Talk:yes and no

yes and no
Really? --WikiTiki89 17:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's keepable. If it were simply SOP it would be an oxymoron, but it isn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is definitely idiomatic. I find that non-native English speakers tend to have some difficultly with it. Imagine the following exchange:
 * Woman 1: Do you have children?
 * Woman 2: Yes and no.
 * A literal interpretation of the statement "yes and no" would suggest that the second woman exists in a Schrödingerian state of having both given birth and never given birth. But of course, she probably means that she had a baby but gave it up for adoption, i.e. she has a child out there (yes) but isn't raising/hasn't raised any children (no). This nuance of meaning couldn't be gathered from reading the independent entries for "yes" and "no." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the non-natives have any more trouble in understanding "yes and no" than the natives do, at least not due to their non-nativeness. A similar expression exists in all languages that I know something of: de - ja und nein (5 M Google hits), sv- ja och nej (2.7 M), fr- oui et non (1 M), es- si y no (66 M), it- si e no (75 M), fi- kyllä ja ei (0.8 M), et- jah ja ei (0.8M) and pt- sim e não (4M). --Hekaheka (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It merely suggests that according to one interpretation of the question, the answer is yes, and according to another, no. I find that to be SOP (and I have never heard of non-natives not understanding it, and it translates quite literally into any language). --WikiTiki89 19:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that; in German you say (also spelled ), which is a blend of  and, but I'm not sure I've ever heard  used that way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if you have an alternative like jein, why would ever use ja und nein? I'm sure they did use it before jein was coined. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As the creator of the page, I had my doubts about its validity too. But I was keen to see what came out of the debate. For similar reasons I created cheese on toast and bacon and eggs. --Type56op9 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't create words that you if you think they might be SOP without asking first. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need anyone's permission to create entries. Pur ple back pack 89  20:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need permission, but if he himself is unsure of whether it is right to create it, then it saves everyone a lot of time if he asks first. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Cuckoo Pur ple back pack 89  20:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably keep. It has shades of meaning that "no and yes" wouldn't. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Logically, it cannot be both yes and no. It implies you will need a further explanation, and you can’t just end the dialog with it. I don’t know what the comment above means: it translates quite literally into any language. At least in Japanese and in Korean, the literal translation is simply illogical. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * are you able to add some Japanese (and maybe Korean) translations? I can't think of any, even if I try. I agree that the term can't be translated literally into any language, including Russian, which is also an Indo-European language (in Russian it's literally "both yes and no", which is not the same as "yes and no"). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no simple equivalent. In Japanese you would say どちらとも言えない, dochira to mo ienai (“you can say neither”) or そうとも言えるし、そうでないとも言える, sō to mo ierushi, sō de nai to mo ieru (“you can say so, and you can say not so”). In Korean it would be 그렇기도 하고 아니기도 하고, geureokido hago anigido hago (“it is so and it isn’t so”). — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added two SoP translations. Feel free to fix if you disagree. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Donnanz (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was gonna say keep but it doesn't look like my opinion is needed (smile). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to write delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep as idiomatic. I thought it looked an obvious pass and didn't vote when I saw the nomination. "Yes and no" can be 1) literal when there are two choices and can be 2) idiomatic, when one hesitates about the answer. The first sense is translated into Russian literally as (identical to English) but the idiomatic sense is only  (literally "both yes and no"). The translations are only straightforward for some European languages. I have yet to find translations into some East Asian languages. BTW, if the entry is kept, the idiomatic translations, such as German ja und nein and French oui et non should be linked as one term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "yes and no" and "и да и нет" literally mean the same thing. The word "both" is unnecessary in translating "и ... и ..." (which may even contain more than two elements, unlike "both ... and ..."). --WikiTiki89 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they don't mean literally the same thing, there is a substantial difference between "да и нет" and "и да и нет". "И ... и ..." with only two items mean "both ... and ...", e.g. "both healthy and delicious" - "и полезный и вкусный", "I like both the music and the lyrics" - "Мне нравятся и музыка и слова" or it can mean "both (things)" - "и то и другое". Yes, "both" can be omitted in the some translations but it would be less accurate and "и ... и ..." can extend to multiple items. "Да и нет" is used non-idiomatically, when listing two possible answers and "и да и нет" when hesitating about which answer is right - yes or no. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a good example I found where you definitely can't omit "both" in the translation without a loss of info: "И пье́са, и фильм иду́т в Ло́ндоне при по́лном аншла́ге." - "Both the play and film are now drawing capacity houses in London." The overall translation into English may not be perfect but please focus on the first part. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you can omit "both" in that sentence, but we are not discussing possible uses of "и ... и ..." and "both ... and ...", but just the phrase at hand, which is "и да и нет". The word "both" just adds emphasis to the fact that is in fact both of them. It doesn't really change the meaning and so doesn't affect the literalness of the translation. An example of a non-literal translation is "трудно сказать" or "может быть", which are nothing like the English original (I realize these do not have the exact same meaning, I'm just using them as examples). --WikiTiki89 12:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)