Talk:'no
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by Mar vin kaiser in topic Etymology
Etymology
[edit]@Mlgc1998 Do you really think there's a possibility that the Japanese ね is etymologically related to this entry? Because if not, then I don't think there should be a reason for this to be here. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser Throughout the years, I've always noticed that multiple east asian languages have a particle that basically does this purpose, where there's Japanese ね (ne), Mandarin 呢 (ne), Hokkien 呢 (--ni), Korean 네 (ne), etc., so it's something to ponder about and compare with how in Tagalog ano would produce the same function to fill the role that the situation those other languages have. I put that in case, this were not simply a case of convergent evolution in the languages. Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: All those mean different things though. ね is a particle for confirmation. 네 is yes. 呢 means several things. Unless you think it's linked etymology through language contact, then ね shouldn't be part of the etymology here. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser This Tagalog 'no form is mainly a particle for confirmation as well. I actually just copy pasted most all the senses from Japanese ね (ne) to make this entry since it seems to do most of the same thing. Transposing "yes?"/"ok?" to ね's sample sentences seem to fit quite well too, hence they compared Korean 네 (ne) there. Mlgc1998 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: I noticed that, precisely why I was about to say that the 2nd definition doesn't exist, I think. I don't think you can say 'no that way. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I guess meaningless in a sense that the person saying it doesn't necessarily want to actually ask for confirmation and just meaninglessly saying it to maybe insist more on it. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: I don't understand what you mean lol. In Japanese, you can say ね for confirmation, but also as a filler in the sense that, it's how you signal to the person that you're about to say something. Similar to English "well..", "you see..". Do you really think 'no in Tagalog can be used like that? For example, "A: 'no....Nasaan ka? B: 'no...hindi ko alam." That's how the second definition of the Japanese ね that you copied means. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser not specifically just like how: well..., & you see... does it being at the start. It still goes to the back as a final particle, but when the speaker states something he clearly knows to be true and doesn't care to confirm, but still says this at the end of the phrase just to rhetorically confirm to the listener as if he's insisting that the listener should know it's true, like Nandyan naman na 'no? ay, hindi ko alam 'no? grass is grass naman 'no?, well, kita naman 'no? The speaker doesn't need to confirm it but he's adding it because he somewhat doubts himself or wants to insist to another whatever truth of the matter. It's a bit weird sometimes, but filler words are weird and habitually put to just to say something or to soften the claim of a statement the speaker is trying to say. Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: I get what you mean, but that means the definition you copy pasted from the Japanese entry is inaccurate for this word. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser not specifically just like how: well..., & you see... does it being at the start. It still goes to the back as a final particle, but when the speaker states something he clearly knows to be true and doesn't care to confirm, but still says this at the end of the phrase just to rhetorically confirm to the listener as if he's insisting that the listener should know it's true, like Nandyan naman na 'no? ay, hindi ko alam 'no? grass is grass naman 'no?, well, kita naman 'no? The speaker doesn't need to confirm it but he's adding it because he somewhat doubts himself or wants to insist to another whatever truth of the matter. It's a bit weird sometimes, but filler words are weird and habitually put to just to say something or to soften the claim of a statement the speaker is trying to say. Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: I don't understand what you mean lol. In Japanese, you can say ね for confirmation, but also as a filler in the sense that, it's how you signal to the person that you're about to say something. Similar to English "well..", "you see..". Do you really think 'no in Tagalog can be used like that? For example, "A: 'no....Nasaan ka? B: 'no...hindi ko alam." That's how the second definition of the Japanese ね that you copied means. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I guess meaningless in a sense that the person saying it doesn't necessarily want to actually ask for confirmation and just meaninglessly saying it to maybe insist more on it. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: I noticed that, precisely why I was about to say that the 2nd definition doesn't exist, I think. I don't think you can say 'no that way. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser This Tagalog 'no form is mainly a particle for confirmation as well. I actually just copy pasted most all the senses from Japanese ね (ne) to make this entry since it seems to do most of the same thing. Transposing "yes?"/"ok?" to ね's sample sentences seem to fit quite well too, hence they compared Korean 네 (ne) there. Mlgc1998 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: All those mean different things though. ね is a particle for confirmation. 네 is yes. 呢 means several things. Unless you think it's linked etymology through language contact, then ね shouldn't be part of the etymology here. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)