
What part of “No, Totally” don't you understand? - moopling
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/what-part-of-no-totally-dont-you-understand
======
mapt
Seems simple enough to me. The "No" is directed at defusing a redundant
introductory lecture.

Translate as:

"No, you don't have to explain further, I completely understand"

"No, stop, I've already heard of that and I'm totally onboard with your
opinion"

I spend a lot of time being introduced to topics I'm already familiar with,
but just nodding politely or saying "yeah" is interpreted as active listening,
as "I'd like to hear more" rather than "Yeah, you can stop right there", which
is too confrontational to use directly. What's your preferred way of
expressing this sentiment, of interrupting someone in order to claim knowledge
in their present topic, without indicating hostility or belittling them?

Extending one of the other posts, "No, your assumption is incorrect, I am in
fact already familiar with this subject and I agree wholeheartedly with your
sentiment".

~~~
jessriedel
I think this is the correct explanation. Can someone find a counter-example
where "no" is used in the weird way the New Yorker piece is describing, but
where it can't be taken to mean "No, you don't have to go on; I know exactly
what you're talking about/asking"?

The example given by yathern...

> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?

> B: No, totally! Definitely want to go.

...seems to fit.

~~~
Alex3917
> Can someone find a counter-example where "no" is used in the weird way the
> New Yorker piece is describing

I haven't listened to it, but I've heard that this goes into a bunch of
different scenarios:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/06/yeah_no_lexicon_valley_slate_podcast.html)

------
yathern
I think part of the reasoning behind this type of response is that each
response is dealing with a different level of abstraction.

> A: Did you see any birds at the park?

> B: Yeah, no - I didn't see any.

B is first acknowledging the question and it's intent - as well implying that
maybe he did look for birds - which then flows into the fact that 'no' \- he
did not see any.

This can be done with the 'No, totally' example as well.

> A: I wasn't sure if you'd like to go to the park - do you want to?

> B: No, totally! Definitely want to go.

B is first saying 'No' to the implied "You don't want to go.". B is
essentially saying 'The assumption you made was wrong - I do indeed want to
go'.

Granted, I made these examples to be easy to dissect, and it's likely that
from this pattern, it devolved into common vernacular despite being used in
this way. But I think it still holds up for most uses.

~~~
maxsilver
Your second example is the one I'm most familiar with. I say stuff like that
often. It's got nothing to do with all the article's other reasons -- it's
usually just because my mind is racing faster than I can speak.

Someone : "I thought you really wanted to use the paintbrush. Did you see the
if there were any rollers?"

Me (mental response): "No (I didn't want to use the paintbrush). Yes (I did
see the rollers) but they looked bad".

Me (actually said out loud): "No. Yes, but they looked bad"

------
BFay
The different possible origins of this phrase are interesting. The article
mentions a couple, and there's some in the comments here.

I've always seen it as I'm saying "no" to alleviate any doubt the other person
had that I did not agree with their statement.

The conversation might go: A. I really think "OK Computer" is the best
Radiohead album. B. No, totally!

But the implication is more like: A. I think "OK Computer" is the best
Radiohead album. Am I crazy for not picking "Kid A" or "In Rainbows?" B. No, I
don't think you're crazy for liking "OK Computer" the best. I totally agree
with you.

Does anybody else see it this way? (Please respond with "No, totally!" (It's
okay if you don't like "OK Computer"))

~~~
mrebus
I agree with this. in the lena DUNHAM case she seems to be affirming maron's
assumptions. The question implies that if you don't agree with me I have
totally misunderstood you as a person. If she replied with yeah, ok(or any
other negative word), she would be communicating her new knowledge of marons
inability to relate and the either dismissing the statement or rejecting it.
Much conversation is to relate as apposed to communicating specific ideas. on
a slight tangent that new usage of random to mean unexpected is more actually
meant to me of all the actions I've seen you take I would not have predicted
this on.

------
greggman
No, English is messed up :P

I learned about some of this from learning Japanese where I had to learn you
answer the question directly rather than confirm the negative by repeating it.

In Japanese:

Q: You don't like cigars do you

A: Yes (Yes I don't like cigars)

In English

Q: You don't like cigars do you

A: No (it's effectively confirming the negative of "like")

My Japanese friends learning English of course found English very confusing.
I'd point out if you answer the question with more than just "Yes" or "No"
it's almost always clear.

A: Yes, I don't like cigars

A: No, I don't like cigars

Both have the same meaning, whereas just Yes or just No is ambiguous.

Of course the article had examples of just yes or just no. To someone of the
same language background they are probably unambigious

~~~
mikeash
I like the way Mandarin does this. There's no pure "yes" or "no," just a
negation you can apply to a verb. The answers would be either "like" (yes, I
like cigars) or "not like" (no, I don't like them).

~~~
hirsin
Does this work for questions phrased in the negative? Ni bu hui shuo zhongwen
ma? (You can't speak Chinese?) could be responded to with "bu hui", "hui", or
"dui" I think. "Dui" (correct) would mean... Right, I cant? "Dui bu dui" is
also an interesting departure for this...

~~~
pierrec
Yes, it also works for questions phrased in the negative, and 对/不对 (dui / bu
dui) ("that's right"/"that's not right") does not make any sense as a response
to that question, you need to use 会/不会 (hui/ bu hui) ("I can"/"I can't"). It's
all very explicit compared to most languages.

But another, perhaps more natural way of negatively phrasing the question
would be "你不会说中文，是吗？" or "你不会说中文，对吗？" or even the odd formulation that you
mention "你不会说中文，对不对？" (You don't speak Chinese, right?), in which case you
could respond with 对/不对 ("that's right"/"that's not right").

~~~
pierrec
It's too late to edit, but I now realize that what I wrote is pretty
confusing. Especially the part with "You don't speak Chinese, right?" which
should be between quotes. It's the translation of the previous sentence, not
something that I'm actually asking... And I should add that I don't speak
Mandarin fluently, but I'm still confident about the above.

~~~
evincarofautumn
I studied Chinese in college for a few years. Everything you wrote is correct.

------
arfar
In New Zealand we say "yeah, nah", which is sort of a similar thing to this.

We've even got ad campaigns with it now:

[http://www.alcohol.org.nz/alcohol-activities-
services/campai...](http://www.alcohol.org.nz/alcohol-activities-
services/campaigns-communication-work/say-yeah-nah-1)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQzcWkKbbA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQzcWkKbbA)

------
zamalek
In South Africa we say "Ja, Nie" (which translated is "Yes, No" or "Yes and
No"). In this case there does happen to be a theory as to where it came from.
The story goes that during the Anglo-Boer War[1] when Afrikaaners were
captured they would use it as a response during interrogations - an
exceptionally defiant phrase. There is no explanation or story for how it
entered common use but you do hear it almost on a daily basis.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War)

------
ryguytilidie
One of my favorite racing drivers was recently interviewed, made this mistake
and then immediately mocked himself for doing so, pretty funny:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuJ4trSKS-0&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuJ4trSKS-0&feature=youtu.be&t=39s)

~~~
CocaKoala
This is great because he says "Yeah, no", notices it, calls himself out for
it, and then _immediately does it again_ , and he stops and calls himself out
a second time, and then you can see him make a visible effort to omit the "no"
the third time around.

------
jasallen
I think with "No, Totally" in particular, the "no" is refuting something
implied. So with "Makes you want to hit them", you are instinctively saying
"no" the cultural prohibition against violence. "No that's not normal
behavior, but yeah, totally I want to hit them."

For "Would you like ice cream?" you'd say "Totally" because the connotation is
good. "Don't you just want to eat the whole tub of ice cream" \-- "no,
totally", is a reasonable response because you're resisting the negative
connotation of pigging out.

I think this is actually unrelated to the "Yeah, No" phenomenon.

~~~
hamburglar
Yes, totally. :) I read the whole article waiting for this explanation to be
brought up.

------
aptimpropriety
This is pretty crazy analysis for what I see to be a pretty simple phenomenon.
Put the truncated "Oh" in front of the "no", in order to indicate emotional
sentiment, and you have your simple explanation.

"oh no" = hat tip to an [unexpected] unpleasant feeling

"oh yes" = hat tip to an [unexpected] pleasant feeling

Take the "Did you see any birds at the park?" "yeah, no, I didn't see any" =
"Oh yeah, it would have been nice to, but no I didn't see any.

------
dotsamuelswan
I see this more as "No, you're not taking it far enough. It's even more of
that thing you said than how you said it," and less as an auto-antonym.

------
shasta
> At first blush, “no” does not appear to be the kind of word whose meaning
> you can monkey with. For one thing, there is its length. At just two letters
> and one syllable, it lacks the pliable properties of longer words. You can’t
> stuff stuff inside it. [...]

I guess these 'long form' articles have to be long, but some of these
paragraphs seem pretty forced.

~~~
vilhelm_s
This article seems particularly bad (I stopped reading halfway through), but a
lot of articles published in The New Yorker seems to do this kind of
meandering. The other day I was reading a story about Jake Leg[0], and if you
compare it to the corresponding Wikipedia article[1] the difference is really
striking---the Wikipedia article tells you straight away what caused the
contamination, while the New Yorker story somehow tries to keep you in
suspense.

I guess I just don't see what these authors are trying to do. If someone
started reading an article about "no, yes", probably they want to know about
"no, yes". Why intersperse a bunch of unrelated fluff?

[0]
[http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/Articles_files/Jake%20Leg,...](http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/Articles_files/Jake%20Leg,%20New%20Yorker.pdf)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_ginger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_ginger)

~~~
Tenhundfeld
I respectfully disagree. I thought this "no, totally" article was entertaining
and enjoyable.

It's strange to me that you're comparing The New Yorker and Wikipedia. One
publishes stories. The other publishes reference articles. I appreciate
suspense in a story; I appreciate a quick summary of the facts in a reference
article. They are very different forms of writing.

------
mbubb
It feels almost like there is an implied leading question like: "Am I wrong?"

~~~
raldi
No, that's exactly right.

------
smcl
Weird, I remember when I was in NZ a few years back "yeah nah..." meant "yes"
which confused me. I think Australia had it too, but I'm not sure.

Another semi-related but confusing thing was while I've been living in Czech
Republic I visited South Korea. I ended up getting twisted up trying to answer
yes\no in Korean because...

English: Yes | No

Czech[1]: No | Ne

Korean: Ye\Ne | Anio

Each language has one that's annoyingly similar to the opposite in at least
one different language. Trying to get this right after a few beers is _hard_.

[1] = "No" is a common contraction of "Ano" but even then that conflicts with
Korean "Anio".

------
polarix
Here's another possibility, the first one that occurred to me: the "no" is a
rejection of the implicit alternative to what was stated.

The author ends up at a fairly convincing alternative explanation, though.

~~~
jere
This is sort of what I've assumed recently. I hear this a lot and it always
sounds like there is an implicit "do you disagree?" after the first statement
to which the person is responding "no, I agree with you."

------
pbreit
I've always wondered how "awful" came to mean "bad" (the opposite of "awe
full") and then has apparently added the meaning "very" ("awfully good"?)?

~~~
mrebus
Words flipping from positive to negative and visa versa is very common in
language. Just the other day I was talking to some younger kids about hockey
and they were going on about a goal being "filthy" and "Dirty". In my day a
dirty goal was one that didn't look nice. To them these goals were so
naughty(as in sexy) you wanted to take a shower after seeing them.

Here's some reading
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/15/1284995/-Origins-
of...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/15/1284995/-Origins-of-English-
Amelioration-and-Perjoration)

~~~
sk5t
I don't think this particular case is a new-ish usage; "filthy" has long been
popular in baseball to describe a very crafty pitch or pitcher, or "sick" in
music for an amazing solo or musician.

------
jsbg
This part, though somewhat unrelated to the topic, is pleasantly insightful:

> Saying yes as often as possible is, famously, the first rule of improv,
> vital to maintaining energy, imagination, and humor. It is also, I have long
> thought, a sure sign that you’re falling in love, not to mention crucial to
> sustaining that love over the long haul. And, while sometimes impractical,
> dangerous, or just plain dumb, saying yes to as much stuff as possible is,
> over all, a pretty good strategy for getting through life.

------
ableal
I didn't know this bit:

 _' 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”'_

(Then continues about the similar no / nay.)

Anyway, I'm surprised the writer did not work in the joke about the lecturer
saying:

"As you know, a double negative becomes a positive, but the reverse does not
happen."

Voice from the back of the room: "Yeah, yeah ..."

~~~
sukilot
The punchline is "Yeah, right"

------
jamesrom
It kind of grates on me when someone always answers in the affirmative with
'No, [affirmative]'. It has become more and more common (especially when I
speak with people from California).

I think there's combination of forces at play. But I think a big factor is
that people are afraid of appearing too agreeable. It would just be way to
overt and enthusiastic to just say 'Yeah, totally' for Californian
sensibilities.

------
grownseed
French has an interesting word which somewhat clarifies this situation: "si"
(not the conditional "if" in this case).

For lack of a better explanation, it's essentially a negative "yes", used to
negate a negation.

For instance:

    
    
      A: "Don't you understand?"
      B: "Si"
    

Meaning "No, I don't agree with you, but yes, I do understand".

I find it very simple yet quite powerful.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
I don't think it actually means ""No, I don't agree with you." I think it's
just an unambiguous "Yes, I do" answer to a negated question.

~~~
grownseed
I was mostly trying to emphasize my perception of the meaning as a native
french speaker. Not saying this necessarily makes me right, I just wanted to
highlight both the negation of the question itself as well as the confirmation
of the underlying statement.

------
genericuser
The edge case where it is expected that one would not understand a spoken
response of "No, totally" is where the thing it was said in response to both
was phrased such that a negative answer could be one of absolute agreement and
where the previous thing said contained in it the word totally. This case
could give the interpretation that while you more or less agree you would like
the word totally omitted from your agreement.

Example(leveraged from jasallen's example in another post): Don't you totally
want to eat the whole tub of ice cream?

As a spoken response in this edge case "No, totally"(yes I very much want to
eat it all) would be indistinguishable from "No totally" (yes I want to eat it
all, but I am not as enthusiastic about doing so as you are).

------
talles
As a non-native English speaker "No, Totally" doesn't sound natural at all to
me ("Yes, Totally" sounds better and makes way more sense).

I only understood what the author was really talking about when he introduced
other examples (like _to dust_ ).

~~~
borgia
>As a non-native English speaker "No, Totally" doesn't sound natural at all to
me

I'm a native English speaker and "No, Totally" doesn't sound at all natural to
me either.

~~~
notahacker
Agreed. Even with my British flair for using double negatives for cautious
agreement, "no, totally" sounds like a particularly awkward Americanism.

------
zaroth
Made me wish for a comeback of the yeas and nays of yonder. It's pretty
amazing how many different languages struggle with this, and how some have
tried to deal with it using a 4-tuple instead of a 2-tuple.

------
mrbig4545
I can't say I've noticed this before, which leads me to think it's probably an
American colloquialism, but that's my default response to these kinds of
things.

Could be that I've just not noticed it.

------
pm
In Australia, we have "yeah nah yeah", which is a similar phenomenon. I have
no idea where it originated. I think "nah yeah nah" may also be prevalent.

------
ddingus
It could read as, "No, I was not going there, but since you did, I agree"

The "NO" indicates a mismatch in the train of thought and logical flow, or
expected logical flow. So it's noted, communicated, followed by a basic
response to the unexpected dialog.

Where the flow is expected, seems like this would be awkward, and just a
"totally" would work.

------
ggchappell
The four-word system (yea, nay, yes, no) is interesting. Might the modern
"yeah" be a relic of "yea"?

The following sounds strange to me:

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

But the following sounds just fine:

    
    
      Is Chaucer drunk?
      Yeah.

~~~
evincarofautumn
_Yeah_ is indeed from _yea_ , from Old English _gea_. All three were
originally pronounced identically, but _yea_ underwent a sound change so that
it now rhymes with _yay_. _Yeah_ is one of the few words to have retained its
Old English pronunciation.

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yeah](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yeah)

------
lazyant
Reminds me of German 'doch'

------
powrtoch
"No, you're not crazy" seems to fit the sentiment most closely.

------
rasz_pl
I would blame the French. Frenchmen speaking English badly often say Borat
like phrases, for example "its great, no?". It happens when you learn
vocabulary without grammar rules.

~~~
briandear
What grammar rule is violated? The question "is it not?" Is completely valid
English and common with French speakers.

I would literally argue that it's ironic that most English speakers have a bad
command of the language. Of course you're experience may be different. The
reality is that grammar is often, especially in spoken language, is butchered.
It's affect is that many people could care less.

~~~
mdpye
God, I hope that second paragraph is _intended_ to illustrate the irony (or
you don't fall in the native speaker category!)

:P

------
pikewood
Are we sure we're spelling it right? Is it an abbreviated version of "I know,
totally"?

