English needs such a word - that’s sometimes a confusing situation.
Only one way to say “yes,” like Spanish.
I don’t know about Basque, which is not Romance but shares land with French so sometimes there are influences.
Danish has ja for most uses of yes, and then there’s jo, which is like si. You can also use jo to mean sort of “is too!” or what I think of as “yes huh!” or in the middle of a sentence to put some emphasis on a positive statement.
The Polish no would better be translated as uh huh or something similar (which still is a form of yes.) The opposite of tak in Polish is nie, if you’re interested.
Hungarian has igen for normal yes, but in response to a contradictory statement, de is used. De also literally means but.
I’m sure someone will be along to correct me shortly, but Latin uses both sic and ita to indicate an affirmative reply, even though neither word can really be translated to mean “yes.” A more exact translation would be “so” or “thus”. I have no idea what the contextual differences are between these words, however.
‘Actually’ is equivalent to ‘doch’ for most practical purposes. It doesn’t really serve as a standalone, but then that’s really not the prescribed use of doch either.
The reason why you’ve not heard “si” used as an affirmative response to a negative question before may be because it’s very rarely used in Canada. I don’t know why (did the Canadian dialects of French derive from French dialects that didn’t make this distinction?), because without it these questions are in fact harder to answer.
I was getting likewise confused - I never have used ‘si’ as an affirmative, and couldn’t think of anyone else I grew up with who does either, but if it’s strictly a European usage, that would make sense.
French as a language mutated quite rapidly, and there were many subdialects with other words. There is an entire region in France called “Languedoc,” which derived from “Langue d’oc” – Language of “oc.” “Oc” was how they said “yes.”
There was also Langue d’oil – where they said “oil” for “yes.” This changed to “oui” over time.
Which caused other problems. The word for “today” use to be “hui,” which sounds much like “oui.” So if asked “Are you going into town soon?” the answer might be “today” or “yes.” That could be confusing, so the word became “aujord’hui,” which means “to the day of today.”
I see from Wikipedia that Medieval Latin had three words for “yes”: “oil,” “oc,” and “si.” That is certainly where the French “si” came from, though I’m not sure how.
Certainly.
The first time I ever heard it used was when I had a French exchange student as my lab partner. She was from Lyon and used “si” pretty often, usually in a “are so!” or “am too!” sort of way, to contradict a negative question.
Latin originally had no real way to say “yes”, although sometimes speakers used “aio” (a very irregular verb which meant “I affirm”) to mean “yes.”
Edited to change: Nava already answered the question about Catalan.
And let’s round off the major Scandinavian languages by saying Norwegian does pretty much the same thing with these words.
Har du vært her før? / Ja. -> Have you been here before? Yes.
Har ikke du vært her før? / Jo. -> Haven’t you been here before? Yes.
Han har bil -> He has a car.
Han har jo bil -> He does have a car, you know/of course.
Thanks, pulykamell.
I only knew a few guidebook phrases when I first got to Poland. I hadn’t heard of the Polish word no, so it did strike the ear oddly at first. From the context I quickly figured out what was going on, aided perhaps by knowing that ano means yes in Czech. Sometimes when having an English conversation with a native Polish speaker, they’d start doing the “no … no … no.” This was more jarring.
This is not a question of simple lexicon, but rather discourse analysis. English speakers will often say “no” when they agree with something someone has just said in a conversation. That’s because the other person has said something with an element of doubt, and the speaker is essentially assuring the he or she feels the same way.
On the other hand, Japanese and Korean native speakers will respond to an English negative question in the opposite way from English speakers.
Ex:
English speaker: You don’t have any brothers or sisters, do you?
Korean speaker: Yes. (Meaning: “You’re correct. I don’t.”)
Actually, no.
Who’s going around prescribing the usage of ‘doch’ anyway? The entire point Sophistry and Illusion was making was that you can say a single word to a negative question and no one’s going to be confused. The English (and, apparently, Dutch) equivalent doesn’t work that way, even if it can be substituted in almost all other contexts.
*Naam *is classical and *aiwa *is Egyptian dialect. I think many other dialects use *naam *in modern colloquial. In Egypt, *naam *is used the same way we would say “Yes?” when someone calls your name, or “Pardon me?” as in, “What did you say?” but not usually a straight “Yes.”
Welsh, like Chinese, just repeats the verb, unless the question was asked in the past tense, in which case “yes” is do, or if it’s a copula question, in which case yes is ie. Increasinly, ie is being used like English yes, but in formal Welsh you only have “yes / no” in a few resticted tenses.
I always look at Doch in this way.
Are you not lame?
Doch.
Ja and nein being something you could mistake the meaning of. Doch meaning the statement is wrong and take the better meaning for my behavior.
Clarification for Welsh: not just any past tense, but the preterite tense. Examples:
Wyt ti’n hoffi pysgota? Ydw.
(Do you like to fish? Yes [lit. Are you liking fishing? I am.])
Welaist ti bysgod neithiwr? Do.
(Did you see [any] fish last night? Yes.)
Yn yr oergell ydy’r psygod nawr, ’te? Ie.
(The fish are in the freezer now, then? Yes.)