Affirmatives
Most Indo-European languages use a word that originally meant "so" or "thus" to say yes. Germanic and Latin are both examples of that. In the Romance languages it's clear that there wasn't a single word that was used, and different words are found in different languages (French oui < hoc ille, Occitan òc < hoc, Spanish/Italian si < sic). But in the Slavic languages there is variety too: many use da but Polish and Ukrainian use tak and Czech and Slovak also have their own words. The Celtic languages don't have a single word at all, but repeat the question. So it seems to me that Indo-Europeans didn't have a single way to say "yes", but used a wide variety of phrasings to get the meaning across.
Words for 'no' actually show more variety as well. ne didn't really mean "no" but just "not" and was presumably used as a shorthand, in the same way that we say "I'm not" rather than the full phrase "I'm not going to see my friend". Many languages have later come up with their own words to reinforce the negation, often giving phrases like "not at all" or "not a thing". French in particular has a wide variety of negation words, but the Germanic languages also have several alternatives. English not, Dutch niet and German nicht come from a phrase meaning "not a thing", while English no comes from a phrase meaning "not ever" and Dutch nee(n) was originally "not one" (cognate to English none). In Old Norse meanwhile, something similar to French happened. Extra words were added to normal negative phrases to strengthen the meaning, but those words then came to be treated as negations in their own right.
Ok, thanks for the insight. I know that not is equivalent to no + wight and that both Latin nōn and English none are equivalent to *ne- + *óynos, "not one". But what I'm still wondering is this: if you went back in time and asked a Proto-Indo-European a question, and he/she wanted to affirm, what would probably be the most common response? For example:
"H₂óweyes wĺ̥kʷons h₂ḱh₂owsyónti?"
Most likely response: "_________"
I really don't have an answer to that. I know that they could have said "ins h₂ḱh₂owsyónti" (they hear them) but that's only because that's all I can think of that would be sort-of-valid PIE. For all we know, they used a word that didn't survive in any of the descendants. That is not so surprising if you consider that Germanic *ne hasn't survived 2000 years into any modern Germanic language!
I'd have to agree with CodeCat here. In Latin (a fairly conservative IE language, so a good clue at least), we often say sic or ita (meaning "thus") or sometimes a construction like tali in modo ("in such a manner"), but the fallback is often the verb. The clearest way to answer a question like Timueruntne dictatorem? ("Were they afraid of the dictator?") is to respond with the verb, because the phrasing emphasises the verb by putting it first.
A wide variety of languages I've looked at, from Japanese to Swahili, have a habit of using "thus" or repeating the verb where English would say "yes", so I think it's actually more normal.
I can't speak much to dialectical use, but for mainstream Japanese, I would point out that I've never heard anyone use 応 as an affirmative response to a question; I'm not even sure which reading you intend? しかり (shikari) is much more classical of tone and wouldn't be used by modern speakers in normal contexts; meanwhile, はい (hai) and うん (un) certainly see use, but then so does そう (sō, “so, thus, like that”), as does simply repeating the verb, closely mirroring the trends in PIE-derived and other languages.
In my limited personal experience, はい can be used where English would say "sure" or "yessir", whereas そう is often better as a true affirmative, when all you're doing is agreeing with a statement. Is that right?
Yes, both はい (hai) and うん (un) are basically akin to English uh-huh (per Usage note bullet # 2), meaning something more like "yep, I hear you, I'm listening," than any real solid "I agree with you, yes in the affirmative." This is, I think, partly why you'll often hear はい and そう (sō) in combination as はい、そうです (hai, sō desu) when the speaker wants to be clear that 1) they're listening, and 2) they agree.
Thanks! (I know a Japanese guy who is the bane of his teachers' existences by grunting or saying うん after every phrase when they lecture. He evidently never caught on the respectfulness usually inherent in a Japanese upbringing.)
You're both right, that modern Japanese uses affirmative words for the purposes mentioned, but it is still the case that the words have affirmative meanings. Moreover, I'm interested in traditional meaning over innovated meaning; しかり was used in the past despite its modern disuse, and 応 (おう) is a Sino-Japanese borrowing, which may have never been directly used to affirm statements, but which nevertheless holds the meaning of affirmation which seems to be lacking in any form in Proto-Indo-European.
What source are you getting 応 (ō) from as an affirmative reply? The closest I can find is ōzu (Sinic ō + verbalizing suffix zu; evolving into ōzuru and thence modern ōjiru) as a verb meaning "to reply, to respond; to follow along in accordance with changes; to respond to events; to follow an order or request". The closest sense to "reply" is clearly the first, but that could just as easily be a negative reply. The closest sense to "affirmative yes" is the last, and that one doesn't necessarily have to do with speaking.
There *is* plain-old native Old Japanese おお (ō) that's used as a synonym for はい (hai), i.e. sometimes in a sense of "affirmative yes" and sometimes just as "I hear you, uh-huh". It's also used like "huh" when one just thought of something; or like "hey" when calling after or addressing someone; or like "oh!" as a surprise noise; or like "oh, oh, oooh" as rhythm sounds in poetry or song; or like "ooohhhh" as a groan.
応 is listed under "Synonyms" in the entry for はい. I'm a little skeptical of your etymology for 然り. Where did you get it?
Re: 応, such use of the kanji would likely have been ateji for native OJP-derived おお (ō). The only usage I can find of it is in the set phrases 否も応もない (ina mo ō mo nai) or 否でも応でも (ina de mo ō de mo), both essentially meaning "whether one disagrees or agrees", i.e. "to have no choice".
Re: 然り (shikari):
（副詞「しか」にラ変動詞「あり」の付いた「しかあり」の変化）
Shōgaku Tosho (1988) 国語大辞典（新装版） [Unabridged Dictionary of Japanese (Revised Edition)] (in Japanese), Tōkyō: Shogakukan, →ISBN
〔「しかあり」の転〕
Matsumura, Akira, editor (2006), 大辞林 (in Japanese), Third edition, Tōkyō: Sanseidō, →ISBN
《副詞「しか」にラ変動詞「あり」の付いた「しかあり」の音変化》
Matsumura, Akira (1995) 大辞泉 (in Japanese), First edition, Tōkyō: Shogakukan, →ISBN
Ok. I was under the impression that the original kanji 応 as borrowed carried a meaning of "agree", though.
Yeah, it's a bit fuzzy. Shogakukan's entry defs in JA say basically that it means primarily "reply, respond", but with a meaning of "agree" in there too for the set phase 否も応もない (ina mo ō mo nai); Daijirin's entry lists 承知 (shōchi, “know; understand; consent or agree to something; permit, allow”) as a synonym. It's also used in 呼応 (koō, “call, hail; agree with (as in grammatical agreement); in cooperation, in concert”).
Hearkening back to your initial question about affirmatives, I think Japanese はい (hai), うん, and おお (ō) come closest to meaning plain-old "yes", with the caveat that they also mean other things depending on the context. Then again, Shogakukan's pretty good about including the oldest quote for first usage, and I don't see the Kojiki or Man'yōshū listed (and I'm not familiar with most of the more-recent titles shown, but quick checks suggest they're from kabuki plays or other monogatari), so these might not be old enough to meet your criteria.
Does that help?
Yeah, I think I have a better understanding now. So, in terms of etymology, I would guess that うん and おお developed out of onomatopoeia. Do you have any more insight about the etymology of はい?
I don't have much. The Kokugo Dai Jiten quotes for early usage don't date any further back than the late 1700s, while Daijirin doesn't give usage quotes, just usexes; same for Daijisen. None gives any etym.
The etym in the JA WT entry at ja:はい suggests a borrowing either from Cantonese 係／系 (hai6, “yes; it is, there is”) or from Mandarin 拝 (bài, “to kowtow; to worship; to salute; to pay respect”). The Cantonese term could be viewed as similar to other languages' versions of "it is so," while the Mandarin term could be seen perhaps as "I acquiesce, I go along with what you say."
I'm intrigued by how late this borrowing might be, judging from the late date of quotes in the KDJ, and I wonder at how that might have happened -- perhaps something in the popular media helped spread the term? No real idea.
In Proto-Indo-European descendants lists, shouldn't the Baltic and Slavic branches be under one bullet?
> Could it have been *eh₃?
Clearly, evidence that PIE was based on the speech of time-travelling Canadians.