Politics on Newschoolers
- Thread starter Z.J.H.
- Start date
Gnarbangalakazoo
Member
hahahahaha
RockyMountnHigh
Member
penis. am i doin it rite?
gnarschralped
Member
no
Broommasta
Member
no
RockyMountnHigh
Member
ALMIGHTYSOSA
Active member
no
TACO-DOG.exe
Active member
This week we are launching Wikivoyage.
Join us in creating a free travel guide that anyone can edit.
Solifugae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Camel Spiders" redirects here. For the 2011 film, see Camel Spiders (film).
Solifugae
Temporal range: Late Carboniferous–Recent
PreЄЄOSDCPTJKPgN
A male Galeodes (from R. A. Lydekker, 1879)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Arachnida
Subclass: Dromopoda
Order: Solifugae
Sundevall, 1833
Families
see text
Solifugae is an order of animals in the class Arachnida. They are known variously as camel spiders, wind scorpions, sun spiders or solifuges. The order includes more than 1,000 described species in about 153 genera. The Solifugae is a different order from the true spiders (order Araneae) and the scorpions (order Scorpiones). Much like a spider, the body of a Solifugid has two tagmata: an opisthosoma (abdomen) behind the prosoma (that is, in effect, a combined head and thorax). At the front end, the prosoma bears two chelicerae that, in most species, are conspicuously large. The chelicerae serve as jaws and in many species also are used for stridulation. Unlike scorpions, solifugids do not have a third tagma that forms a "tail". Most species of Solifugae live in deserts and feed opportunistically on ground-dwelling arthropods and other small animals. Some species may grow to a length of 300 mm (12 in) including legs. A number of urban legends exaggerate the size and speed of Solifugae, and their potential danger to humans, which is practically nil.
Contents [hide]
1 Anatomy
1.1 Chelicerae
1.2 Legs and pedipalps
1.3 Eyes
2 Classification
3 Ecology
4 Life cycle
5 Etymology
6 Solifugids and humans
6.1 Urban legends
7 References
8 External links
[edit]Anatomy
Solifugae are moderately small to large arachnids (a few millimeters to several centimeters in body length), with the larger species reaching 15 cm (6 in) in head-and-body length.[1] Figures quoting implausible sizes for sensational effect are seldom useful because when they are not outright fictitious they usually include leg lengths in non-standard ways. In practice, the respective lengths of the legs of various species differ drastically, so the resulting figures are often misleading. More practical measurements refer primarily to the body length, quoting leg lengths separately, if at all. Even so, it remains difficult to get solidly supported data because very few sources quote anything better than anecdotal claims. One source suggests a body length of up to 7 cm (3 in)[2] Another gives a figure of 10 cm (4 in).[3] Even if one takes values such as 15 cm at face value, they are extremes. Most species are closer to 5 cm long, and some small species are under 1 cm in head-plus-body length when mature.[4]
The body has two main parts (tagmata). The prosoma, or cephalothorax, is the anterior tagma, and the ten-segmented abdomen, or opisthosoma, is the posterior part. As shown in the illustrations, the Solifugid prosoma and opisthosoma are not separated by nearly as clear a constriction as occurs in "true" spiders, the order Araneae. The prosoma comprises the head, the mouthparts and the somites that bear the legs and the pedipalps. The alternative name "cephalothorax" reflects the fact that the prosoma includes the parts that in insects form the head plus the thorax. Though it is not split into two clear tagmata, the prosoma does have a large, relatively well-defined anterior carapace, bearing the animal's eyes and chelicerae, while a smaller posterior section bears the legs.[4][5] Like pseudoscorpions and harvestmen, Solifugae lack book lungs, having instead a well-developed tracheal system that takes in air through three pairs of slits on the animal's underside.
[edit]Chelicerae
Lateral aspect of chelicera, showing teeth and cutting edge
Among the most distinctive features of the Solifugae are their large chelicerae, which in many species are longer than the prosoma. Each of the two chelicerae has two articles (segments, parts connected by a joint,[6]) forming a powerful pincer, much like that of a crab's; each article bears a variable number of teeth, largely depending on the species.[4][5] The chelicerae of many species are surprisingly strong; they are capable of shearing hair or feathers from vertebrate prey or carrion, and of cutting through skin and thin bones such as those of small birds.[7] Many Solifugae stridulate with their chelicerae, producing a rattling noise.[8]
[edit]Legs and pedipalps
Male solifugid, family Solpugidae, in veld near Uniondale, Western Cape. Note the pedipalps held not quite touching the ground and the sensory front legs, practically clawless, barely touching. The hairs all over the limbs and body are sensory in function. The male's flagella are visible near the tips of the chelicerae.
Although Solifugae appear to have ten legs, they actually only have eight, as most other arachnids do. Each true leg has seven segments: coxa, trochanter, femur, patella, tibia, metatarsus, tarsus.[9][7] The first of the five pairs of appendages are not "true" legs, but pedipalps; they only have five segments each. The pedipalps of Solifugae function partly as sense organs similar to insects' antennae, and partly in locomotion, feeding and fighting. In normal locomotion, they do not quite touch the ground, but are held out to detect obstacles and prey; in that attitude, they look particularly like an extra pair of legs. Reflecting the great dependence of Solifugae on their tactile senses, their anterior true legs are commonly smaller and thinner than the posterior three pairs. That smaller anterior pair act largely in a sensory role as a supplement to the pedipalps, and in many species they accordingly lack tarsi. At the tips of their pedipalps, Solifugae bear eversible adhesive organs, which they may use to capture flying prey, and which at least some species certainly use for climbing smooth surfaces.[7][10]
For the most part, only the posterior three pairs of legs are used for running.[5][7] On the undersides of the coxae and trochanters of the last pair of legs, Solifugae have fan-shaped sensory organs called malleoli or racquet organs (sometimes spelt racket). Sometimes the blades of the malleoli are directed forward, sometimes not. Neither the mode of operation nor the function of the malleoli is yet clearly understood.[4] It is suspected that they are sensory organs for the detection of vibrations in the soil, perhaps to detect threats and potential prey or mates.[7]
Males are usually smaller than females, with relatively longer legs.[8] Unlike females the male bears a pair of flagella, one on each chelicera. In the accompanying photograph of a male Solifugid, one flagellum is just visible near the tip of each chelicera. The flagella, which bend back over the chelicerae, are sometimes called horns and are believed to have some sexual connection, but their function has not yet been clearly explained.[7]
[edit]Eyes
Solpugid eyes with presumably protective bristles
In some species, there are very large central eyes. They look like simple eyes or ocelli, but they are in fact surprisingly sophisticated. They can recognise forms, and are used in hunting and avoiding enemies. These eyes are remarkable in their internal anatomy; there is a suggestion that they represent the last step in the integration of the aggregate of simple ocelli into a compound eye, and of further integration of a compound eye into a simple eye.[11] In comparison to species where they are present at all, lateral eyes are only rudimentary.
[edit]Classification
Solifugae are not true spiders, which are from a different order, Araneae. Like scorpions and harvestmen, they belong to a distinct arachnid order. There are about 1,065 species of Solifugae known, grouped in about 153 genera and 12 families belonging to the order Solifugae:[12]:213
Ammotrechidae
Ceromidae
Daesiidae
Eremobatidae
Galeodidae
Gylippidae
Hexisopodidae
Karschiidae
Melanoblossidae
Mummuciidae
Rhagodidae
Solpugidae
The family Protosolpugidae is only known from one fossil species from the Pennsylvanian.
[edit]Ecology
Gluvia dorsalis eating a cabbage bug (Eurydema oleraceum)
Although Solifugae are considered to be endemic indicators of desert biomes,[4]:1 they occur widely in semi-desert and scrub. Some species also live in grassland or forest habitats. Solifugae generally inhabit warm and arid habitats, including virtually all warm deserts and scrublands in all continents excepting Antarctica and Australia.[8]
Solifugae are carnivorous or omnivorous, with most species feeding on termites, darkling beetles, and other small ground-dwelling arthropods. Solifuges are opportunistic feeders and have been recorded as feeding on snakes, small lizards and rodents;[4] Prey is located with the pedipalps and killed and cut into pieces by the chelicerae. The prey is then liquefied and the liquid ingested through the pharynx. Although they do not normally attack humans, these chelicerae can penetrate human skin, and painful bites have been reported.[8]
[edit]Life cycle
Solifugae are typically univoltine.[4]:8 Reproduction can involve direct or indirect sperm transfer; when indirect, the male emits a spermatophore on the ground and then inserts it with his chelicerae in the female's genital pore. To do this, he flings the female on his back.
The female then digs a burrow, into which she lays 50 to 200 eggs - some species then guard them until they hatch. Because the female will not feed during this time, she will try to fatten herself beforehand, and a species of 5 cm (2.0 in) has been observed to eat more than 100 flies during that time in the laboratory.[8] Solifugae undergo a number of stages including, egg, post-embryo, nine to ten nymphal instars, and adults.[4]
[edit]Etymology
The name Solifugae derives from Latin, and means "those that flee from the sun". The order is also known by the names Solpugida, Solpugides, Solpugae, Galeodea and Mycetophorae. Their common names include camel spider, wind scorpion, jerrymunglum,[13] sun scorpion and sun spider. In southern Africa they are known by a host of names including red romans, haarskeerders ("hair cutters") and baardskeerders ("beard cutters"), the latter two relating to the belief they use their formidable jaws to clip hair from humans and animals to line their subterranean nests.[14]
[edit]Solifugids and humans
A scorpion (left) fighting a solifugid (right)
Solifugids have been recognised as distinct taxa from ancient times. The Greeks recognised that they were distinct from spiders; spiders were called ἀράχνη (arachne) while Solifugae were named φαλάγγιον (phalangion). In Aelian's De natura animalium they are mistakenly mentioned, along with scorpions, as responsible for the abandoning of a country in Ethiopia. Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein theorised in 1797 that the "mice" which plagued the Philistines in the Old Testament were Solifugae. During World War I, troops stationed in Abū Qīr, Egypt would stage fights between captive jerrymanders, as they referred to them, and placed bets on the outcome. Similarly, British troops stationed in Libya in World War II would stage fights between Solifugae and scorpions.[4]:2–3
[edit]Urban legends
Solifugae are the subject of many urban legends and exaggerations about their size, speed, behaviour, appetite, and lethality. They are not especially large, the biggest having a leg span of about 12 cm (4.7 in).[8] They are fast on land compared to other invertebrates. Their top speed is estimated to be 16 km/h (10 mph),[1] about one third as fast as the fastest human sprinter.[15] Members of this order of Arachnida apparently have no venom, with the possible exception of one species in India (Rhagodes nigrocinctus) as suggested in one study,[16] and do not spin webs.
Due to their bizarre appearance, many people are startled by or even afraid of them. This fear was sufficient to drive a family from their home when one was discovered in a soldier's house in Colchester, England and caused the family to blame the solifugid for the death of their pet dog.[17] They are non-venomous, although they are capable of inflicting a painful bite with their powerful jaws.[18]
[edit]References
^ a b "Egyptian giant solpugid (camel spider) Galeodes arabs". National Geographic. Retrieved June 10, 2011.
^ Pechenik, Jan (1996). Biology of the Invertebrates. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. ISBN 0-697-13712-0.
^ Warren Savary, ed. (March 26, 2009). "Introduction: what are solifuges?". The Arachnid Order Solifugae. Retrieved January 8, 2012.
^ a b c d e f g h i Fred Punzo (1998). The Biology of Camel-Spiders. Springer. ISBN 0-7923-8155-6. Retrieved January 25, 2010.
^ a b c Barnes, Robert D. (1982). Invertebrate Zoology. Philadelphia, PA: Holt-Saunders International. pp. 613–614. ISBN 0-03-056747-5.
^ Brown, Lesley (1993). The New shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-861271-0.
^ a b c d e f Holm, Erik, Dippenaar-Schoeman, Ansie; Goggo Guide; LAPA publishers (URL: WWW.LAPA.co.za). 2010
^ a b c d e f G. Schmidt (1993) (in German). Giftige und gefährliche Spinnentiere. Westarp Wissenschaften. ISBN 3-89432-405-8.
^ Filmer, Martin (1997). Southern African Spiders. City: BHB International / Struik. ISBN 1-86825-188-8.
^ Harmer, Sir Sidney Frederic; Shipley, Arthur Everett et alia: The Cambridge natural history Volume 4, Crustacea, Trilobites, Arachnida, Tardigrada, Pentastomida etc. Macmillan Company 1895
^ Beklemishev, Vladimir (1969). Principles of Comparative Anatomy of Invertebrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 226041751.
^ Levin, Simon A. (2001). Encyclopedia of biodiversity, Volume 1. 2001: Academic Press. pp. 943. ISBN 978-0-12-226866-3.
^ Skaife, Sydney Harold; South African Nature Notes, Second edition. Pub: Maskew Miller: Cape Town, 1954.
^ Ross Piper (2007). Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals. Greenwood Press.
^ IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) Biomechanical Research Project: Berlin 2009.
^ M. Aruchami & G. Sundara Rajulu (1978). "An investigation on the poison glands and the nature of the venom of Rhagodes nigrocinctus (Solifugae: Arachnida)". Nat. Acad. Sci. Letters (India) 1: 191–192.
^ "Stowaway Afghan spider kills family dog". CNN. August 28, 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2011.
^ David Penney (2009). "Solifugae (camel spiders)". Common Spiders and Other Arachnids of The Gambia, West Africa. Siri Scientific Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-9558636-3-9.
[edit]External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Solifugae
Arthropods portal
Mikkelson, Barbara & David P. "Camel Spiders" at Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.
"Camel Spiders: Behind an E-Mail Sensation From Iraq". National Geographic. June 29, 2004.
"The Arachnid Order Solifugae".
[hide] v t e
Extant arthropod classes by subphylum
Kingdom Animalia Subkingdom Eumetazoa (unranked) Bilateria (unranked) Protostomia Superphylum Ecdysozoa
Chelicerata
Arachnida (Araneae Scorpiones Opiliones Acari Pseudoscorpionida Amblypygi Thelyphonida Solifugae Palpigradi Ricinulei Schizomida) Xiphosura Pycnogonida
Myriapoda
Chilopoda Diplopoda Pauropoda Symphyla
Hexapoda
Insecta (Apterygota Pterygota) Entognatha
Crustacea
Branchiopoda Remipedia Cephalocarida Maxillopoda (Cirripedia Copepoda) Ostracoda Malacostraca (Decapoda Stomatopoda Amphipoda Isopoda)
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Submit ratings
Categories: ArachnidsSolifugaeUrban legends
Navigation menu
Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Беларуская
Bosanski
Català
Česky
Deutsch
Diné bizaad
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Kiswahili
Kurdî
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk (bokmål)
ଓଡ଼ିଆ
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
中文
This page was last modified on 10 January 2013 at 18:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersMobile view
bangarangmules
Active member
Nah. +1
Doug_Gusworthy
Member
nope
Chunter
Active member
Yes and no are two words for expressing the affirmative and the negative respectively in modern English.
English originally used a four-form system up to and including Early Middle English but Modern English has reduced this to a two-form system consisting of just 'yes' and 'no'. Some languages do not answer yes-no questions with single words meaning 'yes' or 'no'. Welsh and Finnish are among several languages that typically employ echo answers (repeating the verb with either an affirmative or negative form) rather than using words for 'yes' and 'no', though both languages do also have words broadly similar to 'yes' and 'no'. Other languages have systems named two-form, three-form, and four-form systems, depending on how many words for yes and no they employ. Some languages, such as Latin, have no yes-no word systems.
The words yes and no are not easily classified into any of the eight conventional parts of speech. Although sometimes classified as interjections, they do not qualify as such, and they are not adverbs. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words, word sentences, or pro-sentences, although that category contains more than yes and no and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words. Sentences consisting solely of one of these two words are classified as minor sentences.
The differences among languages, the fact that in different languages the various words for yes and no have different parts of speech and different usages, and that some languages lack a 'yes-no' word system, makes idiomatic translation difficult.
English grammar classification
Although sometimes classified as interjections, these words do not express emotion or act as calls for attention; they are not adverbs because they do not qualify any verb, adjective, or adverb. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words or word sentences.[1][2][3]
This is the position of Otto Jespersen, who states that "'Yes' and 'No' […] are to all intents and purposes sentences just as much as the most delicately balanced sentences ever uttered by Demosthenes or penned by Samuel Johnson."[4]
Georg von der Gabelentz, Henry Sweet, and Wegener have all written on the subject of sentence words, Wegener calling them "Wortsätze". Both Sweet and Wegener include yes and no in this category, with Sweet treating them separately from both imperatives and interjections, although Gabelentz does not.[5]
Watts[6] classifies yes and no as grammatical particles, in particular response particles. He also notes their relationship to the interjections oh and ah, which is that the interjections can precede yes and no but not follow them. Oh as an interjection expresses surprise, but in the combined forms oh yes and oh no merely acts as an intensifier; but ah in the combined forms ah yes and ah no retains its standalone meaning, of focusing upon the previous speaker's or writer's last statement. The forms *yes oh, *yes ah, *no oh, and *no ah are grammatically ill-formed. Aijmer[7] similarly categorizes the yes and no as response signals or reaction signals.
Ameka classifies these two words in different ways according to context. When used as back-channel items, he classifies them as interjections; but when they are used as the responses to a yes-no question, he classifies them as formulaic words. The distinction between an interjection and a formula is, in Ameka's view, that the former does not have an addressee (although it may be directed at a person), whereas the latter does. The yes or no in response to the question is addressed at the interrogator, whereas yes or no used as a back-channel item is a feedback usage, an utterance that is said to oneself. However, Sorjonen criticizes this analysis as lacking empirical work on the other usages of these words, in addition to interjections and feedback uses.[8]
Bloomfield and Hockett classify the words, when used to answer yes-no questions, as special completive interjections. They classify sentences comprising solely one of either of these two words as minor sentences.[2]
Sweet classifies the words in several ways. They are sentence-modifying adverbs, adverbs that act as modifiers to an entire sentence. They are also sentence words, when standing alone. They may, as question responses, also be absolute forms that correspond to what would otherwise be the not in a negated echo response. For example, a "No." in response to the question "Is he here?" is equivalent to the echo response "He is not here.". Sweet observes that there is no correspondence with a simple yes in the latter situation, although the sentence-word "Certainly." provides an absolute form of an emphatic echo response "He is certainly here.". (Many other adverbs can also be used as sentence words in this way.)[9]
Unlike yes, no can also be an adverb of degree, applying to adjectives solely in the comparative (e.g. no greater, no sooner, but not no soon or no soonest), and an adjective when applied to nouns (e.g. "He is no fool." and Dyer's "No clouds, no vapours intervene.")[9][10]
Grammarians of other languages have created further, similar, special classifications for these types of words. Tesnière classifies the French oui and non as phrasillons logiques (along with voici). Fonagy observes that such a classification may be partly justified for the former two, but suggests that pragmatic holophrases is more appropriate.[11]
The Early English four-form system
Whilst Modern English has a two-form system of yes and no for affirmatives and negatives, earlier forms of English had a four-form system, comprising the words yea, nay, yes, and no. In essence, yes and no were the alternative responses to a question posed in the negative, whereas yea and nay were the responses to positively framed questions.
Will he not go? — Yes, he will.
Will he not go? — No, he will not.
Will he go? — Yea, he will.
Will he go? — Nay, he will not.
This is exemplified by the following passage from Much Ado about Nothing:[12]
Claudio: Can the world buie such a iewell?
Benedick: Yea, and a case to put it into, but speake you this with a sad brow?
—William Shakespeare, Much Ado about Nothing, Act I, Scene I
Benedick's yea is the answer to a positively framed question. The answers to positively framed questions ("Will he go?") were yea and nay, whilst the answers to negatively framed questions ("Will he not go?") were yes and no. This subtle grammatical nicety of Early Modern English is recorded by Sir Thomas More in his critique of William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament into Early Modern English, which was then quoted as an authority by later scholars:[12]
I would not here note by the way that Tyndale here translateth no for nay, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde : saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in naye and no can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? Lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere nay and not no. But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere no and not nay. And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ye and yes. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned ? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ye and not yes. But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyee seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned ? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ye but he must answere yes, and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them.
—Thomas More, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, pp. 430[13][14]
In fact, More's exemplification of the rule actually contradicts his statement of what the rule is. This went unnoticed by scholars such as Horne Tooke, Robert Gordon Latham, and Trench, and was first pointed out by George Perkins Marsh in his Century Dictionary, where he corrects More's incorrect statement of the first rule, "No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative.", to read nay. That even More got the rule wrong, even whilst himself dressing-down Tyndale for getting it wrong, is seen by scholars such as Furness as evidence that the distinction between these four words was "truth, too subtle a distinction for practice". Benedick's answer of yea is a correct application of the rule, but as observed by W. A. Wright "Shakespeare does not always observe this rule, and even in the earliest times the usage appears not to have been consistent". Furness notes that this is indeed the case in the following, where Hermia's answer should, in following the rule, have been yes:[12][15]
Demetrius: Do not you thinke, The Duke was heere, and bid vs follow him?
Hermia: Yea, and my Father.
—William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream[12]
Marsh himself found no evidence of a four-form system in Mœso-Gothic, although he reported finding "traces" in Old English. He observed that in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, positively phrased questions are answered positively with gea (John 21:15,16) and negatively with ne (Luke 12:51; 13:5), nese (John 21:5; Matthew 13:29), and nic (John 18:17); whilst negatively phrased questions are answered positively with gyse (Matthew 17:25) and negatively with nâ (John 8:10).[15]
Marsh calls this four-form system of Early Modern English a "needless subtlety". Tooke called it a "ridiculous distinction", with Marsh concluding that Tooke believed Thomas More to have simply made this rule up and observing that Tooke is not alone in his disbelief of More. Marsh, however, points out (having himself analyzed the works of John Wycliffe, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Gower, John Skelton, and Robert of Gloucester, and Piers Ploughman and Le Morte d'Arthur to see where and how these words were used) that the distinction both existed and was generally and fairly uniformly observed in Early Modern English from the time of Chaucer to the time of Tyndale. "Yes" and "no" were reserved for answering negatively phrased questions, and yea and nay served both as answers to positively phrased questions and as normal intensifiers in responses to noninterrogative statements. But after the time of Tyndale, the four-form system was rapidly replaced by the modern two-form system. The Modern System is Modern.[15]
Three-form systems
Several languages have a three-form system, with two affirmative words and one negative. In a three-form system, the affirmative response to a positively phrased question is the unmarked affirmative, the affirmative response to a negatively phrased question is the marked affirmative, and the negative response to both forms of question is the (single) negative. For example, in Norwegian the affirmative answer to "Snakker du norsk?" ("Do you speak Norwegian?") is "Ja", and the affirmative answer to "Snakker du ikke norsk?" ("Do you not speak Norwegian?") is "Jo", whilst the negative answer to both questions is "Nei".[15][16][17][18][19]
Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Hungarian, German, Dutch, and French all have three-form systems. Swedish and Danish have ja, jo, and nej. Norwegian has ja, jo/jau, and nei. Icelandic has já, jú and nei. Hungarian has igen, de, and nem. German has ja, doch, and nein. Dutch has ja, jawel, and nee. French has oui, si, and non.
Swedish, and to some extent Danish and Norwegian, also has additional forms javisst and jovisst, analogous to ja and jo, to indicate a strong affirmative response. Swedish and Danish also have the forms joho and nehej, which both indicate stronger response than jo or nej. Jo can also be used as an emphatic contradiction of a negative statement. The Negative contdraction.[17][20]
Other languages with four-form systems
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.)[21][22][23]
Related words in other languages and translation problems
Bloomfield and Hockett observe that not all languages have special completive interjections. In Polish, for example, tak (thus, so) and nie (not) are adverbs. Russian has the adverbs да and нет, and Finnish does not generally answer yes-no questions with either adverbs or interjections but answers them with a repetition of the verb in the question, negating it if the answer is the negative. (This is an echo response.) The answer to "Tuletteko kaupungista?" ("Are you coming from town?") is the verb form itself, "Tulemme." ("We are coming.")
Negative questions are answered similarly. Negative answers are just the negated verb form. The answer to "Tunnetteko herra Lehdon?" ("Do you know Mr Lehto?") is "En tunne" ("I don't know.") or simply "En." ("I don't.").[2][24][25][26] However, Finnish also has particle words for "yes": "Kyllä" (formal) and "joo" (very colloquial). A yes-no question can be answered "yes" with either "kyllä" or "joo", which are not conjugated according to the person and plurality of the verb. "Ei", however, is always conjugated and means "no".
It is often said falsely that Welsh has no words at all for yes and no. It has ie and nage. However, these are used only in specialized circumstances and are but some of the many ways in Welsh of saying yes or no. As in Finnish, the main way to state yes or no, in answer to yes-no questions, is to echo the verb of the question. So the answers to "Ydy Ffred yn dod?" ("Is Ffred coming?") are either "Ydy." ("He is coming.") or "Nac ydy." ("He is not coming."). In general, the negative answer is the positive answer combined with nag. As in Finnish, this avoids the issue of what an unadorned yes means in response to a negative question. Whilst a yes response to the question "You don't like strawberries?" is ambiguous in English, the Welsh response ydw has no ambiguity. The same would apply for Finnish, where the question would be answered with en (I don't). For more information on yes and no answers to yes-no questions in Welsh, see Jones, listed in further reading.[26][27][28]
Irish and other Gaelic languages do not have any words for "yes" or "no". Instead, an echo response of the verb used to ask the question is used. Sometimes, the verb used is "Tá" (to be). Example "An bhfuil sé ag teacht" (Is he coming). Answer: "Tá" (Is) or "Níl" (Is not). More frequently, another verb will be used. Example "Ar chuala sé" (Did he hear). Answer "Chuala" (heard) or "Níor chuala" (Did not hear). Irish people frequently give echo answers in English as well. Example: "Did you hear?". Answer "I heard/I did". This also happens in the Galician language.
Latin has no single words for yes and no. Their functions as intensifiers and interjections are taken up by using the vocative case. Their functions as word sentence responses to yes-no questions are taken up by sentence adverbs, single adverbs that are sentence modifiers and also used as word sentences. There are several such adverbs classed as truth-value adverbs—including certe, fortasse, nimirum, plane, vero, etiam, sane, minime, and videlicet. They express the speaker's/writer's feelings about the truth value of a proposition. They, in conjunction with the negator non, are used as responses to yes-no questions.[2][29][30][31][32] For examples:
Visum'st.
Certe'n?
Certe.
("Sure I am." "Absolutely?" "Absolutely.")
—Terence, Hec. 843–844[30]
"Quid enim diceres? Damnatum? Certe non." ("For what could you say? That I had been condemned? Assuredly not.")
—Cicero, Dom. 51[30]
Latin also employs echo responses.[31][33]
The Chinese languages use echo responses as well.[34] In all languages, yes-no questions are often posed in A-not-A form, and the replies to such questions are echo answers that echo either A or not A.[35][36] In Mandarin, the closest equivalents to yes and no are to state "是" (shì; lit. "is") and "不是" (búshì; lit. "not is").[37][38] (In Cantonese, the preceding are 係 hai6 and 唔係 m4 hai6, respectively.) When used as an interjection, No! is often said as 不要 (lit. "do not want" or "do not"). The infamous pirated Chinese version of Star Wars Episode III, poorly translated from English to Mandarin, dubbed Darth Vader's cry of "Noooooooo!" as 不要 (buyào!; lit. "do not want!"); this translation error was popularly ridiculed as an internet meme.[39]
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, "行きませんか" ("ikimasen 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.
Like the English contraction of Old English yea so into yes, the words for yes and no in other languages originate from a process of devaluation and semantic erosion. The Hungarian strong affirmative persze was originally the Latin phrase per se intelligitur (it stands to reason), for example. German nein similarly is derived from the Old High German ni ein, which means not a single one. (In Latin, non similarly devolved from noenum, which also means not one.) The French oui was formerly oïl (after which Langue d'oïl is named), which, in turn, came from the Vulgar Latin hoc ille, meaning this one (it is this one).[11]
These differences between languages make translation difficult. No two languages are isomorphic, even at the elementary level of words for yes and no. Translation from two-form to three-form systems is something that English-speaking schoolchildren learning French or German soon encounter. But the mapping is not even as simple as converting two forms into three. There are many idioms, such as reduplication (in French, German, and Italian) of affirmatives for emphasis (the German ja ja ja).
Furthermore, the mappings are one-to-many in both directions. The German ja has no fewer than 13 English equivalents that vary according to context and usage (yes, yeah, and no when used as an answer; well, all right, so, and now, when used for segmentation; oh, ah, uh, and eh when used an interjection; and do you, will you, and their various inflections when used as a marker for tag questions) for example. Moreover, both ja and doch are frequently used as additional particles for conveying nuanced meaning where, in English, no such particle exists. Straightforward, non-idiomatic, translations from German to English and then back to German can often result in the loss of all of the modal particles such as ja and doch from a text.[41][42][43][44]
Translation from languages that have word systems to those that do not, such as Latin, is similarly problematic. As Calvert says, "Saying yes or no takes a little thought in Latin".[32]
Colloquial forms of Yes and No
There are many variants of yes and no in English. Two such spoken forms are transcribed into writing as Uh-huh or Mm-hmm ("yes", with accent on the second syllable) and Uh-uh or M-mm ("no", with accent on the first syllable). Their sounds are a nasal or non-nasal sound interrupted by a voiceless breathy interval for yes, and by a glottal stop for no. These forms are particularly useful for speakers who are unable to articulate the actual words yes and no because they are using their mouths for other tasks, such as eating for example, or because they are gagged.[45]
The word "aye" is a frequent synonym for "yes", although not always officially acknowledged as such. In December 1993, a witness in a Scottish court who had answered "aye" to confirm he was the person summoned was told by the Sheriff that he must answer either "yes" or "no". When his name was read again and he was asked to confirm it, he answered "aye" again, and was imprisoned for 90 minutes for contempt of court. On his release he said "I genuinely thought I was answering him".[46]
Both words are derived from adverbs in Old English. Yes is derived from a compound of an Old English adverb, yea, which means surely, and so, and is thus surely so, while no comes from an Old English adverb that means never.[1]
English originally used a four-form system up to and including Early Middle English but Modern English has reduced this to a two-form system consisting of just 'yes' and 'no'. Some languages do not answer yes-no questions with single words meaning 'yes' or 'no'. Welsh and Finnish are among several languages that typically employ echo answers (repeating the verb with either an affirmative or negative form) rather than using words for 'yes' and 'no', though both languages do also have words broadly similar to 'yes' and 'no'. Other languages have systems named two-form, three-form, and four-form systems, depending on how many words for yes and no they employ. Some languages, such as Latin, have no yes-no word systems.
The words yes and no are not easily classified into any of the eight conventional parts of speech. Although sometimes classified as interjections, they do not qualify as such, and they are not adverbs. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words, word sentences, or pro-sentences, although that category contains more than yes and no and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words. Sentences consisting solely of one of these two words are classified as minor sentences.
The differences among languages, the fact that in different languages the various words for yes and no have different parts of speech and different usages, and that some languages lack a 'yes-no' word system, makes idiomatic translation difficult.
English grammar classification
Although sometimes classified as interjections, these words do not express emotion or act as calls for attention; they are not adverbs because they do not qualify any verb, adjective, or adverb. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words or word sentences.[1][2][3]
This is the position of Otto Jespersen, who states that "'Yes' and 'No' […] are to all intents and purposes sentences just as much as the most delicately balanced sentences ever uttered by Demosthenes or penned by Samuel Johnson."[4]
Georg von der Gabelentz, Henry Sweet, and Wegener have all written on the subject of sentence words, Wegener calling them "Wortsätze". Both Sweet and Wegener include yes and no in this category, with Sweet treating them separately from both imperatives and interjections, although Gabelentz does not.[5]
Watts[6] classifies yes and no as grammatical particles, in particular response particles. He also notes their relationship to the interjections oh and ah, which is that the interjections can precede yes and no but not follow them. Oh as an interjection expresses surprise, but in the combined forms oh yes and oh no merely acts as an intensifier; but ah in the combined forms ah yes and ah no retains its standalone meaning, of focusing upon the previous speaker's or writer's last statement. The forms *yes oh, *yes ah, *no oh, and *no ah are grammatically ill-formed. Aijmer[7] similarly categorizes the yes and no as response signals or reaction signals.
Ameka classifies these two words in different ways according to context. When used as back-channel items, he classifies them as interjections; but when they are used as the responses to a yes-no question, he classifies them as formulaic words. The distinction between an interjection and a formula is, in Ameka's view, that the former does not have an addressee (although it may be directed at a person), whereas the latter does. The yes or no in response to the question is addressed at the interrogator, whereas yes or no used as a back-channel item is a feedback usage, an utterance that is said to oneself. However, Sorjonen criticizes this analysis as lacking empirical work on the other usages of these words, in addition to interjections and feedback uses.[8]
Bloomfield and Hockett classify the words, when used to answer yes-no questions, as special completive interjections. They classify sentences comprising solely one of either of these two words as minor sentences.[2]
Sweet classifies the words in several ways. They are sentence-modifying adverbs, adverbs that act as modifiers to an entire sentence. They are also sentence words, when standing alone. They may, as question responses, also be absolute forms that correspond to what would otherwise be the not in a negated echo response. For example, a "No." in response to the question "Is he here?" is equivalent to the echo response "He is not here.". Sweet observes that there is no correspondence with a simple yes in the latter situation, although the sentence-word "Certainly." provides an absolute form of an emphatic echo response "He is certainly here.". (Many other adverbs can also be used as sentence words in this way.)[9]
Unlike yes, no can also be an adverb of degree, applying to adjectives solely in the comparative (e.g. no greater, no sooner, but not no soon or no soonest), and an adjective when applied to nouns (e.g. "He is no fool." and Dyer's "No clouds, no vapours intervene.")[9][10]
Grammarians of other languages have created further, similar, special classifications for these types of words. Tesnière classifies the French oui and non as phrasillons logiques (along with voici). Fonagy observes that such a classification may be partly justified for the former two, but suggests that pragmatic holophrases is more appropriate.[11]
The Early English four-form system
Whilst Modern English has a two-form system of yes and no for affirmatives and negatives, earlier forms of English had a four-form system, comprising the words yea, nay, yes, and no. In essence, yes and no were the alternative responses to a question posed in the negative, whereas yea and nay were the responses to positively framed questions.
Will he not go? — Yes, he will.
Will he not go? — No, he will not.
Will he go? — Yea, he will.
Will he go? — Nay, he will not.
This is exemplified by the following passage from Much Ado about Nothing:[12]
Claudio: Can the world buie such a iewell?
Benedick: Yea, and a case to put it into, but speake you this with a sad brow?
—William Shakespeare, Much Ado about Nothing, Act I, Scene I
Benedick's yea is the answer to a positively framed question. The answers to positively framed questions ("Will he go?") were yea and nay, whilst the answers to negatively framed questions ("Will he not go?") were yes and no. This subtle grammatical nicety of Early Modern English is recorded by Sir Thomas More in his critique of William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament into Early Modern English, which was then quoted as an authority by later scholars:[12]
I would not here note by the way that Tyndale here translateth no for nay, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde : saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in naye and no can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? Lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere nay and not no. But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere no and not nay. And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ye and yes. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned ? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ye and not yes. But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyee seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned ? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ye but he must answere yes, and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them.
—Thomas More, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, pp. 430[13][14]
In fact, More's exemplification of the rule actually contradicts his statement of what the rule is. This went unnoticed by scholars such as Horne Tooke, Robert Gordon Latham, and Trench, and was first pointed out by George Perkins Marsh in his Century Dictionary, where he corrects More's incorrect statement of the first rule, "No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative.", to read nay. That even More got the rule wrong, even whilst himself dressing-down Tyndale for getting it wrong, is seen by scholars such as Furness as evidence that the distinction between these four words was "truth, too subtle a distinction for practice". Benedick's answer of yea is a correct application of the rule, but as observed by W. A. Wright "Shakespeare does not always observe this rule, and even in the earliest times the usage appears not to have been consistent". Furness notes that this is indeed the case in the following, where Hermia's answer should, in following the rule, have been yes:[12][15]
Demetrius: Do not you thinke, The Duke was heere, and bid vs follow him?
Hermia: Yea, and my Father.
—William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream[12]
Marsh himself found no evidence of a four-form system in Mœso-Gothic, although he reported finding "traces" in Old English. He observed that in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, positively phrased questions are answered positively with gea (John 21:15,16) and negatively with ne (Luke 12:51; 13:5), nese (John 21:5; Matthew 13:29), and nic (John 18:17); whilst negatively phrased questions are answered positively with gyse (Matthew 17:25) and negatively with nâ (John 8:10).[15]
Marsh calls this four-form system of Early Modern English a "needless subtlety". Tooke called it a "ridiculous distinction", with Marsh concluding that Tooke believed Thomas More to have simply made this rule up and observing that Tooke is not alone in his disbelief of More. Marsh, however, points out (having himself analyzed the works of John Wycliffe, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Gower, John Skelton, and Robert of Gloucester, and Piers Ploughman and Le Morte d'Arthur to see where and how these words were used) that the distinction both existed and was generally and fairly uniformly observed in Early Modern English from the time of Chaucer to the time of Tyndale. "Yes" and "no" were reserved for answering negatively phrased questions, and yea and nay served both as answers to positively phrased questions and as normal intensifiers in responses to noninterrogative statements. But after the time of Tyndale, the four-form system was rapidly replaced by the modern two-form system. The Modern System is Modern.[15]
Three-form systems
Several languages have a three-form system, with two affirmative words and one negative. In a three-form system, the affirmative response to a positively phrased question is the unmarked affirmative, the affirmative response to a negatively phrased question is the marked affirmative, and the negative response to both forms of question is the (single) negative. For example, in Norwegian the affirmative answer to "Snakker du norsk?" ("Do you speak Norwegian?") is "Ja", and the affirmative answer to "Snakker du ikke norsk?" ("Do you not speak Norwegian?") is "Jo", whilst the negative answer to both questions is "Nei".[15][16][17][18][19]
Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Hungarian, German, Dutch, and French all have three-form systems. Swedish and Danish have ja, jo, and nej. Norwegian has ja, jo/jau, and nei. Icelandic has já, jú and nei. Hungarian has igen, de, and nem. German has ja, doch, and nein. Dutch has ja, jawel, and nee. French has oui, si, and non.
Swedish, and to some extent Danish and Norwegian, also has additional forms javisst and jovisst, analogous to ja and jo, to indicate a strong affirmative response. Swedish and Danish also have the forms joho and nehej, which both indicate stronger response than jo or nej. Jo can also be used as an emphatic contradiction of a negative statement. The Negative contdraction.[17][20]
Other languages with four-form systems
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.)[21][22][23]
Related words in other languages and translation problems
Bloomfield and Hockett observe that not all languages have special completive interjections. In Polish, for example, tak (thus, so) and nie (not) are adverbs. Russian has the adverbs да and нет, and Finnish does not generally answer yes-no questions with either adverbs or interjections but answers them with a repetition of the verb in the question, negating it if the answer is the negative. (This is an echo response.) The answer to "Tuletteko kaupungista?" ("Are you coming from town?") is the verb form itself, "Tulemme." ("We are coming.")
Negative questions are answered similarly. Negative answers are just the negated verb form. The answer to "Tunnetteko herra Lehdon?" ("Do you know Mr Lehto?") is "En tunne" ("I don't know.") or simply "En." ("I don't.").[2][24][25][26] However, Finnish also has particle words for "yes": "Kyllä" (formal) and "joo" (very colloquial). A yes-no question can be answered "yes" with either "kyllä" or "joo", which are not conjugated according to the person and plurality of the verb. "Ei", however, is always conjugated and means "no".
It is often said falsely that Welsh has no words at all for yes and no. It has ie and nage. However, these are used only in specialized circumstances and are but some of the many ways in Welsh of saying yes or no. As in Finnish, the main way to state yes or no, in answer to yes-no questions, is to echo the verb of the question. So the answers to "Ydy Ffred yn dod?" ("Is Ffred coming?") are either "Ydy." ("He is coming.") or "Nac ydy." ("He is not coming."). In general, the negative answer is the positive answer combined with nag. As in Finnish, this avoids the issue of what an unadorned yes means in response to a negative question. Whilst a yes response to the question "You don't like strawberries?" is ambiguous in English, the Welsh response ydw has no ambiguity. The same would apply for Finnish, where the question would be answered with en (I don't). For more information on yes and no answers to yes-no questions in Welsh, see Jones, listed in further reading.[26][27][28]
Irish and other Gaelic languages do not have any words for "yes" or "no". Instead, an echo response of the verb used to ask the question is used. Sometimes, the verb used is "Tá" (to be). Example "An bhfuil sé ag teacht" (Is he coming). Answer: "Tá" (Is) or "Níl" (Is not). More frequently, another verb will be used. Example "Ar chuala sé" (Did he hear). Answer "Chuala" (heard) or "Níor chuala" (Did not hear). Irish people frequently give echo answers in English as well. Example: "Did you hear?". Answer "I heard/I did". This also happens in the Galician language.
Latin has no single words for yes and no. Their functions as intensifiers and interjections are taken up by using the vocative case. Their functions as word sentence responses to yes-no questions are taken up by sentence adverbs, single adverbs that are sentence modifiers and also used as word sentences. There are several such adverbs classed as truth-value adverbs—including certe, fortasse, nimirum, plane, vero, etiam, sane, minime, and videlicet. They express the speaker's/writer's feelings about the truth value of a proposition. They, in conjunction with the negator non, are used as responses to yes-no questions.[2][29][30][31][32] For examples:
Visum'st.
Certe'n?
Certe.
("Sure I am." "Absolutely?" "Absolutely.")
—Terence, Hec. 843–844[30]
"Quid enim diceres? Damnatum? Certe non." ("For what could you say? That I had been condemned? Assuredly not.")
—Cicero, Dom. 51[30]
Latin also employs echo responses.[31][33]
The Chinese languages use echo responses as well.[34] In all languages, yes-no questions are often posed in A-not-A form, and the replies to such questions are echo answers that echo either A or not A.[35][36] In Mandarin, the closest equivalents to yes and no are to state "是" (shì; lit. "is") and "不是" (búshì; lit. "not is").[37][38] (In Cantonese, the preceding are 係 hai6 and 唔係 m4 hai6, respectively.) When used as an interjection, No! is often said as 不要 (lit. "do not want" or "do not"). The infamous pirated Chinese version of Star Wars Episode III, poorly translated from English to Mandarin, dubbed Darth Vader's cry of "Noooooooo!" as 不要 (buyào!; lit. "do not want!"); this translation error was popularly ridiculed as an internet meme.[39]
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, "行きませんか" ("ikimasen 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.
Like the English contraction of Old English yea so into yes, the words for yes and no in other languages originate from a process of devaluation and semantic erosion. The Hungarian strong affirmative persze was originally the Latin phrase per se intelligitur (it stands to reason), for example. German nein similarly is derived from the Old High German ni ein, which means not a single one. (In Latin, non similarly devolved from noenum, which also means not one.) The French oui was formerly oïl (after which Langue d'oïl is named), which, in turn, came from the Vulgar Latin hoc ille, meaning this one (it is this one).[11]
These differences between languages make translation difficult. No two languages are isomorphic, even at the elementary level of words for yes and no. Translation from two-form to three-form systems is something that English-speaking schoolchildren learning French or German soon encounter. But the mapping is not even as simple as converting two forms into three. There are many idioms, such as reduplication (in French, German, and Italian) of affirmatives for emphasis (the German ja ja ja).
Furthermore, the mappings are one-to-many in both directions. The German ja has no fewer than 13 English equivalents that vary according to context and usage (yes, yeah, and no when used as an answer; well, all right, so, and now, when used for segmentation; oh, ah, uh, and eh when used an interjection; and do you, will you, and their various inflections when used as a marker for tag questions) for example. Moreover, both ja and doch are frequently used as additional particles for conveying nuanced meaning where, in English, no such particle exists. Straightforward, non-idiomatic, translations from German to English and then back to German can often result in the loss of all of the modal particles such as ja and doch from a text.[41][42][43][44]
Translation from languages that have word systems to those that do not, such as Latin, is similarly problematic. As Calvert says, "Saying yes or no takes a little thought in Latin".[32]
Colloquial forms of Yes and No
There are many variants of yes and no in English. Two such spoken forms are transcribed into writing as Uh-huh or Mm-hmm ("yes", with accent on the second syllable) and Uh-uh or M-mm ("no", with accent on the first syllable). Their sounds are a nasal or non-nasal sound interrupted by a voiceless breathy interval for yes, and by a glottal stop for no. These forms are particularly useful for speakers who are unable to articulate the actual words yes and no because they are using their mouths for other tasks, such as eating for example, or because they are gagged.[45]
The word "aye" is a frequent synonym for "yes", although not always officially acknowledged as such. In December 1993, a witness in a Scottish court who had answered "aye" to confirm he was the person summoned was told by the Sheriff that he must answer either "yes" or "no". When his name was read again and he was asked to confirm it, he answered "aye" again, and was imprisoned for 90 minutes for contempt of court. On his release he said "I genuinely thought I was answering him".[46]
Both words are derived from adverbs in Old English. Yes is derived from a compound of an Old English adverb, yea, which means surely, and so, and is thus surely so, while no comes from an Old English adverb that means never.[1]
Ben_Mo-Fat
Member
yes
the-honeypossum
Member
theres no reason to argue about politics on ns. i mean come on, more than half arnt even old enough to vote. and you can argue all you want but your not gonna change the other persons mind...