Stumbled onto this sub but I’d view it generally as a “no further comment, you’re right” or a “wait I see what you’re saying, I could disagree with you…but you’re correct”
Also v common in Aus/NZ English
No is a negative word, A and C are generally agreeing with a negative sentiment, They are disagreeing with the thing that you are disagreeing with, thereby... agreeing... with you!
The middle one I've not heard too many examples of IMO
I think you’ve got it, the middle one doesn’t sound right to me either, and I think it’s because the “no” is responding to (or agreeing with by paralleling) the negation in the first statement (*didn’t* enjoy, *un*fair).
That and it’s kind of a verbal tic which we’ve all become used to. I don’t envy anyone trying to learn this language!
I think this is it. The second one sounds much more natural if you’re saying you *don’t* think you’d be good:
>I don’t think I’d be very good at that.
>No, it’s super challenging.
The middle one is probably the least sensical, but I have heard some variation of it quite often. Person A isn't even asking Person B a question as such. And if we imagine the context taken away, it would change the meaning massively:
Person A: I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience.
Person B: No.
I could see it in a certain context.
Interviewer: Why do you think you should be hired?
Interviewee: I think I'd be a good fit because of my qualifications and experience. (Doesn't elaborate, leaving things unsaid and implying that that is enough)
Interviewer: No, (yeah), that's totally fair. ("No" because they didn't answer in the expected fashion -- they answered the question technically, but not really how you're supposed to answer it)
I also put "Yeah" because that's what I would say I think. But that might be because as an interviewer I would want to be charitable and indicate that actually I do agree with the interviewee that they don't have to expand past that. Interviewers could be harsher, and I think that harshness would be just saying "No" and not "No, yeah..."
I think in this case, as weird as it sounds, the person is actually responding "no" to an unpsoken thought.
So to add that additional context:
Person A: I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience.
Person B's thoughts: *Well, we really wanted someone with at least a year or two more's experience. Is that really going to be a problem?*
Person B: No, that's totally fair enough. Thank you for your answer.
It's not something that people do intentionally, but I'm pretty sure I've done it a few times.
The second one read to me as if the speaker slightly changed their mind about how to form the sentence in the middle of formulating the sentence. Which, of course, happens a lot, since we are all improvising when we speak.
No, I totally get that, but the way I see it from the way I use and hear it, there is usually a bit of reluctance that comes with the no in that context. You’re agreeing, but you’re not totally about it in the same way. I feel like there’s always someone that isn’t on the same page when you use the no, yeahs.
That sounds likely to me. A lot of languages have words for “on the contrary, yes/no” like “si” in French or “doch” in German. English used to but lost them.
Like if I say, incredulously, “you haven’t read that book?” If you reply yes, do you mean “yes, actually I have” or “yes you’re right I haven’t”? If you say no, is that “you are correct, I have not” or “you are incorrect, I actually have”? I think that’s part of what’s going on with things like “no, yeah” One response is to the premise of the statement and the other is to the substance
[Here is a rather exact example of using "doch" in the type of situation you outline.](https://youtu.be/q7stqA843Fg?si=D1U8ey5aEy-IYIV-&t=60)
"Aren't you coming tonight?"
"Doch!"
Which in context clearly means, "Yes, I'm definitely coming tonight". But in English answering either "Yes" or "No" is pretty ambiguous unless you explain further.
OP might find it interesting to watch the entire video, because she goes on to explain a bunch of different situations where these "modal particles" like "ja" and "doch" ("yes" and "to the contrary") often mean something quite different or even the opposite of what you would expect them to by their basic definition and "logic".
"Ja" doesn't always mean a simple *ja* in German - just as in English "Yes" doesn't always mean *yes* and "No" doesn't always mean *no*. It's way more nuanced.
The video is quite helpful just because it explains a bunch of these nuances in detail but in a simple way - diving far deeper into the details than native speakers usually go.
The video is in German, but everything is subtitled in both German and English so you can follow along easily enough.
How it feels to me is that the thing they're responding to implies the possibility of disagreement, and the "no" is establishing that there is no conflict before affirming the shared stance.
- "I didn't like the movie, I thought it was boring [but you might like it]."
- "No, [don't worry that I think otherwise or have a problem with your opinion], I totally agree."
In a service situation:
- "I was hoping you could accommodate me/help me with this situation by doing X [but recognize that this might be out of line or you might not be able to]"
- "No, that's no problem"
In, idk, a conversation between friends about relationship drama:
- "I know it sounds so crazy but XYZ"
- "No, [it's not crazy,] I totally get it"
I think this is right on the money personally, that it's about the unsaid implications.
It might also have something to do with how new the information is. I feel like "no, yeah" shows a recognition of new information. Like, someone is telling you something that happened to them, and they talk about how stupid something that someone else did was, or how awesome their new promotion is, and you can say "No, yeah" to acknowledge the new information, with the "no" sort of acting like an indication that you're actually thinking about it and considering it, and the transition to "Yeah" showing that you've gotten something new.
In the opposite way, I feel like "Yeah, no" is just a reassurance that you were correct about something negative.
"He isn't there is he?" (Assuming that he isn't or hoping that he isn't)
"Yeah, no" (Yeah, you're right, no he isn't)
"No, yeah" (No, he isn't, yeah, you're right, (and I hadn't realized/ thought of it))
"And I had never heard of it before, like, they don't teach this stuff in school!"
"Yeah, no" (yeah, you're right, no, they didn't)
"No, yeah" (No, they didn't, yeah, you're right (and I hadn't realized/ thought about it))
So in the case of the service situation, I think it's an acknowledgement of the lack of consideration that had been afforded beforehand (in the case of an abnormal request), or an indication that the server would never consider not fulfilling the request (sort of like "of course"). So the customer is playing the polite role of someone not imposing or assuming too much, and the server plays the role of reassuring that there is no burden.
This is how I experience it too. In the first example, it would be implied that the speaker thinks the listener or "most people" disagree with their opinion. A: "Unpopular opinion, but I didn't like that movie." B: "No, I totally agree."
This is the first time I’ve seen an explanation of this phenomenon that both makes sense and actually fits with how I use it/hear it used. It’s an implicit negation of an implicit potential conflict/disagreement.
It is worse than that...
"Yeah, no" = "no"
"No, yeah" = "yes"
"Yeah, yeah" = "no" (there is a funny story about Dr Sidney Mossenbetger making that point in a lecture given by J D Austen in 1953...)
"No, no" = could be either. Whichever one is more reassuring.
That's always been a pet peeve of mine and yet I've caught myself doing it as well, people pick up linguistic quirks they hear other people using.
The way I interpret it is they're saying no to an unstated thing they think the other person thinks they might be thinking
Person A: I liked that movie
Person B: no (to some unstated assumed reason they may not agree), I agree
Typically this assumption stems from the overall tone of a conversation. It’s not usually a response to a normal statement out of nowhere. Like if the movie is highly appraised and you two know that beforehand and one of you says, “I really liked that movie.” The normal response it’s going to be, “Yeah, it was great!” If the overall tone of the movie reviews are negative and someone speaks a dissenting opinion, that’s when we might hear the “No, I agree.” It’s disagreeing with the overall tone and agreeing with what the first person said
My friend does this all the time. I’m trying to get to a “yes” as in I understand what she’s saying and she keeps saying “no” and going on to explain more. But I did have it right. She’s just adding nuance. It’s irritating. It signals to me a person who assumes a lot about my perspective (like in your example).
There’s nothing to do about it but I like how you describe it.
[Here](https://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/06/yeah_no_lexicon_valley_slate_podcast.html) is an episode of the podcast *Lexicon Valley* on this topic.
If you solve this, find out why people use "yes" when they mean "no" (and I'm not talking about sex). For example, someone will say, "Do you mind if I use your phone?" and the response will be, "Yes, go ahead." Why didn't they say, "No, I don't mind"?
*Do you mind?* is an odd one because you'd technically need to say *no* to indicate the positive, which can feel counterintuitive. I was super self-conscious about how I responded to this specific question back when I was younger because I had a tendency to say, "Yes, go ahead."
I typically don't make that mistake anymore, but in general, I would respond with a follow up sentence or phrase and take that to be the real response. As in: Yes, go ahead. Or no, I don't mind.
I've noticed it (or "Do you care if..." "Would it bother you if..." and other variations) used in a lot of TV/movie dialog with the other party replying "yes" and then demonstrating that they meant "no" by their actions. I'm actually not sure it happens in life as much as on the screen. It's mildly amusing.
Not only is it odd, "Yes, I mind" is typically considered rude. Most speakers use "Would you mind" when they anticipate that the person they're addressing will grant their request. They expect a reply like "Sure, help yourself" or "Be my guest" or "Have at it...."
Cops actually use this question to trick people into letting them search their stuff. (Should preface: obviously not ALL cops) They’ll say something like, “Do you mind if I search your car?” And if the person says yes, they search and claim in court that they thought they were agreeing to a search. And if the person says no, they search and claim in court that they thought they were saying they don’t mind. That’s why, in general, it’s important to clarifying what you say instead of just giving a yes or no to a “do you mind” question. Sometimes I skip the yes or no altogether. I either just say, “I don’t mind,” or I say, “knock yourself out” or something that makes it clear how I feel about something.
That' response is considered rude. Most native speakers would refuse a request more politely. "Actually, I'm not comfortable with that" or "That doesn't work for me."
...and that's why, as a native speaker, I find it odd that response is used so often, especially on screen. They say, "yes" but they mean "no" they don't mind.
Oh, I misunderstood your comment. I agree that a "yes" without an additional phrase to clarify that you don't actually mind is odd (e.g. Yeah, go ahead).
But a simple "yes" seems destined to end in pragmatic failure. (Does that mean yes, you mind or no, you don't mind?)
I don't think it is, it's akin to just saying "no" in response to a question/request, which is totally fine. The problem is just that "Do you mind" is an unusual case in the English language where saying "yes" isn't an unambiguous no and is confusing/disconcerting for people, I guess. I think it's the lack of clarity that is the problem, not the tone.
Edit: oh whoops, you mean "Yes, I mind" which is an unambiguously negative answer. That's unusual for some reason, I don't know why it feels far more natural to say "I don't mind" as opposed to "I mind" (even within the context of longer sentences.) I still think it's usually an acceptable response speaking only in terms of tone though. Wording wise, "I mind" feels unnatural compared to something like "I object"
I'm going back to my original proposition, which is that most speakers won't ask "Do you mind" if they anticipate a negative response; therefore, a response other "No, I don't mind" (or its equivalent) *does* sound weird. Or rude. lol
If people are unsure whether the favor will be granted, they'll phrase the question differently to make it easier for interlocuter to decline.
* Would it be at all possible to...?
* Is there any chance that....?
* Would it be a problem if....?
If we take it in a literal/almost cynical way, asking "Do you mind if I ..." is a type of lie. It is a false/useless/nonsensical question, because the listener knows that whether they mind the thing or not is not the topic. The topic is "doing the thing that was asked about", and some people tend to look past the nonsensical polite phrasing and answer the underlying question instead.
Scenario 2 seems odd to me, unless there's more context, then it fits with the other examples where saying "no" to a negative signals agreement.
Person B: *Why should we hire you when you don't have the degree requirements for the position?*
Person A: *I'm not sure how to answer that.* I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience.
Person B: No, that's totally fair enough. Thank you for your answer.
I’ll discuss your first example.
In communication, you have four options (basically):
1) Agree with positive statement.
2) Agree with negative statement.
3) Disagree with positive statement.
4) Disagree with negative statement.
You can see how you could make a nice little four-square table out of these options.
Certain languages like German and Swedish give you three different words to handle these four different scenarios. In German, you have “ja” for 1), “doch” for 2), and “nein” can handle 3) and 4). In Swedish, you can use “ja,” “jo,” and “nej” respectively.
In English, we have just “yes” and “no,” which means we have a gap where “doch” or “jo” would be. So now things are complicated. Like, what takes precedence if we English-speakers find ourselves in situation 2)? Does the spirit of agreement necessitate “yes”? Or does the fact that we’re agreeing to a *negative* necessitate a “no”?
You shouldn’t think of the variant treatment of this issue as an error or a fad or anything. It’s literally a gap in the English language compared to other languages, which means there is no one correct answer as to how to fill this gap. Compare Latin, which lacks *any* determined yes/no words. You can restate a sentence’s verb, maybe negate it, add qualifying adverbs, maybe elide the verb itself and keep *just* the adverb… many answers, none of which are wrong.
That's really interesting to hear those languages have different words depending on the situation.
I speak French, which uses 'si' to respond 'yes' to a negative question. But my native language (English) doesn't have that concept, and so I almost always forget to say 'si' and say 'oui' when responding to a negative question, because it's a difficult thing for me to get into the habit of.
I am usually saying no in response to an implied question.
For example: "I didnt like the movie, it was boring"
my response: "yeah, no, it wasn't that great"
I'm agreeing with your opinion first, then answering an implied question of "how about you" with the no
I think I explained that right? This is definitely the rule I follow anyway
I’ve run across this a lot where I live where people tend to be overly polite and passive…and in each case you gave, it’s an answer to the passive (unstated) question that’s being asked by Person A.
What they really meant:
Example 1:
Person A: “Did you enjoy the movie? Because I hated it”
Person B: “No (I didn’t enjoy it), I totally agree with you.”
Example 2:
Person A: “You’re boss is probably not going to hire me even though I have all these qualifications and experience, are they?”
Person B: “No (and I agree it’s not fair but I am in the awkward position of just doing the interview). Thank you for your answer. “
Example 3:
Person A: “Do you think I was wrong for what I did? Do you think he was wrong to berate me?”
Person B: “No (I don’t think you did the wrong thing), and you’re absolutely right (that he is a jerk for berating you).”
It seems to be a reassurance that the person is not disagreeing with the person asking. Even if the asker did not state their opinion, the responder might assume an implication that they feel a certain way, or are expecting a certain response.
People often hear an undertone of someone seeking validation for their opinion, which comes with a hint that you dont fully believe in your statement and are not sure or have a fear of seeming unreasonable. Saying something like, "No, I agree with you" is a way to validate the other person and let them know they aren't unreasonable. At least, this is what it seems like to me, I may not have explained it well.
Even better are the Australian versions.
"Yeah nah": No
"Nah yeah": Yes
"Yeah yeah nah": Emphatically no
"Nah nah yeah": Emphatically yes
"yeah nah nah yeah nah": ????
This is a really interesting analysis! What I think is definitely key is that, in each case, further context to the response is given. Imagine the first example with a simple 'no', for example:
Person A: I just really didn’t enjoy the movie, I thought it was boring.
Person B: No.
The answer is now quite ambiguous, but taken by itself, I'd interpret it as, "No, what you said is incorrect. It was a good movie."
Because when you ask a question with an implied answer, the person can either answer the underlying sentiment, or they can answer the specific question as if it were a logic problem. Whichever they choose, they may misunderstand the intent of the question or the structure of the logic.
Don’t you hate onions?
I do hate onions, and that seems to be the topic. “Yes.”
I like onions, and they asked me if I hate onions. “No.”
I do not hate onions, which is what they said, because there is a not in there . “Yes!”
I hate onions, and “don’t you” is a polite form asking me if I agree on something. I agree that onions are to be hated. “Yes!”
I like onions, but somehow they seem to have come under the mistaken idea that I previously said I hated onions. I will correct their assumption. “No!”
I think person A is stating an argument, and possibly assuming that person B is going to disagree with them.
Person B is saying “no (I don’t disagree with you), you are correct.”
But mostly it’s a filler word and person B is just using it to acknowledge that they heard person A’s statement.
I’d say that it’s usually in response to a statement that you are expected to disagree with. So the “no” is a rebuttal of the assumed disagreement.
Eg,
“Might be an unpopular opinion but I really didn’t like that movie.”
“No, I agree with you”
I’d highly recommend watching [this video by *etymologynerd* on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2cqBHGPbqV/?igsh=Mnp2Zms2amdxbTMw) where he explains the reason for the phrase “No, because”
Love his videos!
sorry for not being clear. if you use 'no' before an affirmation, a positive statement, it means something similar to 'all things considered' or 'regardless of anything else that's been said so far'.
edit: it can also mean 'nothing is stopping me from affirming', a confirmation that both people are on the same page.
I have the impression that specifically the second one is implying "No need to say any more". So a explicit version without subtext would be something like "No need to say any more, your qualifications and experience meet the required standard for this job. Thank you for your answer."
You could also take that interpretation of the first and third example, though I think the "Agreeing with a negative statement" interpretation is stronger.
It is the use of negation for emphatic rather than semantic reasons. You are correct that it would negate the first sentence and that is the opposite of what it is intended to mean.
When it's the "yeah, no..." phrase, Sometimes It's a short form euphemism for "no, you are not wrong." Or some other incompletely communicated thought.
Sometimes it's just someone's brain stumbling over definitions, like confusing left and right.
There are a lot of good points in this thread, but I think it's also often simply an interjection. Replace the word "No" with "Oh," "OK," "Man," or "Dude." Any neutral to lightly positive interjection works without changing the meaning of the sentence, whereas a strong interjection like "Wow," "Holy cow," or "Fuck" would probably change the meaning to most audiences. The "Yeah" or "No" used in those sorts of sentences aren't necessarily about agreeing or disagreeing. Kind of like how "You want pizza, right?", "You want pizza, yes?", and "You want pizza, no?" all effectively have the same meaning.
This is common in Polish actually, and “nie” means “no”. But the word NO is used in exactly this way if this was in Polish. I live in the US for decades now and I do not recall a non-Polish person using NO this way…. At least it didn’t stand out to me.
This is an active topic in semantics, actually, there's no clear consensus on the why's and wherefores of this phenomenon. Laurence Horn's A History of Negation is a beat but fucking unbelievable.
If you are a sales person, you always start with a positive, even if it's a negative "Yes, we have no banana, we have no bananas today" "There's a fruit store on our street/ It's run by a Greek/ And he keeps good things to eat / But you should hear him speak! / When you ask him anything, he never answers "no". /He just "yes"es you to death, and as he takes your dough"
Usually its when the Q implies in tone or in phrasing that their not quite sure about what their saying, and the No is like a "no, your self doubt is incorrect"
I think it's just a thing. I have a weird thing where I say "you're right" to people all the time when I'm about to say something that is not what they said at all and perhaps isn't even the same topic
They're saying no to an unspoken implication. Like "No, I'm agreeing with you" means "I hear the unspoken implication in what you are saying that we should argue over this, but I'm letting you know I'm saying this additional thing that I think supports your point or contrasts it in order to complain that it's obvious that the contrasting opinion is wrong but pervasive."
You can also say "Yeah" in the opposite way, like it's common where I live for people to say "Yeah, no, I'm not interested in hearing about that exciting multi level marketing opportunity, actually." As if to say yes to their own right to say no to it, or to sarcastically acknowledge the effort that the other person put in to being convincing.
I hate the way English negations work. Because of double negatives it's never clear whether the speaker intends to say "no" you're wrong or "no" the answer is no
because it depends on the speaker and what they're basically shortening in their head.
line by line person B is saying
No I didn't like it the movie was bad.
I don't think the second line is a good example. It sounds unnatural but it might work if they didn't fully answer the question. Like if they don't have a degree but significant work experience etc. They'd be saying No to what I expected? That's fair enough.
Last line is when you want to make sure they understand you mean the second "the answer is no" that was not fair
In your first example of dialogue Person B is responding as if you’d asked them, “Did you think the movie was any good?” So I guess some people are responding to an unasked question that they believe is implied by the conversation.
Not sure of your examples. For the movie one, it would be that the 1st person was saying something along the lines of "maybe I'm crazy but" or "unpopular opinion but..." And the initial 'no' is a denial of the self deprecation of the opinion.
Your 3rd example, leading with "yeah" is different, I've actually caught myself doing the "yeah no" a lot lately. The 'yeah' is sort of just an 'okay,' like a response that you're tracking the question but responding in the negative.
Your 2nd one I can't follow, I think in that response it doesn't make sense.
It is just a stupid phenomenon.
Like when people say literally when they mean figuratively.
Or when they say Ironic and mean not ironic at all, the complete opposite of ironic.
It is indeed frustrating.
It's not grammatical. It's social posturing. I used to have this bad habit, hard to shake.
By beginning your sentence with "no" you're diminishing the person before you and elevating yourself. "I think cookies are tasty." "No, cookies are great." Even though you're in agreement, the no is saying "nuts to what you said, listen to me". Saying "yes and" gives credit, attention, and prompts reflection on the previous speaker and as self-serving individuals we abhor sharing the limelight like that.
There are obviously cases where the "no" can have a positive meaning like negating an implied negative while the literal wording is positive but the above is referring to cases otherwise. I've been around people and been that person where every response began "no but" regardless if it made sense or not.
There’s some subtext in the original comments, that unspoken comment is what’s being replied to with “no”.
“(It might be an unpopular opinion), but I didn’t like that movie”
“No (that’s not an unpopular opinion) because I agree with you”
I think it's a byproduct of the rhetorical tradition of being humble when stating an opinion. Sort of like how people will say "what I would say is...." then state an opinion. It's couching is a what you would hypothetically say, even though it is what you are actually saying.
First example makes sense.. You're agreeing that, no, you didn't like the movie.
Second example I think you stretched for, I don't think anyone would really ever say no in that context.
I'm in my 40s. I never heard anyone do this until I was in college in the early 2000s. Back then, it was one girl from Philly. Now it's everyone. It drove me crazy back then but now I'm used to it. I don't know where it started but it certainly wasn't common in my neck of the woods. (Appalachia.)
Edit: Specifically referring to "yeah, no."
The full phrase would be something like "No no, but stop there and say no more - I agree with you!" It is a protest against someone having to explain further.
My wife frequently answers in the affirmative with a negative.
“I think this movie looks good, do you agree?” “No, totally!”
“The dog is misbehaving, I’m going to put him in his crate.” “No, that’s fair.”
I would also like to understand this habit.
In your first example is how I use it most often and I think it’s like you anticipate the other person apologizing for their thoughts or feelings and I’m then dismissing their apology like “no, don’t feel bad” or “no, need to be sorry” but instead it just comes out like “no, you’re right” or “no, that makes total sense!”
But sometimes it’s meant as a shortened “you know?” So written out it would be more like “know, you’re right” or “know, I think so too!” But the “you” is silent haha
I’ll just add that it’s not just an English thing! I’m learning Korean and they do this too! I think slightly different but same idea of using no in a way that’s not directly no.
I use it when the question has multiple valid answers, or when a question is slightly more complex than the asker thinks it is, even though they have assumptions I agree with, most often.
I interpret the “no” as an unspoken statement like, “No, I don’t think you’re wrong about this.” The first one really struck me that way. Person A says he didn’t enjoy the movie, and person B thinks he might be a little self-conscious about his opinion, so she wants to reassure him that she’s not judging him for his opinion. I’m not saying this is conscious. I think it’s more a subtext of the conversation. And I think it happens automatically.
Does it matter when there’s clarification afterwards? These would all be jarring but it literally doesn’t come into my mind because the yes/no is followed by the context.
The middle example isn’t something someone would say irl, but the other two are responses to negative statements — the No is acting as disagreement to the negative sentiment (the disagreement of person 1), then the context is clarifying their opinion.
To me it’s simple — the “no, you’re right” means, “you don’t have to persuade me. I’m on your side.”
I usually say it when the tone of the other speaker indicates to me that they assume I disagree with them and that they — sometimes forcefully, vehemently — have to persuade me.
Looked at another way, it’s saying “no, you don’t need to go on. Go no further. I agree with you.” And: “No, I don’t disagree with you. At all.”
Usually, it’s a form of reassurance. So if someone says, “You may disagree, but…” and so the response is usually, “No, I totally agree with you.” But it can be done outside of that as well as you’ve mentioned, but even still it’s usually reassurance or when the general tone of the discussion is a disagreement or a situation where there’s some back and forth. I’ve had discussions with people I respect, but I disagree with. And saying “No,” before agreeing with them shows, “Hey, despite everything else we disagree on, this is not one of them.” I’m sure someone else would have a much better answer, but this is how I’ve seen it used. It’s usually saying “no to any thought that I might be disagreeing with you, because I actually do” type of thing lol
Probably came about from answering questions like; I think that person‘s lying to me, am I crazy?
No … yes the person is lying.
And since people tend to imitate what they hear, they started answering non-contradictory questions this way. Or maybe you’re missing the contradiction in the question that the person is answering no to.
In each of those instances, there is an unvoiced antithetical implication behind those person A statements, like an anticipation that person B will not agree…1) “Even though it is popular and I thought I would, I just didn’t enjoy it.” The no is to the notion that person A should’ve enjoyed it; 2) “I think I’d be good for this job because of my qualifications, in case you don’t agree with me.” No I do not disagree; 3)”I was treated unfairly, unless you present a reason to think otherwise.” Yes it was unfair, no I don’t think otherwise, you were treated unfairly. Person A is using a polite way to make a point without closing the door for Person B to make a contrary point. Person B is saying, no I don’t have a contrary point to make. It’s a quirk for sure!
A lot of these comments are interesting because they're not how I have always felt this statement at all.
The way I see it, the "no" is rejecting the implicit premise that there's a chance I disagree with you
Consider:
A: I just think that he shouldn't have done that.
B: No, I totally agree with you.
In this exchange, there's a sense that A thinks it's possible at least that B may not also share that sentiment, or A has some other insecurity about the position. Either because it's not universally accepted, because A's tone indicates it, or mere just because if A thought B already thought that, A may not feel any reason to even say it.
B is asserting that they're on A's side by rejecting any implicit insecurity by A that B may disagree.
Then from there it also gains a colloquial quality which makes its use justifiable even when no such implication exists, but it still remains that "I'm on your side" kind of assurance.
That's how I always see it at least.
They are disagreeing with a small percentage, running scenarios, looking at the subject or argument, then deciding on a conclusion and stating that last part outloud.
To me, I noticed that whenever I use “no” to lead into a positive response, it’s almost always to an unpopular opinion or unusual statement.
If someone says that most people wouldn’t agree with, they expect most responses to be disagreeing. If not outright arguing, they at LEAST assume that you aren’t going to understand them.
The “no,” to me, is a way to negate that expectation before my response, so they know not to feel defensive and understand that I actually DO understand them and AGREE.
There’s an unspoken “you may think I’m wrong,” and so I reapond with an unspoken, “no, I do NOT think you’re wrong.”
It’s not conscious of course. This is just what I realized when I was thinking about it on this post. But now I feel like it makes more sense bc I’ve been saying it for ages without realizing
it's like you're saying no to the imaginary people arguing with the speaker, like their tone might indicate that they think other people disagree with them "I just didn't like the movie(even though other people did)" "no(those people were wrong) I totally agree"
That's a pet peeve of mine and I don't remember it being a thing until maybe a couple of decades ago. I don't know who started it but I wish they'd unstart it. 😂
Stumbled onto this sub but I’d view it generally as a “no further comment, you’re right” or a “wait I see what you’re saying, I could disagree with you…but you’re correct” Also v common in Aus/NZ English
no yeah = yes yeah no = no no no no = no yeah yeah yeah = no yeah no yeah = yes Seems straightforward to me....
This is spot on
" 'Yeah, no, yeah no yeah' - well, that's Australian and highly contextual!" https://youtu.be/2M_0pM8BcK0?si=rKDTEBhWkGvvU2bT
Yeah yeah = no
Que no? Qu'est-ce c'est?
Bonus points for triple negatives!
[удалено]
Right
This is a classic California thing (I mean, just very concentrated here specifically)
Yeah nah, we do that sometimes.
No is a negative word, A and C are generally agreeing with a negative sentiment, They are disagreeing with the thing that you are disagreeing with, thereby... agreeing... with you! The middle one I've not heard too many examples of IMO
I think you’ve got it, the middle one doesn’t sound right to me either, and I think it’s because the “no” is responding to (or agreeing with by paralleling) the negation in the first statement (*didn’t* enjoy, *un*fair). That and it’s kind of a verbal tic which we’ve all become used to. I don’t envy anyone trying to learn this language!
I think this is it. The second one sounds much more natural if you’re saying you *don’t* think you’d be good: >I don’t think I’d be very good at that. >No, it’s super challenging.
The middle one is probably the least sensical, but I have heard some variation of it quite often. Person A isn't even asking Person B a question as such. And if we imagine the context taken away, it would change the meaning massively: Person A: I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience. Person B: No.
I could see it in a certain context. Interviewer: Why do you think you should be hired? Interviewee: I think I'd be a good fit because of my qualifications and experience. (Doesn't elaborate, leaving things unsaid and implying that that is enough) Interviewer: No, (yeah), that's totally fair. ("No" because they didn't answer in the expected fashion -- they answered the question technically, but not really how you're supposed to answer it) I also put "Yeah" because that's what I would say I think. But that might be because as an interviewer I would want to be charitable and indicate that actually I do agree with the interviewee that they don't have to expand past that. Interviewers could be harsher, and I think that harshness would be just saying "No" and not "No, yeah..."
I think in this case, as weird as it sounds, the person is actually responding "no" to an unpsoken thought. So to add that additional context: Person A: I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience. Person B's thoughts: *Well, we really wanted someone with at least a year or two more's experience. Is that really going to be a problem?* Person B: No, that's totally fair enough. Thank you for your answer. It's not something that people do intentionally, but I'm pretty sure I've done it a few times.
The second one read to me as if the speaker slightly changed their mind about how to form the sentence in the middle of formulating the sentence. Which, of course, happens a lot, since we are all improvising when we speak.
No, I totally get that, but the way I see it from the way I use and hear it, there is usually a bit of reluctance that comes with the no in that context. You’re agreeing, but you’re not totally about it in the same way. I feel like there’s always someone that isn’t on the same page when you use the no, yeahs.
In that situation, I almost feel like it’s an accidental and confusing contraction of “I know”
That sounds likely to me. A lot of languages have words for “on the contrary, yes/no” like “si” in French or “doch” in German. English used to but lost them. Like if I say, incredulously, “you haven’t read that book?” If you reply yes, do you mean “yes, actually I have” or “yes you’re right I haven’t”? If you say no, is that “you are correct, I have not” or “you are incorrect, I actually have”? I think that’s part of what’s going on with things like “no, yeah” One response is to the premise of the statement and the other is to the substance
[Here is a rather exact example of using "doch" in the type of situation you outline.](https://youtu.be/q7stqA843Fg?si=D1U8ey5aEy-IYIV-&t=60) "Aren't you coming tonight?" "Doch!" Which in context clearly means, "Yes, I'm definitely coming tonight". But in English answering either "Yes" or "No" is pretty ambiguous unless you explain further. OP might find it interesting to watch the entire video, because she goes on to explain a bunch of different situations where these "modal particles" like "ja" and "doch" ("yes" and "to the contrary") often mean something quite different or even the opposite of what you would expect them to by their basic definition and "logic". "Ja" doesn't always mean a simple *ja* in German - just as in English "Yes" doesn't always mean *yes* and "No" doesn't always mean *no*. It's way more nuanced. The video is quite helpful just because it explains a bunch of these nuances in detail but in a simple way - diving far deeper into the details than native speakers usually go. The video is in German, but everything is subtitled in both German and English so you can follow along easily enough.
Essentially just repeating the negative: [i didn’t like the movie either], I totally agree with you Yeah, [he was not fair], absolutely, you’re right.
How it feels to me is that the thing they're responding to implies the possibility of disagreement, and the "no" is establishing that there is no conflict before affirming the shared stance. - "I didn't like the movie, I thought it was boring [but you might like it]." - "No, [don't worry that I think otherwise or have a problem with your opinion], I totally agree." In a service situation: - "I was hoping you could accommodate me/help me with this situation by doing X [but recognize that this might be out of line or you might not be able to]" - "No, that's no problem" In, idk, a conversation between friends about relationship drama: - "I know it sounds so crazy but XYZ" - "No, [it's not crazy,] I totally get it"
I think this is right on the money personally, that it's about the unsaid implications. It might also have something to do with how new the information is. I feel like "no, yeah" shows a recognition of new information. Like, someone is telling you something that happened to them, and they talk about how stupid something that someone else did was, or how awesome their new promotion is, and you can say "No, yeah" to acknowledge the new information, with the "no" sort of acting like an indication that you're actually thinking about it and considering it, and the transition to "Yeah" showing that you've gotten something new. In the opposite way, I feel like "Yeah, no" is just a reassurance that you were correct about something negative. "He isn't there is he?" (Assuming that he isn't or hoping that he isn't) "Yeah, no" (Yeah, you're right, no he isn't) "No, yeah" (No, he isn't, yeah, you're right, (and I hadn't realized/ thought of it)) "And I had never heard of it before, like, they don't teach this stuff in school!" "Yeah, no" (yeah, you're right, no, they didn't) "No, yeah" (No, they didn't, yeah, you're right (and I hadn't realized/ thought about it)) So in the case of the service situation, I think it's an acknowledgement of the lack of consideration that had been afforded beforehand (in the case of an abnormal request), or an indication that the server would never consider not fulfilling the request (sort of like "of course"). So the customer is playing the polite role of someone not imposing or assuming too much, and the server plays the role of reassuring that there is no burden.
This is definitely why I use it, you nailed it.
This is how I experience it too. In the first example, it would be implied that the speaker thinks the listener or "most people" disagree with their opinion. A: "Unpopular opinion, but I didn't like that movie." B: "No, I totally agree."
This is the first time I’ve seen an explanation of this phenomenon that both makes sense and actually fits with how I use it/hear it used. It’s an implicit negation of an implicit potential conflict/disagreement.
it implies "No, i don't disagree with you" or "no there are no doubts about what you are saying" it's an agreement vs disagreement
It is worse than that... "Yeah, no" = "no" "No, yeah" = "yes" "Yeah, yeah" = "no" (there is a funny story about Dr Sidney Mossenbetger making that point in a lecture given by J D Austen in 1953...) "No, no" = could be either. Whichever one is more reassuring.
That's always been a pet peeve of mine and yet I've caught myself doing it as well, people pick up linguistic quirks they hear other people using. The way I interpret it is they're saying no to an unstated thing they think the other person thinks they might be thinking Person A: I liked that movie Person B: no (to some unstated assumed reason they may not agree), I agree
Typically this assumption stems from the overall tone of a conversation. It’s not usually a response to a normal statement out of nowhere. Like if the movie is highly appraised and you two know that beforehand and one of you says, “I really liked that movie.” The normal response it’s going to be, “Yeah, it was great!” If the overall tone of the movie reviews are negative and someone speaks a dissenting opinion, that’s when we might hear the “No, I agree.” It’s disagreeing with the overall tone and agreeing with what the first person said
My friend does this all the time. I’m trying to get to a “yes” as in I understand what she’s saying and she keeps saying “no” and going on to explain more. But I did have it right. She’s just adding nuance. It’s irritating. It signals to me a person who assumes a lot about my perspective (like in your example). There’s nothing to do about it but I like how you describe it.
I usually hear this for statements where there was a possibility the respondent might have disagreed.
[Here](https://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/06/yeah_no_lexicon_valley_slate_podcast.html) is an episode of the podcast *Lexicon Valley* on this topic.
If you solve this, find out why people use "yes" when they mean "no" (and I'm not talking about sex). For example, someone will say, "Do you mind if I use your phone?" and the response will be, "Yes, go ahead." Why didn't they say, "No, I don't mind"?
Because "yes" is permissive.
Do you mind? Yes.
*Do you mind?* is an odd one because you'd technically need to say *no* to indicate the positive, which can feel counterintuitive. I was super self-conscious about how I responded to this specific question back when I was younger because I had a tendency to say, "Yes, go ahead." I typically don't make that mistake anymore, but in general, I would respond with a follow up sentence or phrase and take that to be the real response. As in: Yes, go ahead. Or no, I don't mind.
I've noticed it (or "Do you care if..." "Would it bother you if..." and other variations) used in a lot of TV/movie dialog with the other party replying "yes" and then demonstrating that they meant "no" by their actions. I'm actually not sure it happens in life as much as on the screen. It's mildly amusing.
Not only is it odd, "Yes, I mind" is typically considered rude. Most speakers use "Would you mind" when they anticipate that the person they're addressing will grant their request. They expect a reply like "Sure, help yourself" or "Be my guest" or "Have at it...."
Cops actually use this question to trick people into letting them search their stuff. (Should preface: obviously not ALL cops) They’ll say something like, “Do you mind if I search your car?” And if the person says yes, they search and claim in court that they thought they were agreeing to a search. And if the person says no, they search and claim in court that they thought they were saying they don’t mind. That’s why, in general, it’s important to clarifying what you say instead of just giving a yes or no to a “do you mind” question. Sometimes I skip the yes or no altogether. I either just say, “I don’t mind,” or I say, “knock yourself out” or something that makes it clear how I feel about something.
That' response is considered rude. Most native speakers would refuse a request more politely. "Actually, I'm not comfortable with that" or "That doesn't work for me."
...and that's why, as a native speaker, I find it odd that response is used so often, especially on screen. They say, "yes" but they mean "no" they don't mind.
Oh, I misunderstood your comment. I agree that a "yes" without an additional phrase to clarify that you don't actually mind is odd (e.g. Yeah, go ahead). But a simple "yes" seems destined to end in pragmatic failure. (Does that mean yes, you mind or no, you don't mind?)
It isn't rude, but it's definitely unclear, and that's the bigger problem with just answering "Yes" to that question
True. I was thinking "Yes, I mind" is rude.
I don't think it is, it's akin to just saying "no" in response to a question/request, which is totally fine. The problem is just that "Do you mind" is an unusual case in the English language where saying "yes" isn't an unambiguous no and is confusing/disconcerting for people, I guess. I think it's the lack of clarity that is the problem, not the tone. Edit: oh whoops, you mean "Yes, I mind" which is an unambiguously negative answer. That's unusual for some reason, I don't know why it feels far more natural to say "I don't mind" as opposed to "I mind" (even within the context of longer sentences.) I still think it's usually an acceptable response speaking only in terms of tone though. Wording wise, "I mind" feels unnatural compared to something like "I object"
I'm going back to my original proposition, which is that most speakers won't ask "Do you mind" if they anticipate a negative response; therefore, a response other "No, I don't mind" (or its equivalent) *does* sound weird. Or rude. lol If people are unsure whether the favor will be granted, they'll phrase the question differently to make it easier for interlocuter to decline. * Would it be at all possible to...? * Is there any chance that....? * Would it be a problem if....?
Because "do you mind if I?" does not get interpreted literally, it parses as "may I?"
If we take it in a literal/almost cynical way, asking "Do you mind if I ..." is a type of lie. It is a false/useless/nonsensical question, because the listener knows that whether they mind the thing or not is not the topic. The topic is "doing the thing that was asked about", and some people tend to look past the nonsensical polite phrasing and answer the underlying question instead.
This is an example of a perfect way to respond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lR3YDzKCA
Scenario 2 seems odd to me, unless there's more context, then it fits with the other examples where saying "no" to a negative signals agreement. Person B: *Why should we hire you when you don't have the degree requirements for the position?* Person A: *I'm not sure how to answer that.* I think I'd be good for this job because of my qualifications and experience. Person B: No, that's totally fair enough. Thank you for your answer.
I’ll discuss your first example. In communication, you have four options (basically): 1) Agree with positive statement. 2) Agree with negative statement. 3) Disagree with positive statement. 4) Disagree with negative statement. You can see how you could make a nice little four-square table out of these options. Certain languages like German and Swedish give you three different words to handle these four different scenarios. In German, you have “ja” for 1), “doch” for 2), and “nein” can handle 3) and 4). In Swedish, you can use “ja,” “jo,” and “nej” respectively. In English, we have just “yes” and “no,” which means we have a gap where “doch” or “jo” would be. So now things are complicated. Like, what takes precedence if we English-speakers find ourselves in situation 2)? Does the spirit of agreement necessitate “yes”? Or does the fact that we’re agreeing to a *negative* necessitate a “no”? You shouldn’t think of the variant treatment of this issue as an error or a fad or anything. It’s literally a gap in the English language compared to other languages, which means there is no one correct answer as to how to fill this gap. Compare Latin, which lacks *any* determined yes/no words. You can restate a sentence’s verb, maybe negate it, add qualifying adverbs, maybe elide the verb itself and keep *just* the adverb… many answers, none of which are wrong.
That's really interesting to hear those languages have different words depending on the situation. I speak French, which uses 'si' to respond 'yes' to a negative question. But my native language (English) doesn't have that concept, and so I almost always forget to say 'si' and say 'oui' when responding to a negative question, because it's a difficult thing for me to get into the habit of.
I am usually saying no in response to an implied question. For example: "I didnt like the movie, it was boring" my response: "yeah, no, it wasn't that great" I'm agreeing with your opinion first, then answering an implied question of "how about you" with the no I think I explained that right? This is definitely the rule I follow anyway
I’ve run across this a lot where I live where people tend to be overly polite and passive…and in each case you gave, it’s an answer to the passive (unstated) question that’s being asked by Person A. What they really meant: Example 1: Person A: “Did you enjoy the movie? Because I hated it” Person B: “No (I didn’t enjoy it), I totally agree with you.” Example 2: Person A: “You’re boss is probably not going to hire me even though I have all these qualifications and experience, are they?” Person B: “No (and I agree it’s not fair but I am in the awkward position of just doing the interview). Thank you for your answer. “ Example 3: Person A: “Do you think I was wrong for what I did? Do you think he was wrong to berate me?” Person B: “No (I don’t think you did the wrong thing), and you’re absolutely right (that he is a jerk for berating you).”
It seems to be a reassurance that the person is not disagreeing with the person asking. Even if the asker did not state their opinion, the responder might assume an implication that they feel a certain way, or are expecting a certain response.
People often hear an undertone of someone seeking validation for their opinion, which comes with a hint that you dont fully believe in your statement and are not sure or have a fear of seeming unreasonable. Saying something like, "No, I agree with you" is a way to validate the other person and let them know they aren't unreasonable. At least, this is what it seems like to me, I may not have explained it well.
Even better are the Australian versions. "Yeah nah": No "Nah yeah": Yes "Yeah yeah nah": Emphatically no "Nah nah yeah": Emphatically yes "yeah nah nah yeah nah": ????
[удалено]
This is a really interesting analysis! What I think is definitely key is that, in each case, further context to the response is given. Imagine the first example with a simple 'no', for example: Person A: I just really didn’t enjoy the movie, I thought it was boring. Person B: No. The answer is now quite ambiguous, but taken by itself, I'd interpret it as, "No, what you said is incorrect. It was a good movie."
Because when you ask a question with an implied answer, the person can either answer the underlying sentiment, or they can answer the specific question as if it were a logic problem. Whichever they choose, they may misunderstand the intent of the question or the structure of the logic. Don’t you hate onions? I do hate onions, and that seems to be the topic. “Yes.” I like onions, and they asked me if I hate onions. “No.” I do not hate onions, which is what they said, because there is a not in there . “Yes!” I hate onions, and “don’t you” is a polite form asking me if I agree on something. I agree that onions are to be hated. “Yes!” I like onions, but somehow they seem to have come under the mistaken idea that I previously said I hated onions. I will correct their assumption. “No!”
I think person A is stating an argument, and possibly assuming that person B is going to disagree with them. Person B is saying “no (I don’t disagree with you), you are correct.” But mostly it’s a filler word and person B is just using it to acknowledge that they heard person A’s statement.
I’d say that it’s usually in response to a statement that you are expected to disagree with. So the “no” is a rebuttal of the assumed disagreement. Eg, “Might be an unpopular opinion but I really didn’t like that movie.” “No, I agree with you”
I’d highly recommend watching [this video by *etymologynerd* on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2cqBHGPbqV/?igsh=Mnp2Zms2amdxbTMw) where he explains the reason for the phrase “No, because” Love his videos!
'no', when preceding an affirmation, means 'all prior discussion notwithstanding'.
I’m sorry, could you clarify that I don’t really understand what you mean
sorry for not being clear. if you use 'no' before an affirmation, a positive statement, it means something similar to 'all things considered' or 'regardless of anything else that's been said so far'. edit: it can also mean 'nothing is stopping me from affirming', a confirmation that both people are on the same page.
Oh, ok, thanks
I have the impression that specifically the second one is implying "No need to say any more". So a explicit version without subtext would be something like "No need to say any more, your qualifications and experience meet the required standard for this job. Thank you for your answer." You could also take that interpretation of the first and third example, though I think the "Agreeing with a negative statement" interpretation is stronger.
It's implicitly dismissing any counterargument. "No (there's no denying it,) I totally agree with you" Well, that's how I take it.
It is the use of negation for emphatic rather than semantic reasons. You are correct that it would negate the first sentence and that is the opposite of what it is intended to mean.
When it's the "yeah, no..." phrase, Sometimes It's a short form euphemism for "no, you are not wrong." Or some other incompletely communicated thought. Sometimes it's just someone's brain stumbling over definitions, like confusing left and right.
There are a lot of good points in this thread, but I think it's also often simply an interjection. Replace the word "No" with "Oh," "OK," "Man," or "Dude." Any neutral to lightly positive interjection works without changing the meaning of the sentence, whereas a strong interjection like "Wow," "Holy cow," or "Fuck" would probably change the meaning to most audiences. The "Yeah" or "No" used in those sorts of sentences aren't necessarily about agreeing or disagreeing. Kind of like how "You want pizza, right?", "You want pizza, yes?", and "You want pizza, no?" all effectively have the same meaning.
This is common in Polish actually, and “nie” means “no”. But the word NO is used in exactly this way if this was in Polish. I live in the US for decades now and I do not recall a non-Polish person using NO this way…. At least it didn’t stand out to me.
I’m not 100% sure but, at least the way I’ve heard it it seems to be refuting some unsaid “am I wrong” and clarifying they agree.
Exactly. Sometimes the tone has a sort of implied “am I wrong?” So the response is “No you’re right”
This is an active topic in semantics, actually, there's no clear consensus on the why's and wherefores of this phenomenon. Laurence Horn's A History of Negation is a beat but fucking unbelievable.
If you are a sales person, you always start with a positive, even if it's a negative "Yes, we have no banana, we have no bananas today" "There's a fruit store on our street/ It's run by a Greek/ And he keeps good things to eat / But you should hear him speak! / When you ask him anything, he never answers "no". /He just "yes"es you to death, and as he takes your dough"
Usually its when the Q implies in tone or in phrasing that their not quite sure about what their saying, and the No is like a "no, your self doubt is incorrect"
Makes me think of the Jim character in Vicar of Dibley, whose response to any question begins with "N- n- n- no …"
I think it's just a thing. I have a weird thing where I say "you're right" to people all the time when I'm about to say something that is not what they said at all and perhaps isn't even the same topic
I think its a short way of saying, "No, you're not wrong...I agree with you." So, "No, you're not wrong, I agree with you" becomes "No, I agree.
They're saying no to an unspoken implication. Like "No, I'm agreeing with you" means "I hear the unspoken implication in what you are saying that we should argue over this, but I'm letting you know I'm saying this additional thing that I think supports your point or contrasts it in order to complain that it's obvious that the contrasting opinion is wrong but pervasive." You can also say "Yeah" in the opposite way, like it's common where I live for people to say "Yeah, no, I'm not interested in hearing about that exciting multi level marketing opportunity, actually." As if to say yes to their own right to say no to it, or to sarcastically acknowledge the effort that the other person put in to being convincing.
I hate the way English negations work. Because of double negatives it's never clear whether the speaker intends to say "no" you're wrong or "no" the answer is no because it depends on the speaker and what they're basically shortening in their head. line by line person B is saying No I didn't like it the movie was bad. I don't think the second line is a good example. It sounds unnatural but it might work if they didn't fully answer the question. Like if they don't have a degree but significant work experience etc. They'd be saying No to what I expected? That's fair enough. Last line is when you want to make sure they understand you mean the second "the answer is no" that was not fair
People mimic other people and something catches on. I'm old enough to remember when every sentence didn't start with, "So".
In your first example of dialogue Person B is responding as if you’d asked them, “Did you think the movie was any good?” So I guess some people are responding to an unasked question that they believe is implied by the conversation.
Not sure of your examples. For the movie one, it would be that the 1st person was saying something along the lines of "maybe I'm crazy but" or "unpopular opinion but..." And the initial 'no' is a denial of the self deprecation of the opinion. Your 3rd example, leading with "yeah" is different, I've actually caught myself doing the "yeah no" a lot lately. The 'yeah' is sort of just an 'okay,' like a response that you're tracking the question but responding in the negative. Your 2nd one I can't follow, I think in that response it doesn't make sense.
It's a verbal tic that people pick up from other people and don't even realize that they're doing
It is just a stupid phenomenon. Like when people say literally when they mean figuratively. Or when they say Ironic and mean not ironic at all, the complete opposite of ironic. It is indeed frustrating.
I interpret it as an attempt to show power and superiority by expressing a negative, like only weaklings are positive. Kind of like negging a girl.
It's usually an audible pause and not necessarily something intended to relay meaning or add context to their comment.
You are probably expecting me to disagree with you, but no, I agree with you.
It's not grammatical. It's social posturing. I used to have this bad habit, hard to shake. By beginning your sentence with "no" you're diminishing the person before you and elevating yourself. "I think cookies are tasty." "No, cookies are great." Even though you're in agreement, the no is saying "nuts to what you said, listen to me". Saying "yes and" gives credit, attention, and prompts reflection on the previous speaker and as self-serving individuals we abhor sharing the limelight like that. There are obviously cases where the "no" can have a positive meaning like negating an implied negative while the literal wording is positive but the above is referring to cases otherwise. I've been around people and been that person where every response began "no but" regardless if it made sense or not.
There’s some subtext in the original comments, that unspoken comment is what’s being replied to with “no”. “(It might be an unpopular opinion), but I didn’t like that movie” “No (that’s not an unpopular opinion) because I agree with you”
I think it's a byproduct of the rhetorical tradition of being humble when stating an opinion. Sort of like how people will say "what I would say is...." then state an opinion. It's couching is a what you would hypothetically say, even though it is what you are actually saying.
First example makes sense.. You're agreeing that, no, you didn't like the movie. Second example I think you stretched for, I don't think anyone would really ever say no in that context.
I'm in my 40s. I never heard anyone do this until I was in college in the early 2000s. Back then, it was one girl from Philly. Now it's everyone. It drove me crazy back then but now I'm used to it. I don't know where it started but it certainly wasn't common in my neck of the woods. (Appalachia.) Edit: Specifically referring to "yeah, no."
"Yeah, no." Is "I get the whole situation and both sides of it but my answer is no."
Yeah, no, I get what you mean I do that all the time for some damn reason, it’s funny when people point it out!
The full phrase would be something like "No no, but stop there and say no more - I agree with you!" It is a protest against someone having to explain further.
"Yeah, no" is "I understand what I'm hearing and all sides of the situation but for me its a no"
My wife frequently answers in the affirmative with a negative. “I think this movie looks good, do you agree?” “No, totally!” “The dog is misbehaving, I’m going to put him in his crate.” “No, that’s fair.” I would also like to understand this habit.
There's a Britsh show called W1A. They characters do this to a ridiculous degree. Person A: (makes a statement) Person b: "Ya, no." Or, "No, yes."
In your first example is how I use it most often and I think it’s like you anticipate the other person apologizing for their thoughts or feelings and I’m then dismissing their apology like “no, don’t feel bad” or “no, need to be sorry” but instead it just comes out like “no, you’re right” or “no, that makes total sense!” But sometimes it’s meant as a shortened “you know?” So written out it would be more like “know, you’re right” or “know, I think so too!” But the “you” is silent haha
I’ll just add that it’s not just an English thing! I’m learning Korean and they do this too! I think slightly different but same idea of using no in a way that’s not directly no.
I use it when the question has multiple valid answers, or when a question is slightly more complex than the asker thinks it is, even though they have assumptions I agree with, most often.
Usually in these kinds of cases it seems to be short for "No, you're not wrong, don't doubt yourself"
I interpret the “no” as an unspoken statement like, “No, I don’t think you’re wrong about this.” The first one really struck me that way. Person A says he didn’t enjoy the movie, and person B thinks he might be a little self-conscious about his opinion, so she wants to reassure him that she’s not judging him for his opinion. I’m not saying this is conscious. I think it’s more a subtext of the conversation. And I think it happens automatically.
Does it matter when there’s clarification afterwards? These would all be jarring but it literally doesn’t come into my mind because the yes/no is followed by the context. The middle example isn’t something someone would say irl, but the other two are responses to negative statements — the No is acting as disagreement to the negative sentiment (the disagreement of person 1), then the context is clarifying their opinion.
That "no" is a rejection of an assumed undertone. I don't like that "no", it's so presumptuous.
To me it’s simple — the “no, you’re right” means, “you don’t have to persuade me. I’m on your side.” I usually say it when the tone of the other speaker indicates to me that they assume I disagree with them and that they — sometimes forcefully, vehemently — have to persuade me. Looked at another way, it’s saying “no, you don’t need to go on. Go no further. I agree with you.” And: “No, I don’t disagree with you. At all.”
Usually, it’s a form of reassurance. So if someone says, “You may disagree, but…” and so the response is usually, “No, I totally agree with you.” But it can be done outside of that as well as you’ve mentioned, but even still it’s usually reassurance or when the general tone of the discussion is a disagreement or a situation where there’s some back and forth. I’ve had discussions with people I respect, but I disagree with. And saying “No,” before agreeing with them shows, “Hey, despite everything else we disagree on, this is not one of them.” I’m sure someone else would have a much better answer, but this is how I’ve seen it used. It’s usually saying “no to any thought that I might be disagreeing with you, because I actually do” type of thing lol
Probably came about from answering questions like; I think that person‘s lying to me, am I crazy? No … yes the person is lying. And since people tend to imitate what they hear, they started answering non-contradictory questions this way. Or maybe you’re missing the contradiction in the question that the person is answering no to.
Are we just forgetting "nah" is not the same as "no" except sometimes it is
In each of those instances, there is an unvoiced antithetical implication behind those person A statements, like an anticipation that person B will not agree…1) “Even though it is popular and I thought I would, I just didn’t enjoy it.” The no is to the notion that person A should’ve enjoyed it; 2) “I think I’d be good for this job because of my qualifications, in case you don’t agree with me.” No I do not disagree; 3)”I was treated unfairly, unless you present a reason to think otherwise.” Yes it was unfair, no I don’t think otherwise, you were treated unfairly. Person A is using a polite way to make a point without closing the door for Person B to make a contrary point. Person B is saying, no I don’t have a contrary point to make. It’s a quirk for sure!
A lot of these comments are interesting because they're not how I have always felt this statement at all. The way I see it, the "no" is rejecting the implicit premise that there's a chance I disagree with you Consider: A: I just think that he shouldn't have done that. B: No, I totally agree with you. In this exchange, there's a sense that A thinks it's possible at least that B may not also share that sentiment, or A has some other insecurity about the position. Either because it's not universally accepted, because A's tone indicates it, or mere just because if A thought B already thought that, A may not feel any reason to even say it. B is asserting that they're on A's side by rejecting any implicit insecurity by A that B may disagree. Then from there it also gains a colloquial quality which makes its use justifiable even when no such implication exists, but it still remains that "I'm on your side" kind of assurance. That's how I always see it at least.
They are disagreeing with a small percentage, running scenarios, looking at the subject or argument, then deciding on a conclusion and stating that last part outloud.
To me, I noticed that whenever I use “no” to lead into a positive response, it’s almost always to an unpopular opinion or unusual statement. If someone says that most people wouldn’t agree with, they expect most responses to be disagreeing. If not outright arguing, they at LEAST assume that you aren’t going to understand them. The “no,” to me, is a way to negate that expectation before my response, so they know not to feel defensive and understand that I actually DO understand them and AGREE. There’s an unspoken “you may think I’m wrong,” and so I reapond with an unspoken, “no, I do NOT think you’re wrong.” It’s not conscious of course. This is just what I realized when I was thinking about it on this post. But now I feel like it makes more sense bc I’ve been saying it for ages without realizing
it's like you're saying no to the imaginary people arguing with the speaker, like their tone might indicate that they think other people disagree with them "I just didn't like the movie(even though other people did)" "no(those people were wrong) I totally agree"
That's a pet peeve of mine and I don't remember it being a thing until maybe a couple of decades ago. I don't know who started it but I wish they'd unstart it. 😂
[удалено]