Language desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 16

Do U C ? Besides English, are there other languages that use the verb Do as an auxiliary verb in "do you see" and likewise?

Additionally, are there languages that use their word for "whether", also as a question word functioning like how the English auxiliary word "do" functions in "do you see" and likewise? (i.e. instead of asking "do you see?" a speaker of that language should ask: "whether you see?", meaning "do you see?")... HOTmag (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: I know a language that does not even use the 'you' pronoun to ask "do you see?" Not sure, however, how many other such languages exist.

--CiaPan (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any different than pro-dropping? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering a question orthogonal to the one asked. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can, however, use either 'whether' or 'you', or both, to add specific emphasis - compare a simple 'See?' as a variant of 'Do you see?' in English. --CiaPan (talk)

What do you mean by "we"? I'm sure I don't belong to what you call "we", because I've never heard anybody say "whether see?", meaning "do you see?". HOTmag (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag:

We, native Polish speakers. --CiaPan (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, how could I guess you were a native Polish speaker, you didn't say that in advance...

Anyway, do native speakers say "whether [you] see" (i.e. "do you see?"), using the same word they use for "whether" when they say "I don't know whether you see"? What is this Polish word, by the way? HOTmag (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word in Polish is czy and as CiaPan noted, it can be used both in the sense of "whether" and to ask yes/no questions. Examples:

I don't know whether you see. Nie wiem, czy (ty) widzisz.
Do you see? Czy (ty) widzisz?
Whether you see it or not, it is still there. Czy (ty) to widzisz, czy nie, to i tak tam jest.

Polish is a pro-drop language, so in all examples I put the word for "you" in parentheses, as it would normally be omitted. In informal speech, the czy in questions may be omitted as well; in this case, the interrogative nature of the sentence can only be inferred from intonation (or, in writing, from the question mark). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HOTmag -- see article Do-support for negative and interrogative uses. It's unique among well-known European languages, as far as I know. For the other thing you're asking about, see "Interrogative particle" on article Interrogative word... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Welsh makes extensive use of the auxiliary gwneud ("do, make"), but not in the same contexts as English: only a handful of verbs are conjugated in the past tense in everyday speech: gwneud is used for other verbs. Middle Welsh IIRC did something similar, but I'm not sure in what contexts. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. HOTmag (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HOTmag: For an interesting discussion of this, read Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue by John McWhorter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I haven't got the book Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue, but I've just recorded its name, thanks to your comment. HOTmag (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second that recommendation. McWhorter is a bit controversial but always interesting. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the finger really pointing at?

I briefly alluded to this matter @ here in 2012, but I'm after some more information.

When someone responds to statement X in terms such as "I fail to see why X", they're not just disagreeing with their interlocutor, but doing so in a condescending and patronising way. Without actually spelling it out, they're telling them they're wrong. Yet, the literal meaning of "I fail to see why X" is admission of failure on their own part.

What's it called when the literal words of a statement refer to some failure or error on the part of the speaker, but the real meaning is a failure or error on the part of the person they're addressing? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a scientist, no longer with us, who used to respond to a muddled argument with, "I am not smart enough to understand this." --Lambiam 22:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

I suspect what I'm going to say is not what you're looking for, but I may describe the phenomenon you're pointing at - as a polite criticism - or as an alluded disagreement. I know it's a too general description, whereas you are describing a more specific phenomenon - being a special case of the more general description I've suggested. HOTmag (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-apology apology seems relevant. --Crash48 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Rhetorical) Aporia? ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz -- A general mismatch between the expected literal or literal-ish meaning of a sentence and the actual communicative function of the sentence is known as "Illocutionary force", discussed in our Illocutionary act article. I'm not sure whether there's an accepted term for specifically what you're asking about... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a facetious remark if the opposite is meant and it is not to be taken literally. But I fail to see why this expression, when sincere, would be patronizing and condescending with civil discourse (given that most people are not righteous narcissists). Still, it can certainly be abused by condescending righteous facetious narcissists. More or less so? The complete context in what is meant and said seems to matter a great deal here. Modocc (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you're right. It's usually trotted out with the negative meaning, but I can see it could also be neutral. Hardly ever positive, though, I'd have thought. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Litotes? Understatement? From Litotes:

In the book Rhetorica ad Herennium, litotes is addressed as a member of the Figures of Thought known as deminutio, or understatement. It is listed in conjunction with antenantiosis and meiosis, two other forms of rhetorical deminutio.[10] For example, a very accomplished artist might say "I'm not a bad painter", and by refraining from bragging but still acknowledging his skill, the artist is seen as talented, modest, and credible.

--Error (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]