"Tomorrow is another day."

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I see it used two ways, in differing tones of voice, in both cases meaning disagreement:

Yeah, [but] no can be used appreciatively e.g. Yeah (that's a good thought), [but] no (it can't/shouldn't be implemented) followed by an elaboration. In this case the word Yeah is said in contemplation, stretched out to varying degrees indicating relative worthiness of consideration and the word no is said as a gentle let down.

OTOH, Yeah, no ... can be used dismissively e.g. Yeah, (I acknowledge you said that) [but] no (the thought has no merit) only sometimes followed by an elaboration. In this case Yeah is said sarcastically and no is said abruptly in disapproval.

Someone paid attention in English Comp.

(Are you) coming to dinner?

(You) didn't study for the English Comp test (did you?)

[BigV]

I recently had occasion to ask the utterer of the "Yeah, no...." phrase what he meant when he said it. SonofV didn't offer it in reply at all, he began a new topic of conversation after a brief lull with the phrase. I interrupted him, "stop, stop, stop. When you said that 'yeah, no', what did you mean by it?" He thought, surprised by my question, and said it didn't really mean anything, he was just getting started talking, that it was just a habit.

*That* is the annoying kind.

I can hear tone, inflection, nuance, etc (usually). I can hear sarcasm, implied punctuation, all that I get. Those usages aren't the ones that grate on my ear. It's the kind that SonofV uses, the ones with no meaning that produce a giant eyeroll in my mind, one that often distracts me from what they're really trying to say.

Oh well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, I heard you, no, you're wrong.

Yeah, you heard what I said right, no, you don't understand what I meant, what I was referring to, or the meaning of life. Shit you don't even know if the cat is alive.

[BigV]

"No, totally!"



It's here, it's a thing, it's growing. *sigh*

Some excerpts from the article:

In certain situations, it seems, we have started using “no” to mean “yes.”

Here’s Lena Dunham demonstrating this development, during a conversation with the comedian Marc Maron on his podcast “WTF.” The two are talking about people who reflexively disparage modern art:

MARON: They can look at any painting and go, “Eh.” They can look at a Rothko and go, “Hey, three colors.” And then you want to hit them.
DUNHAM: No, totally.

“No, totally.” “No, definitely.” “No, exactly.” “No, yes.” These curious uses turn “no” into a kind of contranym: a word that can function as its own opposite. Out of the million-odd words in the English language, perhaps a hundred have this property. You can seed a field, in which case you are adding seeds, or seed a grape, in which case you are subtracting them. You can be in a fix but find a fix for it. You can alight from a horse to observe a butterfly alighting on a flower.

Such words—also called auto-antonyms, antagonyms, Janus words, and antiologies—can arise for different reasons. Some are just a special kind of homonym; what appears to be one word with two opposite meanings is really two different words with identical spellings and pronunciations.

and...

Until the end of the sixteenth century or thereabouts, English had a tidier solution to this problem: we had two words for “no,” which we used in distinct ways. Those two words formed half of what’s called a four-form system of negation and affirmation. If you speak French (or, in a statistical unlikelihood, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, or Icelandic), you are familiar with a three-form system: in French, non can negate anything, oui is used only in response to positively phrased questions or statements, while si is used to contradict questions or statements phrased in the negative. In Franglish:

Would you like to have dinner with me on Friday?
Oui, I’d like that very much.

You don’t like the cilantro pesto I made?
Si, it’s delicious!

Back when English was a four-form system, it, too, had a si—a word used specifically to contradict negative statements. That word was “yes.” To affirm positive statements, you used “yea”:

Shoot, there aren’t any open pubs in Canterbury at this hour.
Yes, there are.

Is Chaucer drunk?
Yea, and passed out on the table.

Similarly, “nay” was used to respond to positive statements or questions, while “no” was reserved for contradicting anything phrased in the negative:

Is the Tabard open?
Nay, it closed at midnight.

Isn’t Chaucer meeting us here?
No, he went home to bed.

Over time, the distinction withered, “yea” and “nay” became obsolete, and “yes” and “no”—the words that started out as special cases, for responding exclusively to negatives—came to hold their current status. Or, as the case may be, statuses.

[BigV]

More

"Yeah, no."

and lots of it.

Maybe this protean little phrase is so useful that some people become addicted to it, and for them it becomes lexicalized as a unitary discourse marker simply indicating that an opinion follows, or something of the sort. However, I didn't look to see whether there's a different pattern of usage among people who are especially fond of this sequence, as Matt suggests there might be.

from a subsequently linked post on the same subject:

Steve at Language Hat pointed out, in the nicest possible way, that he scooped me back on 6/13/2004 ("Yeah no"). His post cites an article in The Age, which quotes Kate Burridge:

Professor Burridge says the phrase falls into three main categories, each determined by context. The literal agrees before adding another point, the abstract defuses a comment and the textual lets the speaker go back to an earlier point.

I yield. I accept the reality of the presence of this artifact in the language I share with the people I interact with. I hope I can avoid its usage in earnest, though I reserve the right to use it for fun.

I must say I liked learning about contranyms (also called auto-antonyms, antagonyms, Janus words, and antiologies). Language is fun!

[infinite monkey]

Yeah it isn't. I mean, no it is.

I mean...yes, I find that language can be interesting and fun, and at the end of the day, I won't take no for an answer. Yeah, I won't.

[BigV]

heheheh...

[it]

Originally Posted by DanaC

'It is what it is' is a phrase I use often. It's a bit like saying 'that's just the way it is', and it also means that you can only deal with what it is, not what you would like it to be. And sometimes it means, 'it's ok, no biggie'.

I used to use that one too... A lot. Though usually in the context of judgement.

When I used to analyze the dynamics or social systems and people would then go "that's saying it's corrupted" or "are you saying that isn't genuine"... Sure those statements might be true but they usually weren't what I meant, which focuses on answering "what is it?".

If anything, systems and social dynamics have much better measurements then those - how consistently applicable that dynamic is & under what circumstances, how beautiful it is in it's complexity, how many layers of humor are tucked inside.. The last of which can probably be rephrased for the purpose of this topic as "how good of a sense of humor does a person need to have in order to - despite understanding it - be able to accept that it is what it is".

Only in recent years I have become a hell of a lot more fighty and judgy about ethical things, which I suppose means if I ever time traveled I might need to bring weapons to kill my older self for giving me that "it is what it is" bullshit.

Sure he might be more fit, but I am from the future so obviously I have the advantage. I mean... We have smarter phones now. I bet he wouldn't even survive in flappy bird.

[xoxoxoBruce]

'that's just the way it is'

That's seeing the folly of trying to change others, change the world.

That's the way I am.

This is questionable, you might be trying to justify things about yourself that cause you trouble, make you uncomfortable.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

This is questionable, you might be trying to justify things about yourself that cause you trouble, make you uncomfortable.

My personal favorite version of that is:

that's the way I roll

Honestly there's a whole can of worms under that sentiment that I can dedicate a few years to hack & slash through while duel wielding large trouts.

I've more or less reached the conclusion that some of the worst aspects humanity has to offer come from people who have a very static idea of who they are. Taken to the point where criticism, negative judgement - from others or their own subconscious - isn't understood as a statement about what they are doing but a complete and unacceptable threat to their moral identity, making it unthinkable and unreachable, in which people define themselves by how good they are too others but do so in spite of how they are experienced by others - since for them a perspective from which they've harmed others is not simply a statement of what they did and how they can strive to do better, it's a statement of who they are indefinitely and have no ability to change it, a perspective that becomes too ugly to consider or acknowledge. It's the worst kind of sickness, leaving no room for personal growth in how they relate to the world or themselves.

[BigV]

"leave me alone, I'm tired of self-examination"