• grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I work with a few people from China. What do you think they will say if I ask them if they have a way to say yes to other people in the language they speak when they call their parents?

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I would wager that if you asked that question to Chinese people, they’ll answer something like “we use 对, which means correct”, as I explained earlier.

        Ask them if they like ice cream, but to answer in Chinese.

        They are not going to say “对", they’ll say ”喜欢“(I like it), “不喜欢”,(I don’t like it) or some variation.

        They won’t say 对 because “correct” doesn’t answer the question “do you like ice cream?”

        You can get an approximate or what you can assimilate as a functional answer to your questions, but you’ll never get a “yes”.

        That’s just how “yes” works in all Chinese languages and dialects.

        And this is the tip of the iceberg.

        Lacking a word for"yes" is one difference among thousands this culture has that determines their reactions to what you think are subtle influences, while you are assuming that culture will react in a way that you understand, even though you can’t understand it by virtue of your simple, practical differences and context.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Bearing in mind that this is a fraction of a percent of the cultural differences, "是“ means “it is” and "不是“ means “it isn’t”. Neither of them mean yes or no, and would be an incorrect answer to “do you like ice cream?”

            " Do you like ice cream?"

            " It is."

            You can understand what they’re going for, but you are not prompting the response you would expect to because that answer doesn’t exist in those languages or in those cultures.

            The framing and context of a single word seems small, but when you’re asking a child “do you like ice cream” but you’re not allowed to ask it in anway that they can say yes or no to you and employ the complexities and implications of those words, the situation is different.

            " You like ice cream, correct or incorrect?"

            They’ll answer you, but you’ve taken away their independent facility to formulate an answer.

            " Ice cream is good, is it or is it not?"

            Again, they’ll answer you, within the strict confines of your question. There’s no gray area in your question, which is how you have to ask it in order to elicit any sort of response.

            You give them two possible answers, they choose one.

            That in turn shapes how you and they see questions in general. How questions and behavioral prompts like the types you’re suggesting are perceived, are asked and responded to.

            You can imagine how linguistic formation can determine thought processes pretty quickly, layer upon each other and result in a consciousness you don’t quite recognize.

            And that’s from one word among a couple dozen thousand, and those are all only words and ignoring all other parts of the culture.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                As I’ve mentioned multiple times from the beginning, it’s a salient example of how your paternal metaphor about the US prompting China to behave a certain way is entirely wrongheaded.

                And it isn’t a “position”, it’s a linguistic fact.

                English not having gendered nouns is a fact, not a “position”.

            • Joncash2
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              What the fuck are you talking about. 是 Is a direct translation for yes. And we absolutely would answer

              你喜欢冰淇淋吗 With 是的。

              Similarly we would absolutely answer in the negative to that question with 不。 Because 不 is absolutely a direct translation of no.

              To repeat 是 and 不 are direct translations of yes and no where you can drop them in replacement in English.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                是 and 不 can be functionally understood to mean yes and no, but they’re certainly not direct translations and not correct answers to asking someone if they like something.

                If you ask in Chinese if somebody likes something, You’re going to get the answers"喜欢“ or "不喜欢“, not "是/不是“.

                You can get "是“ by asking about the concrete nature of whether something is or is not.

                "这是公园吗“?

                "是“ or "不是“

                A Chinese language speaker can use these two words to convey what an English speaker understands as “yes” or “no” that what you’re referring to is or is not a park. But they are not saying"yes" or “no”.

                They’re saying “it is” or "it isn’t“, which are different words with different semantics.

                • Joncash2
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  What nonsense.

                  Everything you said is true in English.

                  If I ask do you like ice cream, a common answer is I like it. You can also say yes. Exactly the same as 喜欢, or 是的. Both are perfectly normal to say.

                  You are trying to imply the second one is not normal. You are wrong.

                  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Nope, those are discrete words and concepts, and It looks like you’re missing the point.

                    The point here is that you’re not going to get the response you want by asking a question you’re used to because the affirmative word in English that is the answer to that question does not exist in Chinese languages.

                    Yes means yes, 喜欢 means ”I like it",and 是的 means “it is”.

                    Neither of those Chinese words are the direct equivalent of the English “yes”.

                    Approximations? Functional phrases? Sure.

                    Different words and concepts and language building blocks? Of course.

                    And to keep you accountable, “I like it” is a very strange, inaccurate and extremely uncommon way to answer “do you like ice cream?” In English.

    • umbrella
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      what does this have to do with semiconductors?

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s a response to an example from a commenter saying that if the US treated China like the comments are treats their own child, they’ll be able to manipulate and receive a desired response, and that the US is going about semiconductor sanctions wrong.

        This is a terrible analogy, as the US and China do not have a paternal relationship, or share similar cultural or behavioral contexts or environments, and there’s no reason that the US should expect China to respond to its prompts how the US expects china too

        • umbrella
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          theres nothing paternal about relationships between countries

          in fact we are siblings.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Nothing paternal, that was the problem here. It’s a pretty insulting analogy

            Maybe cousins, with the distance, equal standing and cultural differences.

            • umbrella
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              i’m sorry but you aint making sense to me.