Challenging Yes or No Questions: A Linguistic Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter madah12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the complexities of answering yes or no questions that contain implicit accusations, such as "Did you stop killing people?" Participants note that while a simple "no" can be grammatically correct, it may not address the underlying implications of guilt. The conversation highlights that the structure of such questions can lead to paradoxes and misunderstandings, particularly in legal contexts. Many agree that a more effective response might involve rephrasing or redirecting the question to avoid the trap. Ultimately, the consensus is that while yes/no answers are possible, they often fail to convey the full truth of the situation.
madah12
Messages
326
Reaction score
1
Hello, I have a question about English, can I ask?
How can a yes or no question that contains a fallacy within its presumptions be answered truthfully without violating grammatical rules , questions such as asking "Did you stop killing people" For an innocent guy or Did you stop cheating in an exam.
I can't find a section about Langauge studies, so I posted it here. ( I am not a native in English)
As far as I know Did,do and does must be answered with either yes or no.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no, i did not stop killing people. but then, i never started killing people. ;)

the real answer is, we wouldn't answer these questions with a simple yes or no. "no" might suffice, but few would leave it at that, in order to avoid the wrong impression.
 
Proton Soup said:
no, i did not stop killing people. but then, i never started killing people. ;)

the real answer is, we wouldn't answer these questions with a simple yes or no. "no" might suffice, but few would leave it at that, in order to avoid the wrong impression.

but then if you say this aren't you contradiction yourself? like saying I didn't stop drinking water because I never started http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stop
3 a : to cause to give up or change a course of action . If you didn't give up the action of killing people then you are still doing it.
Edit: It can be in a way that is more entrapping like "Why don't you stop killing people" saying I don't kill people doesn't address the question at all.
 
I'm pretty sure this trap exists in any language...

In Spanish: dejó de matar gente?

Whether you answer si or no, it's the same situation as in English.

I think that the only way to answer the question correctly is to just ignore the "started" portion. You would say "I never killed anyone!" I'm pretty sure that it's the combination of a verb and a gerund that creates the problem.
 
Ok my question is that if this answer is grammatically correct Since it doesn't 100% relate to the question asked.
 
I guess the answer you're looking for is: you can't answer the question truthfully, as it is, if you never started killing people.
 
is this more a mathematical question along the lines of Godel's theorems?
 
The problem (or strength) with any language is that it can easily express paradoxes that can't exist in nature.
 
Technically, there is nothing wrong with this:

Q: Did you stop killing people?
A: No.

This meets all criteria: it is grammatically correct, it is a yes/no answer, and it is truthful.

Now, if the questioner or witnesses wish to infer that you were perviously killing people, that's a completely different kettle of monkeys.

It is in that subsequent inference that the fallacy lies.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
Now, if the questioner or witnesses wish to infer that you were perviously killing people, that's a completely different kettle of monkeys.

Actually, the proper word is "imply". To "infer" is to form an opinion, not to instill one. Anyhow, the question to really trap someone in that regard would be "are you still killing people?" In a yes-or-no situation, you're screwed either way.
 
  • #11
The questions seem unnatural and you cannot ask it out of blue. I think "Did you stop cheating in an exam" can only be asked if I admit it first in a conversation about my past. I would just reply with a question: Why you think I was cheating? or something similar.
 
  • #12
From Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Lewis Carroll said:
'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.
'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.'
'You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: 'it's very easy to take more than nothing.'

Assuming you have never killed anyone, the truthful answer is no, regardless of the impression it might leave upon others.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Danger said:
Actually, the proper word is "imply". To "infer" is to form an opinion, not to instill one.

No, the proper word is infer. As in: they make an assumption, form their own opinion.*


To imply, the accusor would have had to go on to say more. I was not my suggestion that they said any more.

* I choose to show you mercy, and not kill you for casting aspersions upon my grammatical prowess.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Anyhow, the question to really trap someone in that regard would be "are you still killing people?" In a yes-or-no situation, you're screwed either way.
Nope. Same thing.

Q: "Are you still killing people?"
A: "No."

Jury (to self): ("Haha, so I can infer that he was killing people before - OK, he didn't actually say that...")


Is it easier if you look at it in the form of a true/false statement.

"You are still killing people."
The above statement is false. Regardless of any implications it may make, it is, in and of itself, false.

Reforming it as an interrogative does not change its state.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
rootX said:
The questions seem unnatural and you cannot ask it out of blue. I think "Did you stop cheating in an exam" can only be asked if I admit it first in a conversation about my past. I would just reply with a question: Why you think I was cheating? or something similar.

You can ask it out of the blue, if you wield enough power.

The OP's question is about yes/no answers. The paradox inherent in the question is the issue in debate.

The answer is that you can answer with a yes/no, without explicitly addressing the unspoken accusation embedded in the question.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Nope. Same thing.

Q: "Are you still killing people?"
A: "No."

Jury (to self): ("Haha, so I can infer that he was killing people before - OK, he didn't actually say that...")


Is it easier if you look at it in the form of a true/false statement.

"You are still killing people."
The above statement is false. Regardless of any implications it may make, it is, in and of itself, false.

Reforming it as an interrogative does not change its state.
Yes but this isn't an unlikely inference, actually it is a very valid one. If someone is not still killing then his actions didn't remain still and same and he changed them therefore he killed before. I mean specially in a trial if the accuser tells you to answer with a yes or no and nothing else then you are guilty either way.
 
  • #17
madah12 said:
Yes but this isn't an unlikely inference, actually it is a very valid one. If someone is not still killing then his actions didn't remain still and same and he changed them therefore he killed before. I mean specially in a trial if the accuser tells you to answer with a yes or no and nothing else then you are guilty either way.

The proper response in a trial is for your lawyer to shout "Objection!" and the judge to reply "Sustained". The jury would just think the prosecutor is an idiot for asking a question like that

Furthermore:
If you say "I did not stop killing people" (the equivalent of answering no) we can parse it as:

"The following is false: I stopped killing people"

To stop killing people, you have to
1) Kill people
2) Then in the future no longer do that

And for the statement "I stopped killing people" to be false, either (1) or (2) could be false
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
No, the proper word is infer. As in: they make an assumption, form their own opinion.*


To imply, the accusor would have had to go on to say more. I was not my suggestion that they said any more.

* I choose to show you mercy, and not kill you for casting aspersions upon my grammatical prowess.


Jeez, but you are an irritating little creature. :-p
The context in which you used the word suggested otherwise. An accuser or witness might have inferred guilt on the part of the accused, but by verbalizing it they are implying it to the jury (or judge, or mother-in-law, or whoever).
 
  • #19
Danger said:
Jeez, but you are an irritating little creature. :-p
The context in which you used the word suggested otherwise. An accuser or witness might have inferred guilt on the part of the accused, but by verbalizing it they are implying it to the jury (or judge, or mother-in-law, or whoever).

OK, just to get this straight...Danger, are you implying that Dave is irritating? :devil:
 
  • #20
lisab said:
OK, just to get this straight...Danger, are you implying that Dave is irritating? :devil:

:smile:

I'd put it down as an accusation rather than an implication.
Let's wait for Monique to show up and settle it. She's the bloody language guru around here.
 
  • #21
lisab said:
OK, just to get this straight...Danger, are you implying that Dave is irritating? :devil:

Why, did you infer that from what he said?
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
Why, did you infer that from what he said?

Can you just imagine what this would escalate into on a less civilized forum? :biggrin:
Or if we weren't both Canuks? :eek: :biggrin:
 
  • #23
Danger said:
Can you just imagine what this would escalate into on a less civilized forum? :biggrin:
Or if we weren't both Canuks? :eek: :biggrin:

Either way, you'd prob'ly end up shooting me with your gun. :-p
 
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
Either way, you'd prob'ly end up shooting me with your gun. :-p

:smile:

I'm not getting into that dispute again. Maybe if I'm fortunate enough to meet you in person, we can continue the discussion. Leave it suffice to be said that the first thing that I learned was how to not shoot despite temptation.Besides, I don't own an elephant gun... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Danger said:
... despite temptation.

You are not the first, and probably not the last, to have to resist temptation around me. :smile:
 
  • #26
DaveC426913 said:
You are not the first, and probably not the last, to have to resist temptation around me. :smile:

You're a worthy opponent.
My father was an agnostic preacher (Master's degree in Religious Studies from the St. Peter's College division of McGill University in 1927) and ended up with two best friends who were fellow preachers. One was a neighbour, and his United Church was almost next door to ours. (I say "ours" because we lived in the church; I played Black Sabbath albums in the living room while he was preaching.) They were so similar that they "traded" congregations in summer. My old man would take his two-week vacation and his flock would attend John's church while he was gone. Then John would bugger off and his crew crashed my pad. (My dad's was Unitarian/Universalist, which I believe is Astro's inclination.)
Anyhow, his other best friend was an Anglican priest. They fought like cats and dogs for the first 12 years that we lived there. Then the old bugger developed some sort of terminal cancer. Of course, my father visited him for at least a couple of hours every day in the hospital. In reference to their relationship, the last thing that the priest said was to my father. It was, and I say it to you now, "I'd rather argue with an intelligent man than have a fool agree with me."
Here's to many future prolonged arguments. :biggrin: (I'm swilling a beer before hitting "Submit Reply".)
 
  • #27
madah12 said:
"Did you stop killing people"?


The only appropriate answer in English is a counter-attack of the same type:

-Did you stop eating babies?


I use this tactics many times.
 
  • #28
GeorgCantor said:
The only appropriate answer in English is a counter-attack of the same type:

-Did you stop eating babies?


I use this tactics many times.

:smile:

Love it!
 
Back
Top