26 Jan 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyInteresting. Language meaning is largely determined by cultural usage. Wondering how positive (yes) got itself replaced with negative (no).
Why is "No problem" "dumbed down"? It's identical in spirit to, but even more precise than, the French "de rien" and Spanish "de nada", which are hardly neologisms, or impolite.
Why is "[Doing whatever favour is getting me thanked is] no problem [for me]" any less polite or sensible than "You're welcome [to whatever favour is getting me thanked]"? ...[text shortened]... before throwing stones wrt the "dumbing down" thing.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyBecause it is another example of the change of focus in America (I say America because this is where it is most pronounced) from you, or other people, inwardly to the Almighty Me.
Why is "No problem" "dumbed down"? It's identical in spirit to, but even more precise than, the French "de rien" and Spanish "de nada", which are hardly neologisms, or impolite.
Why is "[Doing whatever favour is getting me thanked is] no problem [for me]" any less polite or sensible than "You're welcome [to whatever favour is getting me thanked]"? before throwing stones wrt the "dumbing down" thing.
"You're welcome" is a good answer to "Thank you" because both participants have their focus on You. The focus is outward, not inward. "No problem [for me]" shifts this focus inward to Me. Socially speaking, society benefits most from an outward focus, instead of the egotistical inward focus.
This is similar to the mental midgets you hear everywhere who insist on saying (for example) "Me and my wife went to the mall." This is another example of the prevailing inward focus which insists on focusing on the Almighty Me. The proper way to say this is "My wife and I went to the mall." but to the ME generation, this is unacceptable, because of the outward focus. That's why "Me and my wife went to the mall." is becoming the standard form nowadays. Sad, but true.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyThe phrase does seem flippant to me, but that may be an age-related matter. I see it as too much of a slang phrase to be use beyond family and friends and not in the business/commerce world. I don't think de nada/por nada is the equivalent of "no problem". When I say use either of those two phrases in response to "thank you", I include a slight bow of the head to complete what I see as a polite ritual: "for nothing, sir".
Why is "No problem" "dumbed down"?
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by MontyMooseIt looks like I assumed an equivalence between the Spanish and French phrases that doesn't exist (at least anymore) -- I was wrong about this (GB take note!).
The phrase does seem flippant to me, but that may be an age-related matter. I see it as too much of a slang phrase to be use beyond family and friends and not in the business/commerce world. I don't think de nada/por nada is the equivalent of "no problem". When I say use either of those two phrases in response to "thank you", I include a slight bow of the head to complete what I see as a polite ritual: "for nothing, sir".
What bothers me about seeing the choice of a particular phrase as "flippant" is the fact that flippancy should be judged at the level of individual interactions. It's not really fair to tar everyone who has developed a particular linguistic habit with the same brush. The other side of this coin is that over-reliance on a particular set of manners allows people to make an undeserved good impression -- to "smile and smile and be a villain".
27 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneThe second example ("me and my wife" ) is different from the "no problem"/"you're welcome" issue, because it's an actual grammatical error, and I think that the interpretation you've given it is hard to justify. For example, another interpretation of the phenomenon is: "The fact that people make the error of using the object pronoun "me" instead of the subject pronoun "I" indicates a growing passivity in our society." This interpretation is equally indefensible, but it was just as easy to make. There's not even any reason, in the absence of other evidence, why the presence of a common grammatical error needs a complicated psychosocial error.
Because it is another example of the change of focus in America (I say America because this is where it is most pronounced) from you, or other people, inwardly to the Almighty Me.
"You're welcome" is a good answer to "Thank you" because both participants have their focus on You. The focus is outward, not inward. "No problem [for me]" shifts this focus i my wife went to the mall." is becoming the standard form nowadays. Sad, but true.
I hadn't thought of the inward/outward direction of "no problem"/"you're welcome". For some reason, your theory seems a little more plausible in this case, but:
1. I'm not sure I buy the "change of focus" you're mentioning. How is this measured?
2. Even if your explanation is true, phrases like "you're welcome" and "no problem" are said automatically and are chosen according to the speaker's linguistic habits, not their literal meaning. Should a particular user of "no problem" be labelled "egotistical" or merely recognised as a person product of xyr linguistic environment, whose intentions politeness-wise, should be judged within the particular context?
3. We can also play a game of varying the intended literal meaning of these meaningfully meaningless phrases. If someone says, in response to being thanked, "Don't feel you are indebted, as people tend to do while giving thanks, it was no problem for me", is xe being egotistical? In other words, I question that these two phrases can easily be separated into "inward" and "outward". It's more likely that they both serve as markers for a whole range of thoughts about gratitude, debt, forgiveness of debt, acceptance of gratitude, exchanges, the parties involved being officially square with each other, etc.
