Editing Module:Yes and no

{{Short description|Words of affirmation (yes) and negation or contradiction (no)}}
{{Other uses}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Yes'' and ''no''}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{essay-like|date=February 2018}}
{{Cleanup lang|date=August 2022}}
}}
{{wiktionary|yes}}
{{wiktionary|no}}
'''''Yes''''' and '''''no''''', or similar word pairs, are expressions of [[affirmation and negation|the affirmative and the negative]], respectively, in several languages, including [[English language|English]]. Some languages make a distinction between answers to affirmative versus negative questions and  may have three-form or four-form systems. English originally used a four-form system up to and including [[Early Middle English]]. [[Modern English]] uses a two-form system consisting of ''yes'' and ''no''. It exists in many facets of communication, such as: eye blink communication, head movements, [[Morse code]],{{clarify|reason=What does "it" refer to? And unclear relevance for this article|date=July 2023}} and sign language. Some languages, such as Latin, do not have yes-no word systems.

Answering a "yes or no" question with single words meaning ''yes'' or ''no'' is by no means universal. About half the world's languages typically employ an [[echo response]]: repeating the verb in the question in an affirmative or a negative form. Some of these also have optional words for ''yes'' and ''no'', like [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]], [[Russian language|Russian]], and [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]. Others simply do not have designated yes and no words, like [[Welsh language|Welsh]], [[Irish language|Irish]],  [[Latin language|Latin]], [[Thai language|Thai]], and [[Chinese language|Chinese]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Holmberg|first=Anders|date=2016|title=The syntax of yes and no|url=https://academic.oup.com/book/9258|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780198701859|pages=64–72}}</ref> Echo responses avoid the issue of what an unadorned ''yes'' means in response to a negative question. Yes and no can be used as a response to a variety of situations{{snd}}but are better suited in response to simple questions. While a ''yes'' response to the question "You don't like strawberries?" is ambiguous in English, the Welsh response ''{{lang|cy|ydw}}'' (I am) has no ambiguity.

The words ''[[wikt:yes#English|yes]]'' and ''[[wikt:no#English|no]]'' are not easily classified into any of the conventional [[parts of speech]]. Sometimes they are classified as [[interjection]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Interjections - TIP Sheets - Butte College |url=https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/grammar/interjections.html |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.butte.edu}}</ref> They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, [[sentence word]]s, or [[pro-sentence]]s, although that category contains more than ''yes'' and ''no'', and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words. ''Yes'' and ''no'' are usually considered [[adverb]]s in dictionaries, though some uses qualify as nouns.<ref>{{Cite web |title=YES Definition & Usage Examples |url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/yes |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=Dictionary.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Yes Definition & Meaning {{!}} Britannica Dictionary |url=https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/yes |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en-US}}</ref> Sentences consisting solely of one of these two words are classified as [[minor sentence]]s.

== In English ==
=== Classification ===
Although sometimes classified as [[interjection]]s, these words do not express emotion or act as calls for attention; they are not [[adverb]]s because they do not qualify any verb, adjective, or adverb. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right: sentence words or word sentences.<ref name=Sonnenschein>{{cite book|title=A New English Grammar Based on the Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology|author=E. A. Sonnenschein|publisher=READ BOOKS|year=2008|chapter=Sentence words|isbn=978-1-4086-8929-5|page=54}}</ref><ref name=BloomfieldHockett>{{cite book|title=Language|url=https://archive.org/details/language00bloo_196|url-access=limited|author1=Leonard Bloomfield  |author2=Charles F. Hockett |name-list-style=amp |pages=[https://archive.org/details/language00bloo_196/page/n204 176]–177|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=1984|isbn=978-0-226-06067-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Elements Of English Grammar|author=Alfred S. West|chapter=Yes and No. What are we to call the words ''Yes'' and ''No''?|date=February 2008|page=173|publisher=Read Books |isbn=978-1-4086-8050-6}}</ref>

This is the position of [[Otto Jespersen]], who states that {{" '}}Yes' and 'No'{{nbsp}}... are to all intents and purposes sentences just as much as the most delicately [[balanced sentence]]s ever uttered by [[Demosthenes]] or penned by [[Samuel Johnson]]."<ref>{{cite book|title=Discourse, Interaction, and Communication|url=https://archive.org/details/discourseinterac00henr|url-access=limited|author1=Xabier Arrazola |author2=Kepa Korta |author3=Francis Jeffry  |name-list-style=amp |page=[https://archive.org/details/discourseinterac00henr/page/n23 11]|publisher=Springer|year=1995|isbn=978-0-7923-4952-5}}</ref>

[[Georg von der Gabelentz]], [[Henry Sweet]], and [[Philipp Wegener]] have all written on the subject of sentence words. Both Sweet and Wegener include ''yes'' and ''no'' in this category, with Sweet treating them separately from both imperatives and interjections, although Gabelentz does not.<ref>{{cite book |title=200 Years of Syntax |author=Giorgio Graffi |page=121 |publisher=John Benjamins B.V. |year=2001 |isbn=1-58811-052-4}}</ref>

Watts<ref>{{cite book|title=Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries|editor1=Dieter Kastovsky |editor2=A. J. Szwedek |editor3=Barbara Płoczińska |editor4=Jacek Fisiak |author=Richard J. Watts|page=166|chapter=Generated or degenerate?|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|year=1986|isbn=978-3-11-010426-4}}</ref> classifies ''yes'' and ''no'' as [[grammatical particle]]s, in particular ''response particles''. He also notes their relationship to the interjections ''[[wikt:oh#English|oh]]'' and ''[[wikt:ah#English|ah]]'', which is that the interjections can precede ''yes'' and ''no'' but not follow them. ''Oh'' as an interjection expresses surprise, but in the combined forms ''oh yes'' and ''oh no'' merely acts as an [[intensifier]]; but ''ah'' in the combined forms ''ah yes'' and ''ah no'' retains its stand-alone meaning, of focusing upon the previous speaker's or writer's last statement. The forms ''*yes oh'', ''*yes ah'', ''*no oh'', and ''*no ah'' are grammatically ill-formed. Aijmer<ref>{{cite book|title=Emotion in Dialogic Interaction|url=https://archive.org/details/emotiondialogici00weig|url-access=limited|editor=Edda Weigand|page=[https://archive.org/details/emotiondialogici00weig/page/n114 102]|author-link1=Karin Aijmer|author=Karin Aijmer|chapter=Interjections in a Contrastive Perspective|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|year=2002|isbn=978-1-58811-497-6}}</ref> similarly categorizes the ''yes'' and ''no'' as ''response signals'' or ''reaction signals''.

[[Felix Ameka]] classifies these two words in different ways according to the context. When used as [[Backchannel (linguistics)|back-channel]] items, he classifies them as interjections; but when they are used as the responses to a [[yes–no question]], he classifies them as formulaic words. The distinction between an interjection and a formula is, in Ameka's view, that the former does not have an addressee (although it may be directed at a person), whereas the latter does. The ''yes'' or ''no'' in response to the question is addressed at the interrogator, whereas ''yes'' or ''no'' used as a back-channel item is a ''feedback usage'', an utterance that is said to oneself. However, Sorjonen criticizes this analysis as lacking empirical work on the other usages of these words, in addition to interjections and feedback uses.<ref name=Sorjonen>{{cite book|title=Responding in Conversation|author=Marja-Leena Sorjonen|page=19|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|year=2001|isbn=978-90-272-5085-8}}</ref>

Bloomfield and Hockett classify the words, when used to answer yes–no questions, as ''special completive interjections''. They classify sentences comprising solely one of these two words as [[minor sentence]]s.<ref name=BloomfieldHockett />

Sweet classifies the words in several ways. They are sentence-modifying adverbs, adverbs that act as modifiers to an entire sentence. They are also sentence words, when standing alone. They may, as question responses, also be absolute forms that correspond to what would otherwise be the ''not'' in a negated echo response. For example, a "No." in response to the question "Is he here?" is equivalent to the echo response "He is not here." Sweet observes that there is no correspondence with a simple ''yes'' in the latter situation, although the sentence-word "Certainly." provides an absolute form of an emphatic echo response "He is certainly here." Many other adverbs can also be used as sentence words in this way.<ref name=Sweet>{{cite book|title=A New English Grammar|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/anewenglishgram03sweegoog|author=Henry Sweet|chapter=Adverbs|pages=126–127|year=1900|publisher=Clarendon Press|location=Oxford|isbn= 1-4021-5375-9|author-link=Henry Sweet}}</ref>

Unlike ''yes'', ''no'' can also be an adverb of degree, applying to adjectives solely in the comparative (e.g., ''no greater'', ''no sooner'', but not ''no soon'' or ''no soonest''), and an adjective when applied to nouns (e.g., "He is no fool." and Dyer's "No clouds, no vapours intervene.").<ref name=Sweet /><ref>{{cite book|title=The First Lines of English Grammar|author1=Henry Kiddle  |author2=Goold Brown |name-list-style=amp |page=102|location=New York|publisher=William Wood and Co.|year=1867|url=http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Brown%2C%20Goold%2C%201791-1857}}</ref>

Grammarians of other languages have created further, similar, special classifications for these types of words. Tesnière classifies the French {{lang|fr|oui}} and {{lang|fr|non}} as {{lang|fr|phrasillons logiques}} (along with {{wikt-lang|fr|voici}}). Fonagy observes that such a classification may be partly justified for the former two, but suggests that ''[[pragmatics|pragmatic]] [[holophrase]]s'' is more appropriate.<ref name="Fonagy">{{cite book|title=Languages Within Language|author=Ivan Fonagy|publisher=John Benjamins B.V.|year=2001|isbn=0-927232-82-0|page=66}}</ref>

=== The Early English four-form system ===
While Modern English has a ''two-form system'' of ''yes'' and ''no'' for affirmatives and negatives, earlier forms of English had a ''four-form system'', comprising the words ''yea'', ''[[wikt:nay#English|nay]]'', ''yes'', and ''no''. ''Yes'' contradicts a negatively formulated question, ''No'' affirms it; ''Yea'' affirms a positively formulated question, ''Nay'' contradicts it.

*Will they not go? — Yes, they will.
*Will they not go? — No, they will not.
*Will they go? — Yea, they will.
*Will they go? — Nay, they will not.

This is illustrated by the following passage from [[Much Ado about Nothing]]:<ref name=Furness>{{cite book|title=Much Ado about Nothing|author=William Shakespeare|editor=Horace Howard Furness|location=Philadelphia|year=1900|publisher=J. B. Lippincott Co.|page=25}} (editorial footnotes)</ref>
{{blockquote|<poem>
'''Claudio:''' Can the world buie such a iewell? [buy such a jewel]
'''Benedick:''' Yea, and a case to put it into, but speake you this with a sad brow?
</poem>|sign=[[William Shakespeare]]|source=''[[Much Ado about Nothing]]'', Act I, Scene I}}

Benedick's answer of ''yea'' is a correct application of the rule, but as observed by W. A. Wright "Shakespeare does not always observe this rule, and even in the earliest times the usage appears not to have been consistent." Furness gives as an example the following, where Hermia's answer should, in following the rule, have been ''yes'':<ref name=Furness /><ref name=Marsh />
{{blockquote|<poem>
'''Demetrius:''' Do not you thinke, The Duke was heere, and bid vs follow him?
'''Hermia:''' Yea, and my Father.
</poem>|sign=[[William Shakespeare]]|source=''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]''<ref name=Furness />}}

This subtle grammatical feature of Early Modern English is recorded by Sir [[Thomas More]] in his critique of [[William Tyndale]]'s translation of the New Testament into Early Modern English, which was then quoted as an authority by later scholars:<ref name=Furness />

{{blockquote|I would not here note by the way that Tyndale here translateth ''no'' for ''nay'', for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde : saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in ''naye'' and ''no'' can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. ''No'' aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? Lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere ''nay'' and not ''no''. But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere ''no'' and not ''nay''. And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ''ye'' and ''yes''. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned ? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ''ye'' and not ''yes''. But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyee seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned ? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ''ye'' but he must answere ''yes'', and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them.|sign=[[Thomas More]]|source=''The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer'', pp. 430<ref>{{cite book|title=The English language|url=https://archive.org/details/lathamenglishlan00lath|author=Robert Gordon Latham|page=[https://archive.org/details/lathamenglishlan00lath/page/497 497]|location=London|publisher=Taylor, Walton, and Maberly|year=1850|author-link=Robert Gordon Latham}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue|url=https://archive.org/details/ananswertosirth00tracgoog|author=William Tyndale|editor=Henry Walter|editor-link=Henry Walter (antiquarian)|location=Cambridge|publisher=The University Press|year=1850|author-link=William Tyndale}}</ref>}}

In fact, More's exemplification of the rule actually contradicts his statement of what the rule is. This went unnoticed by scholars such as [[Horne Tooke]], [[Robert Gordon Latham]], and Trench, and was first pointed out by [[George Perkins Marsh]] in his ''Century Dictionary'', where he corrects More's incorrect statement of the first rule, "''No'' aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative.", to read ''nay''. That even More got the rule wrong, even while himself dressing down Tyndale for getting it wrong, is seen by Furness as evidence that the four word system was "too subtle a distinction for practice".

Marsh found no evidence of a four-form system in [[Moesogoths|Mœso-Gothic]], although he reported finding "traces" in [[Old English]]. He observed that in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels,
*positively phrased questions are answered positively with {{wikt-lang|ang|gea}} (John 21:15,16, [[King James Version]]: "Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee" etc.)
*and negatively with {{wikt-lang|ang|ne}} (Luke 12:51, KJV: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division"; 13:4,5, KJV: "Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."), {{wikt-lang|ang|nese}} (John 21:5 "Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No."; Matthew 13:28,29, KJV: "The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them."), and {{wikt-lang|ang|nic}} meaning 'not I' (John 18:17, KJV: "Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.");
*while negatively phrased questions are answered positively with {{wikt-lang|ang|giese|gyse}} (Matthew 17:25, KJV: "they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes.")
*and negatively for example with {{wikt-lang|ang|nā}}, meaning 'no one' (John 8:10,11, "he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.").<ref name=Marsh>{{cite book|title=Lectures on the English Language|author=George Perkins Marsh|location=New York|publisher=Charles Scribner & Co.|year=1867|pages=578–583|chapter=Affirmative and Negative Particles|author-link=George Perkins Marsh}}</ref>

Marsh calls this four-form system of Early Modern English a "needless subtlety". Tooke called it a "ridiculous distinction", with Marsh concluding that Tooke believed Thomas More to have simply made this rule up and observing that Tooke is not alone in his disbelief of More. Marsh, however, points out (having himself analyzed the works of [[John Wycliffe]], [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[John Gower]], [[John Skelton (poet)|John Skelton]], and [[Robert of Gloucester (historian)|Robert of Gloucester]], and ''[[Piers Plowman]]'' and ''[[Le Morte d'Arthur]]'') that the distinction both existed and was generally and fairly uniformly observed in Early Modern English from the time of Chaucer to the time of Tyndale. But after the time of Tyndale, the four-form system was rapidly replaced by the modern two-form system.<ref name=Marsh /> The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' says the four-form system "was usually considered to be... proper..." until about 1600, with citations from Old English (mostly for ''yes'' and ''yea'') and without any indication that the system had not yet started then.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Oxford English Dictionary |title=yes, adv., n., and int. |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/231637?rskey=97NOoX&result=4&isAdvanced=false#eid |website=Oxford English Dictionary |access-date=22 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Oxford English Dictionary |title=nay, adv.1 and n. |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/14090?rskey=41LeRT&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid |website=Oxford English Dictionary |access-date=22 June 2023}}</ref>

=== Colloquial forms ===
==== Non-verbal ====
Linguist [[James R. Hurford]] notes that in many [[English dialects]] "there are colloquial equivalents of ''Yes'' and ''No'' made with [[nasal sound]]s interrupted by a voiceless, breathy ''h''-like interval (for Yes) or by a [[glottal stop]] (for No)" and that these [[interjection]]s are transcribed into writing as ''{{Linktext|uh-huh}}'' or ''{{Linktext|mm-hmm}}''.<ref name=Hurford>{{cite book|title=Grammar: A Student's Guide|author=James R. Hurford|chapter=Interjections|pages=111–112|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1994|isbn=978-0-521-45627-2}}</ref> These forms are particularly useful for speakers who are at a given time unable to articulate the actual words ''yes'' and ''no''.<ref name=Hurford/> The use of short vocalizations like ''uh-huh'', ''mm-hmm'', and ''yeah'' are examples of [[nonverbal communication|non-verbal communication]], and in particular the practice of [[Backchannel (linguistics)|backchanneling]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095439448 | title=Back-channel }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1080/00107530.2012.10746491| title=Humming Along| year=2012| last1=Arnold| first1=Kyle| journal=Contemporary Psychoanalysis| volume=48| pages=100–117| s2cid=147330927}}</ref>

Art historian [[Robert Farris Thompson]] has posited that ''mm-hmm'' may be a [[loanword]] from a [[Languages of Africa|West African language]] that entered the English vernacular from the speech of [[trans-Atlantic slave trade|enslaved Africans]]; linguist Lev Michael, however, says that this proposed origin is implausible, and linguist Roslyn Burns states that the origin of the term is difficult to confirm.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/08/17/606002607/ready-for-a-linguistic-controversy-say-mhmm| author=Kumari Devarajan| title=Ready For A Linguistic Controversy? Say 'Mhmm'| publisher=NPR| date=August 17, 2018}}</ref>

==== ''Aye'' and variants ====
The word ''aye'' ({{IPAc-en|aɪ}}) as a synonym for ''yes'' in response to a question dates to the 1570s. According to the ''[[Online Etymology Dictionary]]'', it is of unknown origin. It may derive from the word ''I'' (in the context of "I assent"); as an alteration of the [[Middle English]] {{Lang|enm|yai}} ("yes"); or the [[adverb]] ''aye'' (meaning always "always, ever"), which comes from the [[Old Norse]] {{Lang|non|ei}}.<ref>[https://www.etymonline.com/word/aye aye (interj.)], ''Online Etymology Dictionary'' (accessed January 30, 2019).</ref> Using ''aye'' to mean ''yes'' is [[archaism|archaic]], having disappeared from most of the English-speaking world, but is notably still used by people from parts of Wales, Scotland, [[Northern Ireland]] and [[Northern England]] in the UK, and in other parts of [[Ulster]] in Ireland.<ref name=OxfordThesaurus>"Yes (adverb)" in ''Oxford Thesaurus of English'' (3d ed.: Oxford University Press, 2009 (ed. Maurice Waite), p. 986.</ref>

In December 1993, a witness in a court in [[Stirlingshire]], Scotland, answered "aye" to confirm he was the person summoned, but was told by a [[Sheriff principal|sheriff judge]] that he must answer either ''yes'' or ''no'', or else be held in [[contempt of court]]. When he was asked if he understands, he answered "aye" again, and was imprisoned for 90 minutes for contempt of court. On his release he said, "I genuinely thought I was answering him."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/sheriff-judges-aye-aye-a-contemptible-no-no-1.728980 |title=Sheriff judges aye-aye a contemptible no-no |publisher=Herald Scotland |date=11 December 1993 |access-date=21 October 2013}}</ref>

''Aye'' is also a common word in [[parliamentary procedure]], where the phrase ''the ayes have it'' means that a motion has passed.<ref name=Fowler>{{cite book |last1=Fowler |first1=H. W. |title=A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition|orig-date=1926|date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199585892 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cicUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40|pages=39–40}}</ref> In the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] of the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British Parliament]], [[Member of Parliament (UK)|MPs]] [[voice vote|vote orally]] by saying "aye" or "no" to indicate they approve or disapprove of the measure or piece of legislation. (In the [[House of Lords]], by contrast, members say "content" or "not content" when voting).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/traditions/ |title=Rules and traditions of Parliament|publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom}}</ref>

The term has also historically been used in nautical usage, often phrased as "aye, aye, sir" duplicating the word "aye".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Oxford English Dictionary |title=Aye Aye |url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/14090?rskey=41LeRT&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid |website=Oxford English Dictionary |access-date=18 November 2014}}</ref> [[Henry Watson Fowler|Fowler]]'s ''[[A Dictionary of Modern English Usage|Dictionary of Modern English Usage]]'' (1926) explained that the nautical phrase was at that time usually written ''ay, ay, sir''.<ref name=Fowler/>

The informal, affirmative phrase ''why-aye'' (also rendered ''whey-aye'' or ''way-eye'') is used in the dialect of [[North East England|northeast England]],<ref>''Perspectives on Northern Englishes'' (eds. Sylvie Hancil & Joan C. Beal: [[Walter de Gruyter]]: 2017), table 4.2: "North-east features represented in the LL Corpus."</ref><ref name=DiMartino>Emilia Di Martino, ''Celebrity Accents and Public Identity Construction: Analyzing Geordie Stylizations'' (Routledge, 2019).</ref> most notably by [[Geordie]]s.<ref name=DiMartino/>

In [[New England English]], chiefly in [[Maine]], ''ayuh'' is used; also variants such as ''eyah'', ''ayeh'' or ''ayup''. It is believed to be derived from either the nautical or Scottish use of ''aye''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hendrickson |first=Robert |date=2000 |title=The Facts on File Dictionary of American Regionalisms |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yXY0yQnvmmUC&pg=PA178 |location=New York |publisher=Facts On File Inc |page=178 |isbn=978-0816041565}}</ref>

==== Other ====
Other variants of "yes" include ''acha'' in [[Indian English|informal Indian English]] and historically ''righto'' or ''righty-ho'' in upper-class [[British English]], although these fell out of use during the early 20th century.<ref name=OxfordThesaurus/>

== Three-form systems ==
Several languages have a ''three-form system'', with two affirmative words and one negative. In a three-form system, the affirmative response to a positively phrased question is the [[markedness|unmarked]] affirmative, the affirmative response to a negatively phrased question is the [[markedness|marked]] affirmative, and the negative response to both forms of question is the (single) negative. For example, in Norwegian the affirmative answer to "Snakker du norsk?" ("Do you speak Norwegian?") is "Ja", and the affirmative answer to "Snakker du ikke norsk?" ("Do you not speak Norwegian?") is "Jo", while the negative answer to ''both'' questions is "Nei".<ref name=Marsh /><ref>{{cite book|title=Norwegian|author1=Åse-Berit Strandskogen  |author2=Rolf Strandskogen |name-list-style=amp |page=146|year=1986|publisher=Oris Forlag|isbn=0-415-10979-5}}</ref><ref name=HolmesHinchliffe1 /><ref name=Armstrong>{{cite book|title=Translation, Linguistics, Culture|url=https://archive.org/details/translationlingu00arms|url-access=limited|author=Nigel Armstrong|page=[https://archive.org/details/translationlingu00arms/page/n104 95]|publisher=Multilingual Matters|year=2005|isbn=978-1-85359-805-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Germany|url=https://archive.org/details/germanyunravelin00nees|url-access=limited|author=Greg Nees|page=[https://archive.org/details/germanyunravelin00nees/page/n92 74]|publisher=Intercultural Press|year=2000|isbn=978-1-877864-75-9}}</ref>

[[Danish language|Danish]], [[Swedish language|Swedish]], [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]], [[Icelandic language|Icelandic]], [[Faroese language|Faroese]], [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]], [[German language|German]], [[Dutch language|Dutch]], [[French language|French]] and [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] all have three-form systems.

{| class="wikitable"
! Language !! 'Yes' to affirmative question !! 'Yes' to negative question !! 'No'
|-
| Swedish, Danish || {{Lang|sv|[[wikt:ja#Swedish|ja]]}} || {{Lang|sv|[[wikt:jo#Swedish|jo]]}} || {{Lang|sv|[[wikt:nej#Swedish|nej]]}}
|-
| Norwegian || {{Lang|no|[[wikt:ja|ja]]}} || {{Lang|no|[[wikt:jo|jo]]/[[wikt:jau|jau]]}} || {{Lang|no|[[wikt:nei|nei]]}}
|-
| Icelandic || {{Lang|is|[[wikt:já#Icelandic|já]]}} || {{Lang|is|[[wikt:jú#Icelandic|jú]]}} || {{Lang|is|[[wikt:nei#Icelandic|nei]]}}
|-
| Faroese || {{Lang|fo|[[wikt:ja#Faroese|ja]]}} || {{Lang|fo|[[wikt:jú#Faroese|jú]]}} || {{Lang|fo|[[wikt:nei#Faroese|nei]]}}
|-
| Hungarian || {{Lang|hu|[[wikt:igen#Hungarian|igen]]}} || {{Lang|hu|[[wikt:de#Hungarian|de]]}} || {{Lang|hu|[[wikt:nem#Hungarian|nem]]}}
|-
| German || {{Lang|de|[[wikt:ja#German|ja]]}} || {{Lang|de|[[wikt:doch#German|doch]]}} || {{Lang|de|[[wikt:nein#German|nein]]}}
|-
| Dutch || {{Lang|nl|[[wikt:ja#Dutch|ja]]}} || {{Lang|nl|[[wikt:jawel#Dutch|jawel]]}} || {{Lang|nl|[[wikt:nee#Dutch|nee]]}} 
|-
| French || {{Lang|fr|[[wikt:oui#French|oui]]}} || {{Lang|fr|[[wikt:si#French|si]]}} || {{Lang|fr|[[wikt:non#French|non]]}}
|-
| Malayalam || {{Lang|ml|അതേ}} || {{Lang|ml|ഉവ്വ്}} || {{Lang|ml|ഇല്ല}}
|}

Swedish, and to some extent Danish and Norwegian, also have additional forms ''[[wikt:javisst#Swedish|javisst]]'' and ''[[wikt:jovisst#Swedish|jovisst]]'', analogous to ''ja'' and ''jo'', to indicate a strong affirmative response. Swedish (and Danish and Norwegian slang) also have the forms ''joho'' and ''nehej'', which both indicate stronger response than ''jo'' or ''nej''. ''Jo'' can also be used as an emphatic contradiction of a negative statement.<ref name=HolmesHinchliffe1>{{cite book|title=Swedish|author1=Philip Holmes  |author2=Ian Hinchliffe |name-list-style=amp |chapter=Interjections|page=121|publisher=Routledge|year=1997|isbn=978-0-415-16160-2}}</ref><ref name=HolmesHinchliffe2>{{cite book|title=Swedish|author1=Philip Holmes  |author2=Ian Hinchliffe |name-list-style=amp |pages=428–429|publisher=Routledge|year=2003|isbn=978-0-415-27883-6|chapter=Ja, nej, jo, etc.}}</ref>

Malayalam has the additional forms {{Lang|ml|അതേല്ലോ}}, {{Lang|ml|ഉവ്വല്ലോ}} and {{Lang|ml|ഇല്ലല്ലോ}} which act like question words, question tags or to strengthen the affirmative or negative response, indicating stronger meaning than {{Lang|ml|അതേ}}, {{Lang|ml|ഉവ്വ്}} and {{Lang|ml|ഇല്ല}}. The words {{Lang|ml|അല്ലേ}}, {{Lang|ml|ആണല്ലോ}}, {{Lang|ml|അല്ലല്ലോ}}, {{Lang|ml|വേണല്ലോ}}, {{Lang|ml|വേണ്ടല്ലോ}}, {{Lang|ml|ഉണ്ടല്ലോ}} and {{Lang|ml|ഇല്ലേ}} work in the same ways. These words are considered more polite than a curt "No!" or "Yes!". {{Lang|ml|ഉണ്ട}} means "it is there" and the word behaves as an affirmative response like {{Lang|ml|അതേ}}. The usage of {{Lang|ml|ഏയ്}} to simply mean "No" or "No way!" is informal and may be casual or sarcastic, while {{Lang|ml|അല്ല}} is the more formal way of saying "false", "incorrect" or that "it is not" and is a negative response for questions. The word {{Lang|ml|അല്ലല്ല}} has a stronger meaning than {{Lang|ml|അല്ല}}. {{Lang|ml|ശരി}} is used to mean "OK" or "correct", with the opposite {{Lang|ml|ശരിയല്ല}} meaning "not OK" or "not correct". It is used to answer affirmatively to questions to confirm any action by the asker, but to answer negatively one says {{Lang|ml|വേണ്ടാ}}. {{Lang|ml|വേണം}} and {{Lang|ml|വേണ്ട}} both mean to "want" and to "not want".

== Other languages with four-form systems ==
Like Early Modern English, the [[Romanian language]] has a four-form system. The affirmative and negative responses to positively phrased questions are ''[[wikt:da#Romanian|da]]'' and ''[[wikt:nu#Romanian|nu]]'', respectively. But in responses to negatively phrased questions they are prefixed with ''[[wikt:ba#Romanian|ba]]'' (i.e. ''ba da'' and ''ba nu''). ''nu'' is also used as a negation adverb, infixed between subject and verb. Thus, for example, the affirmative response to the negatively phrased question "N-ai plătit?" ("Didn't you pay?") is "Ba da." ("Yes."—i.e. "I did pay."), and the negative response to a positively phrased question beginning "Se poate să ...?" ("Is it possible to ...?") is "Nu, nu se poate." ("No, it is not possible."—note the use of ''nu'' for both ''no'' and negation of the verb.)<ref>{{cite book|title=Romanian|author=Ramona Gönczöl-Davies|page=135|publisher=Routledge|year=2007|isbn=978-0-415-33825-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Rumanian|author=Graham Mallinson|chapter=answers to yes–no questions|page=21|isbn=0-7099-3537-4|publisher=Croom Helm Ltd|year=1986}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Clitics Between Syntax and Lexicon|url=https://archive.org/details/cliticsbetweensy00rebu|url-access=limited|author=Birgit Gerlach|page=[https://archive.org/details/cliticsbetweensy00rebu/page/n72 60]|chapter=The status of Romance clitics between words and affixes|publisher=John Benjamins BV|year=2002|isbn=90-272-2772-1}}</ref>

== Related words in other languages and translation problems ==

=== Finnish ===
[[Finnish language|Finnish]] does not generally answer yes–no questions with either adverbs or interjections but answers them with a repetition of the verb in the question,<ref name="Aveneca_Yes_No systems">{{cite web |title=Yes/No systems |url=http://aveneca.com/yesno.html |website=Aveneca |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191215230425/https://aveneca.com/yesno.html |archive-date=15 December 2019 |access-date=16 June 2018}}</ref> negating it if the answer is the negative. (This is an [[echo response]].) The answer to {{lang|fi|Tuletteko kaupungista?}} ("Are you coming from town?") is the verb form itself, {{lang|fi|Tulemme.}} ("We are coming.") However, in spoken Finnish, a simple "Yes" answer is somewhat more common, {{lang|fi|Joo.}}

Negative questions are answered similarly. Negative answers are just the negated verb form. The answer to {{lang|fi|Tunnetteko herra Lehdon?}} ("Do you know Mr Lehto?") is {{lang|fi|En tunne.}} ("I don't know.") or simply {{lang|fi|En}}. ("I don't.").<ref name=BloomfieldHockett /><ref>{{cite book|title=English-Russian Grammar|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/englishrussiagra00reif|author=Carl Philipp Reiff|page=[https://archive.org/details/englishrussiagra00reif/page/134 134]|chapter=The Adverb and the Gerund|year=1862|location=Paris|publisher=Maisonneuve and Co.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Questions and Questioning|editor=Michel Meyer|author1=Wendy G. Lehnert |author2=Brian K. Stucky |name-list-style=amp |pages=224, 232|chapter=Understanding answers to questions|publisher=de Gruyter|year=1988|location=New York|isbn=3-11-010680-9}}</ref><ref name=Goddard>{{cite conference|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228813733|book-title=Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society|page=7|title=Yes or no? The complex semantics of a simple question|author=Cliff Goddard|format=PDF|editor1=Peter Collins |editor2=Mengistu Amberber |year=2003}}</ref> However, Finnish also has particle words for "yes": {{lang|fi|Kyllä}} (formal) and {{lang|fi|joo}} (colloquial). A yes–no question can be answered "yes" with either {{lang|fi|kyllä}} or {{lang|fi|joo}}, which are not conjugated according to the person and plurality of the verb. {{lang|fi|Ei}}, however, is always conjugated and means "no".

=== Latvian ===
Up until the 16th century [[Latvian language|Latvian]] did not have a word for "yes" and the common way of responding affirmatively to a question was by repeating the question's verb, just as in Finnish. The modern day {{Lang|lv|jā}} was borrowed from [[Middle High German]] {{Lang|gmh|ja}} and first appeared in 16th-century religious texts, especially [[catechism]]s, in answers to questions about faith. At that time such works were usually translated from German by non-Latvians that had learned Latvian as a foreign language. By the 17th century, {{Lang|lv|jā}} was being used by some Latvian speakers that lived near the cities, and more frequently when speaking to non-Latvians, but they would revert to agreeing by repeating the question verb when talking among themselves. By the 18th century the use of {{Lang|lv|jā}} was still of low frequency, and in Northern Vidzeme the word was almost non-existent until the 18th and early 19th century. Only in the mid-19th century did {{Lang|lv|jā}} really become usual everywhere.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Karulis |first=Konstantīns |title=Latviešu Etimoloģijas Vārdnīca |trans-title=The Etymological dictionary of Latvian |language=lv |location=Rīga |publisher=Avots |year=1992 |isbn=9984-700-12-7}}</ref>

=== Welsh ===
It is often assumed that [[Welsh language|Welsh]] has no words at all for ''yes'' and ''no''. It has {{wikt-lang|cy|ie}} and {{wikt-lang|cy|nage}}, and {{wikt-lang|cy|do}} and {{wikt-lang|cy|naddo}}.  However, these are used only in specialized circumstances and are some of the {{Em|many}} ways in Welsh of saying yes or no. {{Lang|cy|Ie}} and {{lang|cy|nage}} are used to respond to sentences of simple identification, while {{lang|cy|do}} and {{lang|cy|naddo}} are used to respond to questions specifically in the past tense. As in Finnish, the main way to state yes or no, in answer to yes–no questions, is to echo the verb of the question. The answers to "{{lang|cy|Ydy Ffred yn dod?}}" ('Is Ffred coming?') are either "{{lang|cy|Ydy}}" ('He is (coming).') or "{{lang|cy|Nac ydy}}" ('He is not (coming)'). In general, the negative answer is the positive answer combined with {{wikt-lang|cy|nag}}. For more information on ''yes'' and ''no'' answers to yes–no questions in Welsh, see Jones, listed in [[#Further reading|further reading]].<ref name="Goddard" /><ref>{{cite book |title=Basic Welsh |author=Gareth King |chapter=Yes/no answers |page=111 |publisher=Routledge |year=1996 |isbn=978-0-415-12096-8 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How to say "Yes" and "No" |work=A Welsh Course |author=Mark H Nodine |date=2003-06-14 |url=http://cs.cf.ac.uk./fun/welsh/Lesson02.html |publisher=Cardiff School of Computer Science, [[Cardiff University]] |access-date=2008-12-20 |archive-date=2008-12-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219155546/http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/Lesson02.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Latin ===
[[Latin language|Latin]] has no single words for ''yes'' and ''no''. Their functions as word sentence responses to yes–no questions are taken up by ''sentence adverbs'', single adverbs that are sentence modifiers and also used as word sentences. There are several such adverbs classed as [[truth-value]] adverbs—including {{Lang|la|[[wikt:certe#Latin|certe]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:fortasse#Latin|fortasse]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:nimirum#Latin|nimirum]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:plane#Latin|plane]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:vero#Latin|vero]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:etiam#Latin|etiam]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:sane#Latin|sane]]}}, {{Lang|la|[[wikt:videlicet#Latin|videlicet]]}}, and {{Lang|la|[[wikt:minime#Latin|minime]]}} (negative). They express the speaker's/writer's feelings about the truth value of a proposition. They, in conjunction with the negator {{Lang|la|[[wikt:non#Latin|non]]}}, are used as responses to yes–no questions.<ref name=BloomfieldHockett /><ref>{{cite book|title=Latin Grammar|author=Dirk G. J. Panhuis|page=184|publisher=University of Michigan Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0-472-11542-6}}</ref><ref name=Pinkster>{{cite book|chapter-url=http://harmpinkster.nl./files/articles/Adverbs_in_Latin.pdf|chapter=Attitudinal and illocutionary satellites in Latin|pages=191–195|editor1=Aertsen |editor2=Henk-Hannay |editor3=Mike-Lyall |editor4=Rod|title=Words in their places. A Festschrift for J. Lachlan MackenzieIII|location=Amsterdam|publisher=[[Vrije Universiteit]]|year=2004|author=Harm Pinkster}}</ref><ref name=Adler /><ref name=Calvert>{{cite web|title=Comparison of adjectives and adverbs, and saying yes or no|work=Latin For Mountain Men|date=1999-06-24|author=J. B. Calvert|url=http://mysite.du.edu./~etuttle/classics/latin/latin16.htm|publisher=Elizabeth R. Tuttle}}</ref> For example:

{{blockquote|{{Lang|la|"Quid enim diceres? Damnatum? Certe non."}} ("For what could you say? That I had been condemned? Assuredly not.")|sign=[[Cicero]]|source=Dom. 51<ref name=Pinkster />}}

Latin also employs echo responses.<ref name=Adler>{{cite book|title=A Practical Grammar of the Latin Language; with Perpetual Exercises in Speaking and Writing|url=https://archive.org/details/apracticalgramm00adlegoog|author=George J. Adler|page=[https://archive.org/details/apracticalgramm00adlegoog/page/n28 8]|location=Boston|publisher=Sanborn, Carter, Bazin, & Co.|year=1858}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Latin for the First Year|author=Walter B. Gunnison|page=300|publisher=READ BOOKS|year=2008|isbn=978-1-4437-1459-4}}</ref>

=== Galician and Portuguese ===
These languages have words for ''yes'' and ''no'', namely {{Lang|gl|si}} and {{Lang|gl|non}} in [[Galician language|Galician]] and {{Lang|pt|sim}} and {{Lang|pt|não}} in [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]]. However, answering a question with them is less idiomatic than answering with the verb in the proper conjugation.{{Citation needed|date=October 2023}}

=== Spanish ===
In [[Spanish language|Spanish]], the words {{lang|es|sí}} 'yes' and {{lang|es|no}} 'no' are unambiguously classified as adverbs: serving as answers to questions and also modifying verbs. The affirmative {{lang|es|sí}} can replace the verb after a negation ({{lang|es|Yo no tengo coche, pero él '''sí'''}} = ''I don't own a car, but he '''does''''') or intensify it (''I don't believe he owns a car. / He '''does''' own one!'' = {{lang|es|No creo que él tenga coche. / ¡'''Sí''' lo tiene!}}). The word {{lang|es|no}} is the standard adverb placed next to a verb to negate it ({{lang|es|Yo '''no''' tengo coche}} = ''I '''don't''' own a car''). Double negation is normal and valid in Spanish, and it is interpreted as reinforcing the negation ({{lang|es|No tengo ningún coche}} = ''I own no car'').

=== Nepali ===
In [[Nepali language|Nepali]], there is no one word for 'yes' and 'no' as it depends upon the verb used in the question. The words most commonly translated as equivalents are 'हो' (ho; {{Literal translation|"is"}}) and 'होइन' (hoina; {{Literal translation|"not is"}}) are in fact the affirmative and negative forms of the same verb 'हो' (ho; {{Literal translation|"is"}}) and hence is only used when the question asked contains said verb.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-06-26 |title=Verb Conjugation: Hunu - Nepalgo |url=https://nepalgo.de/grammar/verb-conjugation-hunu/ |access-date=2024-06-28 |language=en-US}}</ref> In other contexts, one must repeat the affirmative or negative forms of the verb being asked, for instance "तिमीले खाना खायौँ?" (timīle khānā khāyau?; {{Literal translation|"You food ate?"}}) would be answered by "खाएँ" (khāe˜; {{Literal translation|"ate"}}), which is the verb "to eat" conjugated for the past tense first person singular. In certain contexts, the word "नाई" (nāī) can be used to deny something that is stated, for instance politely passing up an offer.

=== Chinese ===
Speakers of [[Chinese language|Chinese]] use echo responses.<ref name="Mishra" /> In all [[Varieties of Chinese|Sinitic/Chinese languages]], [[yes–no question]]s are often posed in [[A-not-A]] form, and the replies to such questions are [[echo answer]]s that echo either ''A'' or ''not A''.<ref>{{cite book|title=Cantonese|url=https://archive.org/details/cantonesecompreh00yipv|url-access=limited|author1=Stephen Matthews |author2=Virginia Yip |name-list-style=amp |page=[https://archive.org/details/cantonesecompreh00yipv/page/n165 311]|publisher=Routledge|year=1994|isbn=978-0-415-08945-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Languages and Their Status|author=Timothy Shopen|chapter=Dialectal variations|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|year=1987|isbn=978-0-8122-1249-5}}</ref> In [[Standard Mandarin Chinese]], the closest equivalents to ''yes'' and ''no'' are to state "{{Zh|c={{linktext|是}}|s=|t=|labels=no}}" ({{Zh|c=|s=|t=|p=shì|labels=no}}; {{Lit|"is"}}) and "{{Zh|c={{linktext|不是}}|s=|t=|labels=no}}" ({{Lang-zh|c=|s=|t=|p=búshì|labels=no}}; {{Literal translation|"not is"}}).<ref>{{cite book|title=Mandarin Chinese |publisher=Rough Guides|year=1999|isbn=978-1-85828-607-5|url=https://archive.org/details/mandarinchineser00lexurich |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Colloquial Chinese|author1=Bingzheng Tong|author2=Ping-cheng T'ung|author3=David E. Pollard |name-list-style=amp|page=[https://archive.org/details/colloquialchines00tong/page/25 25]|year=1982|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0-415-01860-9|url=https://archive.org/details/colloquialchines00tong/page/25}}</ref> The phrase {{Zh|c={{linktext|不要}}|s=|t=|labels=no}} ({{Zh|c=|s=|t=|labels=no|l=(I) do not want|p=búyào}}) may also be used for the interjection "no", and {{Zh|c={{linktext|嗯}}|labels=no}} (''ǹg'') may be used for "yes". Similarly, in [[Cantonese]], the preceding are 係 ''hai6'' (lit: "is") and 唔係 (lit: "not is") ''m4 hai6'', respectively. One can also answer 冇錯 ''mou5 co3'' ({{lit|"not wrong"}}) for the affirmative, although there is no corresponding negative to this.

=== Japanese ===
[[Japanese language|Japanese]] lacks words for ''yes'' and ''no''. The words "{{lang|ja|{{linktext|はい}}}}" (''hai'') and "{{lang|ja|{{linktext|いいえ}}}}" (''iie'') are mistaken by English speakers for equivalents to ''yes'' and ''no'', but they actually signify agreement or disagreement with the proposition put by the question: "That's right." or "That's not right."<ref name="Mishra">{{cite book|title=Interactive Multimedia in Education and Training|editor=Sanjaya Mishra|page=85 |author=Rika Yoshii |author2=Alfred Bork |author3=Alastair Milne |author4=Fusa Katada |author5=Felicia Zhang|chapter=Reaching Students of Many Languages and Cultures|publisher=Idea Group Inc (IGI)|year=2004|isbn=978-1-59140-394-4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Japanese|author=John Hinds|chapter=Words for 'yes', 'no', 'maybe'|page=45|publisher=Routledge|year=1988|isbn=978-0-415-01033-7}}</ref>  For example: if asked, {{Nihongo|Are you not going?|行かないのですか?|ikanai no desu ka?}}, answering with the affirmative "はい" would mean "Right, I am ''not'' going"; whereas in English, answering "yes" would be to contradict the negative question. Echo responses are typical in Japanese.

=== Complications ===
These differences between languages make translation difficult. No two languages are [[isomorphism|isomorphic]] at the most elementary level of words for ''yes'' and ''no''. Translation from two-form to three-form systems are equivalent to what English-speaking school children learning French or German encounter. The mapping becomes complex when converting two-form to three-form systems. There are many idioms, such as reduplication (in French, German, and Italian) of affirmatives for emphasis (the Dutch and German {{Lang|de|ja ja ja}}).

The mappings are one-to-many in both directions. The German {{Lang|de|ja}} has no fewer than 13 English equivalents that vary according to context and usage (''yes'', ''yeah'', and ''no'' when used as an answer; ''well'', ''all right'', ''so'', and ''now'', when used for segmentation; ''oh'', ''ah'', ''uh'', and ''eh'' when used an interjection; and ''do you'', ''will you'', and their various inflections when used as a marker for [[tag question]]s) for example. Moreover, both {{Lang|de|ja}} and {{Lang|de|doch}} are frequently used as [[German modal particle|additional particle]]s for conveying nuanced meaning where, in English, no such particle exists. Straightforward, non-idiomatic, translations from German to English and then back to German can often result in the loss of all of the modal particles such as {{Lang|de|ja}} and {{Lang|de|doch}} from a text.<ref>{{cite book|title=Starting English Teaching|url=https://archive.org/details/startingenglisht00jeff|url-access=limited|author=Robert Jeffcoate|page=[https://archive.org/details/startingenglisht00jeff/page/n231 213]|publisher=Routledge|year=1992|isbn=0-415-05356-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Deaf Way|author1=Carol Erting |author2=Robert C. Johnson |author3=Dorothy L. Smith  |name-list-style=amp |page=456|publisher=Gallaudet University Press|year=1989|isbn=978-1-56368-026-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics|author=Kerstin Fischer|pages=206–207|year=2000|publisher=Walter de Gryuter|location=Berlin|isbn=3-11-016876-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Thinking German Translation|url=https://archive.org/details/thinkinggermantr00herv|url-access=limited|author1=Sándor G. J. Hervey |author2=Ian Higgins |author3=Michael Loughridge  |name-list-style=amp |chapter=The Function of Modal Particles|pages=[https://archive.org/details/thinkinggermantr00herv/page/n160 152]–154|publisher=Routledge|year=1995|isbn=978-0-415-11638-1}}</ref>

Translation from languages that have word systems to those that do not, such as Latin, is similarly problematic. As Calvert says, "Saying yes or no takes a little thought in Latin".<ref name=Calvert />

== See also ==
*[[Affirmation and negation]]
*[[Thumb signal]]
*[[Translation]]
*[[Untranslatability]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Further reading ==
* {{Cite book |last=Huttar |first=George L. |title=Ndyuka: A Descriptive Grammar |publisher=Routledge |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-415-05992-3 |page=42 |chapter=Words for 'yes', 'no', 'maybe'}}
* {{Cite book |last=Holmberg |first=Anders |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/9258 |title=The syntax of yes and no |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780198701859 |location=Oxford}}
* {{Cite book |last=Jones |first=Bob Morris |title=The Welsh Answering System |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=1999 |isbn=978-3-11-016450-3}}—Jones' analysis of how to answer questions with "yes" or "no" in the Welsh language, broken down into a typology of echo and non-echo responsives, polarity and truth-value responses, and numbers of forms
* {{Cite journal |last=Kulick |first=Don |author-link=Don Kulick |date=April 2003 |title=No |url=https://humdev.uchicago.edu/sites/humdev.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/kulick/2003%20Kulick%20No.pdf |journal=Language & Communication |publisher=Elsevier |volume=23 |issue=2 |pages=139–151 |doi=10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00043-5 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150227113248/https://humdev.uchicago.edu/sites/humdev.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/kulick/2003%20Kulick%20No.pdf |archive-date=2015-02-27}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Yes And No}}
[[Category:English grammar]]
[[Category:English words]]
[[Category:History of the English language]]
[[Category:Parts of speech]]

[[br:Sí]]
[[de:Ja]]
[[es:Sí]]
[[es:No]]
[[eo:Jes]]
[[it:Sì]]
[[ja:はい]]
[[no:Ja]]
[[sk:Áno]]
[[yi:יא]]