian use to answer affirmatively before it borrowed *da* from Slavic?



I don't think that Romanian language existed before the moment of Slavic borrowings. Slavic words are part of the language, so it's a bit tricky to say that they were actually borrowed.
People talked a form of Latin, the so-called Proto-Romanian. But we don't know much about it since we don't have any written documents... Those times were literally Dark ages, you know...


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> I don't think that Romanian language existed before the moment of Slavic borrowings. Slavic words are part of the language, so it's a bit tricky to say that they were actually borrowed.
> People talked a form of Latin, the so-called Proto-Romanian. But we don't know much about it since we don't have any written documents... Those times were literally Dark ages, you know...


 
It's a very interesting question actually since Slavic tribes didn't inhabit Dacia until after the fall of the Roman Empire. So another word must have existed. 

 robbie


----------



## Joannes

OldAvatar said:


> I don't think that Romanian language existed before the moment of Slavic borrowings. Slavic words are part of the language, so it's a bit tricky to say that they were actually borrowed.
> People talked a form of Latin, the so-called Proto-Romanian. But we don't know much about it since we don't have any written documents... Those times were literally Dark ages, you know...


 Yes, obviously I didn't mean Romanian in too strict a sense. Surprising and especially a pity there aren't any written sources.



robbie_SWE said:


> It's a very interesting question actually since Slavic tribes didn't inhabit Dacia until after the fall of the Roman Empire. So another word must have existed.


Not necessarily, people could have answered with verb echoing, as in Latin. Although Latin did develop more idiomatic constructions like *sic (est)* and *hoc (ille (fecit))*. In fact, if the forerunner to Romanian still used echoes very much, that could have paved the way for *da* to easily get adopted. It's a shame it's not better documented!


----------



## OldAvatar

In my humble oppinion, people probably used _sic_ for *yes*. This word still exists in Romanian, in this form, or similar _sîc_, and it expresses some sort of a satisfaction following a dispute. For example, if I'm having a debate with someone, and eventually he discovers that I'm right , I say:
_
Sic, am avut dreptate!_  meaning something like *Yes, I was right!*

So, perhaps, this _sic _was used for *yes *before „borrowing” the Slavic *Da*, but who knows...


----------



## robbie_SWE

Joannes said:


> Yes, obviously I didn't mean Romanian in too strict a sense. Surprising and especially a pity there aren't any written sources.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, people could have answered with verb echoing, as in Latin. Although Latin did develop more idiomatic constructions like *sic (est)* and *hoc (ille (fecit))*. In fact, if the forerunner to Romanian still used echoes very much, that could have paved the way for *da* to easily get adopted. It's a shame it's not better documented!


 
Just discovered something interesting concerning the Romanian "da". 

An older (and regional) form of saying "yes" is to say _*dar*_. "Dar" means "but" in contemporary Romanian and the etymology is still unknown. Could the Romanian "da" have a false etymology (< Slavic)? Might it be a Latin or Dacian word after all? 

The linguists have two theories:

1. Some think that _dar_ is derived from the Latin _de ea re _(*_deară_ < lat. _de vero_). 

2. Others think that the Slavic _da_ would be a probable etymology even if the meaning remains a puzzle making this theory questionable. 

3. The last theory is the Latin _de hora_. 

What do you think Joannes? OldAvatar, are there any substantial facts here (you wrote in another thread that many Romanian words have received false etymologies due to political influence)? 

Best Regards, 

 robbie


----------



## OldAvatar

I don't have any substantial facts about it. I do believe that some of the words have doubtful official etymology, but I don't see why we wouldn't accept that _da _is of Slavic origin. Using the method described above, you can very easily connect _da _with anything else.


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> I don't have any substantial facts about it. I do believe that some of the words have doubtful official etymology, but I don't see why we wouldn't accept that _da _is of Slavic origin. Using the method described above, you can very easily connect _da _with anything else.


 
I understand and respect your views concerning this word. 

But it kind of tickles my brain that "dar" is regionally used as "da". Maybe the word is more complicated than it seems?! The thing is that I haven't just picked out a word at random that resembles "da". DEX lists it as closely linked to "dar" and this provoked my assertions. 

 robbie


----------



## Joannes

robbie_SWE said:


> 2. Others think that the Slavic _da_ would be a probable etymology even if the meaning remains a puzzle making this theory questionable.


If I'm not mistaken, *da* is (also) used as a conjunction in some Slavic languages. No idea if it means (anything near) 'but' though. 

The *dar* story is more than interesting, but I'm afraid figuring out the etymology will remain pure speculation.

Thank you both for sharing your views!


----------



## jazyk

> If I'm not mistaken, *da* is (also) used as a conjunction in some Slavic languages. No idea if it means (anything near) 'but' though.


That's right. Since Macedonian, for example, doesn't have infinitives, it has to resort to these da constructions a lot, similar to Romanian să. It must have something to do with the Balkansprachbund:

Romanian: Vreau să citesc această carte.
Macedonian: Sakam da ja čitam ovaa kniga/knigava, or in Cirillic Сакам да jа читам оваа книга/книгава.
English: I want to read this book.

The interesting thing is that the verb following da/să has to agree with the subject, so both the modal as well as the main verb are conjugated, in this case, in the first person singular.


----------



## panjabigator

Lumia said:


> The Catalan form is *sí*.
> 
> There was the form *hoc*, but nowadays it has disappeared.



I am not too sure if this is at all relevant, but doesn't Catalan have the word "oi," which is kind of like a tag question "right?"  That's kind of an affirmation.


----------



## demalaga

Funihead said:


> In Spanish I've heard sí and sip both of which mean the English for "yes".


I never read sip in any text nor is in the DRAE, but I have come across this word in some inetet chat.Is perhaps an abbreviation for "si pero...?".
In Spain I never heard this word.


----------



## Joannes

Thank you all very much for your answers! 



panjabigator said:


> I am not too sure if this is at all relevant, but doesn't Catalan have the word "oi," which is kind of like a tag question "right?" That's kind of an affirmation.


Of course! Silly of me not to have noticed this! The Iecat dictionary confirms *oi* is derived from *hoc*.

I still wonder about the *sí* - *hoc* distribution in earlier times. Does anyone have access to a source about this?



demalaga said:


> I never read sip in any text nor is in the DRAE, but I have come across this word in some inetet chat.Is perhaps an abbreviation for "si pero...?".
> In Spain I never heard this word.


Or an Englishman trying to make a Spanish 'yep' perhaps?


----------



## Lumia

Joannes said:


> Of course! Silly of me not to have noticed this! The Iecat dictionary confirms *oi* is derived from *hoc*.


 
Only a minor question. The dictionary that you are linking is the DCVB, not the IEC dictionary (DIEC). The DCVB is also online at IEC website (www.iec.cat), so the confusion.


----------



## Joannes

Lumia said:


> Only a minor question. The dictionary that you are linking is the DCVB, not the IEC dictionary (DIEC). The DCVB is also online at IEC website (www.iec.cat), so the confusion.


Ah, thank you, Lumia, for the rectification and for directing me to a new dictionary.


----------



## federicoft

Joannes said:


> I wonder whether the forerunners to Romance languages that at present only use some cognate to *si* (*sí*, *sì*, *sim* etc. are all derived from Latin *sic*) used to have another 'yes', possibly cognate to *oui* (< *oïl* < Lat. *hoc ille*). I've read that Catalan should have had *oc*, like Occitan still has. How about the other languages?



Still today in Piedmontese language, a Gallo-Italian dialect spoken in North-Western Italy, yes is _òj_, a cognate of French _oui_.


----------



## Vinlander

Interestingly in Quebec French I have only heard _oui_, never _si_. Quebec French is usually said to have originated in Normandy and Brittany and, due to the relative isolation of it from French French since 1765, to have retained some older forms. Though someone with some real knowledge of the history of the language in Quebec might be able to give some better information on this.

Vinlander


----------



## Funihead

> I still wonder about the *sí* - *hoc* distribution in earlier times. Does anyone have access to a source about this?
> 
> 
> Or an Englishman trying to make a Spanish 'yep' perhaps?


I asked my friend and sip is short for sí, por favor.


----------



## Joannes

federicoft said:


> Still today in Piedmontese language, a Gallo-Italian dialect spoken in North-Western Italy, yes is _òj_, a cognate of French _oui_.


Interesting, thank you.



Vinlander said:


> Interestingly in Quebec French I have only heard _oui_, never _si_. Quebec French is usually said to have originated in Normandy and Brittany and, due to the relative isolation of it from French French since 1765, to have retained some older forms. Though someone with some real knowledge of the history of the language in Quebec might be able to give some better information on this.
> 
> Vinlander


Yes, I've heard about this.  Thank you.



Funihead said:


> I asked my friend and sip is short for sí, por favor.


Added to memory. Thanks.


----------



## OldAvatar

Joannes said:


> Or an Englishman trying to make a Spanish 'yep' perhaps?



Romanians also use this form lately, saying _dap! _


----------



## PABLO DE SOTO

Sip does not exist in Spanish.


----------



## Sprocedato

You'll probably find interesting the classification given by Dante Alighieri of his contemporary languages in _De vulgari eloquentia_:[...] Sclavones, Ungaros, Teotonicos, Saxones, Anglicos [...] quasi predicti omnes *iò* affirmando respondent : almost all those peoples answer _iò_ in the affirmative

_*oc*_,* oïl*,* sì* ... Yspani, Franci, Latini​With *iò *he was indicating the Germanic languages. With _*oc*_ the Occitan (and maybe Catalan) languages, with *oïl* the French language, with *sì* the Italian dialects. He seems unaware of Castellano.

See danteonline for the full text in original (Latin) and translation (Italian, English).



Joannes said:


> *hoc (ille (fecit))*



A slightly different explanation of French _*oui*_, the relevant difference being _ille_ vs _illud_.

From Old French _oïl_, composed of _o_ ‘yes’ + pers. pron. _il_ used to give emphasis. Here _il_ retains the demonstrative force of Latin _illud_ and can be translated ‘that’: “Yes, that”, “Yes, as you say”.

There is a parallellism with the negative answer: the emphatic form of _non_ was _nennil_.

Old French _o_ ‘yes’ comes from Latin _hoc_ ‘this’, again a demonstrative, and again the explanation is roughly “as you say”.

This explanation is given, more concisely, in Littré's dictionary.


----------



## Grekh

Funihead said:


> In Spanish I've heard sí and sip both of which mean the English for "yes".


 
Sí = yes
sip = yep


----------



## Claudiopolis

Joannes said:


> I agree.
> 
> What did Romanian use to answer affirmatively before it borrowed *da* from Slavic?



At least in rural areas of Transylvania people use "ie" (sounds like the English "yeah") for "yes" and it may be a German/Saxon borrowing.


----------



## sokol

Joannes said:


> I agree.
> 
> What did Romanian use to answer affirmatively before it borrowed *da* from Slavic?


This question might be unanswerable - for a simple reason: while Vulgar Latin began to develop different words for "yes" from Romance roots elsewhere the speakers of the Vulgar Latin predecessor of Romanian were in contact with Slavic tribes: instead of following the path of Western Romance languages Romanians obviously just took over the Slavic word.

So there might not have been any "intermediate" stages between late Latin speech and Romanian; the loan of "da" could be a very old one, probably loaned when there wasn't (yet) a "Romanian" language.
Note that Slavic tribes migrated in the 6th century to the lands now called Romania (and further to the Balkans and the Alps, of course).

I am not sure if there exists a clear consensus between scientists as to when Latin was split into several languages (and this surely was a slow and gradual process anyway) - but I guess that most would agree that in the 6th century you'd rather use the term Vulgar Latin than later Romance language names for the local, spoken varieties of Latin.

But probably someone knows what is used in Istro-Romanian as it wasn't under equally strong Slavic influence as other Eastern Romance dialects; Vlach dialects (Aromunian) also would be of interest here.
If any of those dialects show the same as Transsylvanian:


Claudiopolis said:


> At least in rural areas of Transylvania people use "ie" (sounds like the English "yeah") for "yes" and it may be a German/Saxon borrowing.


then "ie" might as well not be a German loan - even though phonetically it looks very much like it could be derived from German/Saxon "ja".


----------



## robbie_SWE

sokol said:


> This question might be unanswerable - for a simple reason: while Vulgar Latin began to develop different words for "yes" from Romance roots elsewhere the speakers of the Vulgar Latin predecessor of Romanian were in contact with Slavic tribes: instead of following the path of Western Romance languages Romanians obviously just took over the Slavic word.
> 
> So there might not have been any "intermediate" stages between late Latin speech and Romanian; the loan of "da" could be a very old one, probably loaned when there wasn't (yet) a "Romanian" language.
> Note that Slavic tribes migrated in the 6th century to the lands now called Romania (and further to the Balkans and the Alps, of course).
> 
> I am not sure if there exists a clear consensus between scientists as to when Latin was split into several languages (and this surely was a slow and gradual process anyway) - but I guess that most would agree that in the 6th century you'd rather use the term Vulgar Latin than later Romance language names for the local, spoken varieties of Latin.
> 
> But probably someone knows what is used in Istro-Romanian as it wasn't under equally strong Slavic influence as other Eastern Romance dialects; Vlach dialects (Aromunian) also would be of interest here.
> If any of those dialects show the same as Transsylvanian:
> 
> then "ie" might as well not be a German loan - even though phonetically it looks very much like it could be derived from German/Saxon "ja".


 
"Yes" is also *da* in Aromanian and I recall it being the same in Istro-Romanian. 
 
I personally don't think that the word *da* can be attributed to be strictly Slavic. Apparently variants of _da_ appear in Albanian and Greek too. Due to its large geographic distribution, I'm led to believe that it might have existed for a long time in native languages like Dacian and Illyrian even before the arrival of Slavic tribes during the 6th century. 
 
I might be going on a limb here but do you know what I mean?

 robbie


----------



## sokol

I know what you mean, Robbie - nevertheless, I am always _very _sceptic when it comes to Dacian/Illyrian theories because ... oh well, I think you know that there's much ideology involved here.

It isn't that I deny any Dacian/Illyrian influence - quite the contrary: it is likely that both Dacian and Illyrian had some influence on both Romanian and Albanian (and probably other languages).
The problem here is that it is extremely difficult to ascertain to _what _degree, and also that some linguists tried (and still try) to abuse this probable connection for ideology.

Also don't forget that Slavic tribes flooded all the lands from the Alps and Bohemia over the Dalmatian Adriatic and the Carpatian Mountains down to the Black sea and even most of Greece (some even reached the Peloponnes).

So it wouldn't be _extremely _unusual for "da" being loaned to some languages in this region - it would be quite unusual, true, but not improbable at all.


----------



## Joannes

Thank you for your ideas.



sokol said:


> If any of those dialects show the same as Transsylvanian:
> 
> 
> Claudiopolis said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least in rural areas of Transylvania people use "ie" (sounds like the English "yeah") for "yes" and it may be a German/Saxon borrowing.
> 
> 
> 
> then "ie" might as well not be a German loan - even though phonetically it looks very much like it could be derived from German/Saxon "ja".
Click to expand...

 
Not concluding anything but Corsican also has *ié* 'yes'. And recently we've had this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1176983


----------



## sokol

Joannes said:


> Not concluding anything but Corsican also has *ié* 'yes'. And recently we've had this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1176983


Thank _you _for the link.  (I almost forgot about that thread.)

And yes, that still does not proof anything - but at least it opens the door to a possible Romance etymology of Transsylvanian "ie" (but we should still stay sceptic, of course).


----------



## robbie_SWE

Hi again!

An essay I recently came across has raised several questions about the etymology of the Romanian *da *and *dacă*. 

The essay can be found here (it's in English). 

I'm just wondering what you guys think. 

Best Regards, 

 Robbie


----------



## sokol

robbie_SWE said:


> An essay I recently came across has raised several questions about the etymology of the Romanian *da *and *dacă*.
> 
> The essay can be found here (it's in English).
> 
> I'm just wondering what you guys think.


As the author Keith Andrew Massey says himself in 4.3 there is absolutely no reason to give up an etymology for which there are good arguments (= "da" explained as Slavic) *except *if there's a better explanation which he hopes to give with "dacă", explained as being derived from Latin "ita quod".

I think that he has indeed a point, but as he knows himself his suggested Romance theory for Romanian "da" most likely will remain unproved. He has found a "plausible option" for a Romance etymology, as he says himself, and nothing more.

I'd also like to say a few words about that this sentence of his (p. 94, "Introduction"):
"It seems impossible that any populace would choose to borrow such a basic word from another language." (meaning of course "da - yes")

It is indeed very uncommon to loan very frequent and basic words, but he mentions himself similar loans in Czech and Slovene (in Slovene "ja" for "yes" now is preferred in speech even though "da" still is considered the correct word in formal style): such things occured in many languages, and always those loans occured when the language borrowing had lesser prestige than the language from which was borrowed.
Such a relation existed between Romanian and Slavic (Old Church Slavonic used in Church), so to borrow from Slavic even a basic word like "yes" wouldn't be that unusual after all.
(There are by the way plenty more examples for such loans, Gypsy languages for example have loaned a great deal of very basic vocabulary.)

So all in all, what I think about is:
- valid suggestion by Keith Andrew Massey, he might be right;
- but this still doesn't invalidate the theory of Slavic origin.
What he adds thus, in my opinion, is yet another theory but no proof.


----------



## Corsicum

Corsican : “_iè, isié” _: from old toscan : "_egli è_", from latin : "_illi est_". (I never use “_si”_)

'Is he there? - Yes, (he is).' => _hè qui ? __iè (hè qui/c’hè)_
'Is he not there? - Yes, (he is).' => _Ùn’hè qui ? iè,(Iè hè qui/ c’hè)_
(_Iè, iè_ : annoying / _Ié chì_ ... : ironical)

But in French also, I never say « _si_ » for : _N'est-il pas là? – Oui (Il est là)._
En Corse comme en Français je n’ai pas l’impression que « _si_ » soit très utilisé de façon significative dans ce contexte ? 
Je n’ai pas le souvenir de l’avoir entendu ou lu ?


----------



## Joannes

robbie_SWE said:


> An essay I recently came across has raised several questions about the etymology of the Romanian *da *and *dacă*.
> 
> The essay can be found here (it's in English).
> 
> I'm just wondering what you guys think.


Interesting. He gives some interesting thoughts but no convincing evidence -- which, apparently, no one could.

And sokol is right about yesses being borrowed; it's not that uncommon. Germanic yesses are not only found in Slovene: there's West-Greenlandic (*ja* < Danish), Indonesian (*ya* < Dutch), Finnish (*joo* < Swedish). Attié (Côte d' Ivoire) uses *wee*, which is most probably a borrowing from French; Hausa and Berber (Figuig) use Arabic نعم for 'yes'; and Abkhaz *ko* apparently is a Mingrelian loan.

(Borrowing 'no' is less common, I guess because there is a very common source for a 'no', namely the usual negation particle. But it does happen: Berber (Figuig) has *la* (from Arabic again, in which it _is_ a polyfunctional negator) and in Guaraní there's *nõ*, the Spanish all-round negation element, obviously.)


----------



## Miguel Antonio

panjabigator said:


> I am not too sure if this is at all relevant, but doesn't Catalan have the word "oi," which is kind of like a tag question "right?"  That's kind of an affirmation.


In Galician there is a tag word _ho_ which reinforces an affirmation or negation:
_¡Si ho! _...but yes
_¡Non ho! _No way!
I was told it is an abbreviation of the word _home_, "man", but after reading this thread I am more inclined to think it may have its origin in the Latin _hoc.
_The tag question "right?" in Galician is made up by joining the yes and the no: _¿Nonsí?_ (equivalent to the French _n'est-ce pas?_).


----------



## OBrasilo

Sokol said:
			
		

> And yes, that still does not proof anything - but at least it opens the door to a possible Romance etymology of Transsylvanian "ie" (but we should still stay sceptic, of course).


Given the proximity of Transsylvania to Hungary, and the fact, that Hungarians used to live there for some time, would it be possible, that this "ie" came from Hungarian "igen"?

Maybe "igen" > "iyen" -> "ie". ? Note, that "g" > "y" is a common change, just compare English "dagaz" > "dæg" > "day".


----------



## sokol

OBrasilo said:


> Given the proximity of Transsylvania to Hungary, and the fact, that Hungarians used to live there for some time, would it be possible, that this "ie" came from Hungarian "igen"?


Well yes, seems to be a possibility - but of course we're all still guessing here and we're quickly reaching a point, I fear, where almost everything should be considered possible. 

The main problem here is - to ascertain a specific etymology research of historical documents of a language is needed and/or research of different dialects, thus one could deduce a probable/likely development of a word. What we're doing here so far (concerning this "ie") mainly is only giving possibilities for plausible etymologies - which is only part of the hard work that needs to be done (and the easier part at that).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Vinlander said:


> Interestingly in Quebec French I have only heard _oui_, never _si_. Quebec French is usually said to have originated in Normandy and Brittany and, due to the relative isolation of it from French French since 1765, to have retained some older forms. Though someone with some real knowledge of the history of the language in Quebec might be able to give some better information on this.
> 
> Vinlander



You're right, in Quebec, the _si_ form has fallen out of use. Oui is used at all times. 
Whether this hearkens back to older usage, or is a newer invention, I'm unsure. I'd guess the latter.


----------

