48 replies to this topic

[Kaelin]

WardenWolf, on 02 July 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

For those more accustomed to traditional English, these phrases are similar to putting "Is that understood?" at the end of a sentence or paragraph.

not exactly.
this is a linguistic quirk from a strict, disciplined and hierarchical society.
quiaff and quineg were used when a superior addressed a subordinate specifically to instruct the subordinate that they were or were not to speak.
speaking out of turn to your superior is insubordination.
insubordination will not be tolerated.

[Okami Ryu]

unfortunately you are wrong about point 3 as they both are used in the novels this way

you would use quiaff as a question in which you expect the answer to be aff

[dezgra]

CanAm, on 02 July 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Who was "ownt"? They were referring to people that claim to be super-Clanlike that still use contractions constantly.



You know what I mean!



Any respectable freeborn that aspires to be more than stravag filth would watch their contractions, too.

I like your style.

[CanAm]

Okami Ryu, on 02 July 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

unfortunately you are wrong about point 3 as they both are used in the novels this way

you would use quiaff as a question in which you expect the answer to be aff

I think you only read four points I made, as I covered what a rhetorical question is entirely. You are removing the context of when it was used in the books as overly affirmative. The context in which it is used is covered in point four.

[Dax Frey]

The Neckbeards are fighting with the Mouth Breathers....quick! someone record this!

[Kolhammer]

Awesome dude, i was always unsure of the quiaff, quinneg

[Kenyon Burguess]

clans = grammer nazi's in space

[Jaroth Corbett]

CanAm, on 02 July 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

I have seen the words quiaff and quineg being thrown around a lot, and it is often used completely incorrectly.

Quiaff means Query Affirmative. Quineg means Query Negative.

Quiaff and quineg are rhetorical modifiers that sit at the end of a statement, in order to make it a rhetorical question. You can NOT use quiaff and quineg to respond to someone. The answer to a statement is aff or neg. The answer to a quiaff or quineg proposition is still aff or neg.

To put it simply, quiaff and quineg are used as a sort of "He is bad, yes?" or "He is bad, am I right?". Translated into Clanspeak, this is worded, "He is bad, quiaff?". The answer (if he is, in fact, bad) is simply, "aff".

Let us review-

1) Only use quiaff and quineg only to turn a statement (most likely one of opinion) into a rhetorical question (a question you already know the answer to). This means they are only used at the end of a sentence!

2) You may not respond with "quiaff" or "quineg". The response to a question is always "aff" or "neg".

3) Avoid using quiaff and quineg for something that is blatantly obvious or a universally accepted opinion or fact. Quiaff and quineg should NOT be used if everyone is going to agree- If I were to say in the Clan Jade Falcon chatterweb "We Jade Falcons are the mightiest of all Clans, quiaff?", this would be an incorrect use.

4) Quiaff and quineg are used to imply disdain, uncertainty, a non-normative opinion, a rallying bolster to morale, or lack of respect. As such, they are often used by higher ranking officials to assert rank and superiority over their lower ranked staff. Conversely, they are used by lower ranking staff as a light insubordination towards their superiors.

tl;dr- Stop using quiaff and quineg so much. Many of you are using it incorrectly.

Your intentions are good but seriously, quiaff & quineg are used when the speaker believes the answer will be in the positive or the negative.

So to use your Jade Falcon example, it would be totally appropriate.

It can be used to enforce a point or garner support:

Quote

"Perhaps, Star Commander Jorge, you misunderstood the question?" Bast stood up. "You are a freeborn, after all. I forget that things must be spelled out. What I said, honored warrior, was that the Clan eugenics program produced superior warriors. Which, of course, means that it produces superior beings. Therefore, we praise the eugenics program here, quiaff?"



Aidan knew what he must respond, and he did not know why he could not say it. Why did a simple "aff" lodge in his throat? Why could he not say it? Beside him, he could sense Horse bristling.

Bast leaned toward Aidan, the stink of his alcohol-saturated breath rushing forward as he spoke. "We praise the eugenics program here, quiaff? QUIAFF, you rotten freebirth!"

Bloodname - Pg.11

Quote

"They could not have advance information, as you say, Star Commander. It is obvious that the Jade Falcons do not value Kael Pershaw's genetic legacy. They have given him a backwater command on a planet the Clan does not value highly. His Cluster's equipment is obsoleste and his command is full of freebirths. Clan Jade Falcon would never even imagine that Clan Wolf desires the spawn of Kael Pershaw for mixture with one of our own, quiaff?"

Quote

Radick glanced up at Ward. "That should put Kael Pershaw at a severe disadvantage. One lost DropShip containing a full Trinary of the forces he bid. We have a marvelous advantage with just one brilliant maneuver, quiaff?"

Quote

"Star Commander Jorge, you wear the dark band, quiaff?"

(If you read Bloodname, Aidan clearly had the band on & it was no small accessory, so this was blatantly obvious.)

Quote

"And you are Jade Falcon warriors, who can fight any attacker with whatever firepower you have, quiaff?"

Bloodname - various pages

I can give you many more example if you wish. If you are doing this for educational purposes, do it correctly.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[Hagetaka]

/is the Clans

/get uppity defending the purity of the English language from the evil of contractions, which have been used for 1500 years

/coins silly portmanteaus like quiaff and quineg, abbreviations/bastardizations like dezgra, sibko, and batchall, or just plain dumb contractions like powless

/has no equivalent term for "cognitive dissonance"

[CanAm]

Dax Frey, on 02 July 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

The Neckbeards are fighting with the Mouth Breathers....quick! someone record this!

I am neither, just a linguistics student

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Your intentions are good but seriously, quiaff & quineg are used when the speaker believes the answer will be in the positive or the negative.

So to use your Jade Falcon example, it would be totally appropriate.

It can be used to enforce a point or garner support:


Bloodname - Pg.11







(If you read Bloodname, Aidan clearly had the band on & it was no small accessory, so this was blatantly obvious.)



Bloodname - various pages

I can give you many more example if you wish. If you are doing this for educational purposes, do it correctly.

I wrote all of this with most of those quotes in mind, even. Once again, you are stripping the phrasing of context, and failing to apply my fourth point.

If you read-

CanAm, on 02 July 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

4) Quiaff and quineg are used to imply disdain, uncertainty, a non-normative opinion, a rallying bolster to morale, or lack of respect. As such, they are often used by higher ranking officials to assert rank and superiority over their lower ranked staff. Conversely, they are used by lower ranking staff as a light insubordination towards their superiors..

I have covered literally every quote you made.

If you are doing this in an attempt to "correct" me, please make sure you read the actual post.

Hagetaka, on 02 July 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

/is the Clans

/get uppity defending the purity of the English language from the evil of contractions, which have been used for 1500 years

/coins silly portmanteaus like quiaff and quineg, abbreviations/bastardizations like dezgra, sibko, and batchall, or just plain dumb contractions like powless

/has no equivalent term for "cognitive dissonance"

Cognitive dissonance is a complex abstraction.

Linguistically, it only makes sense for an isolated group of traditionalists to have linguistic perversions in their vernacular.

Edited by CanAm, 02 July 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

CanAm, on 02 July 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

I wrote all of this with most of those quotes in mind, even. Once again, you are stripping the phrasing of context, and failing to apply my fourth point.

If you read-



I have covered literally every quote you made.

If you are doing this in an attempt to "correct" me, please make sure you read the actual post.

Quote

3) Avoid using quiaff and quineg for something that is blatantly obvious or a universally accepted opinion or fact. Quiaff and quineg should NOT be used if everyone is going to agree

I read it, hence the reply. There are many other quotes that can be used mainly those between Kael Pershaw & Dwilt Radick which does not apply to your superior/inferior officer point.

e.g.

Quote

"We are bored with your idle boasts, Dwillt Radick. If you wish to fight, fight. Combat instead of bombast, quiaff?"

I gave you a few examples to give you a general idea. If you request, I can give you many more. The power & context of the use of quiaff & quineg resides solely with the speaker.

It appears I am not the only who noticed your faux pas.

Okami Ryu, on 02 July 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

unfortunately you are wrong about point 3 as they both are used in the novels this way

you would use quiaff as a question in which you expect the answer to be aff

As I said before do it correctly.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[CanAm]

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I read it, hence the reply. There are many other quotes that can be used mainly those between Kael Pershaw & Dwilt Radick which does not apply to your superior/inferior officer point. I gave you a few examples to give you a general idea. If you request, I can give you many more. The power & context of the use of quiaff & quineg resides solely with the speaker. As I said before do it correctly.

Where did I say that the use of quiaff/quineg does not reside with the speaker? I implied it heavily multiple times, and explicitly stated it is a rhetorical modifier for a statement seeking an affirmation.

If you will notice, I said "avoid", not "never". You are assuming my usage guidelines (which are, in fact, in accord with the books) are absolutes. If someone does not know what a rhetorical question is, that is a failing of their elementary school, not mine.


No one likes a pedant.


EDIT: For the whole "officer/inferior" statement. It is not hard to see this extends to anyone in a position of power versus someone not in power. Once again, you are thinking in absolutes.

Edited by CanAm, 02 July 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Clearly it was not which is why the other guy noticed it.

Dwilt Radick & Kael Pershaw at the time of the quote I used were both in power. They were leaders of warriors engaged in battle. Neither side had a clear advantage at that time.

I am thinking about the novels & how they were used there, by the people who made the universe, whose thoughts & opinions, trumps yours. So again do it correctly. Nobody like a person that makes a mistake, is told about the mistake then plods on wrong & strong. I have the novels to back me up sir & I am not the one only noticing your errors. Deal with it.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[CanAm]

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Clearly it was not which is why the other guy noticed it.

Dwilt Radick & Kael Pershaw at the time of the quote I used were both in power. They were leaders of warriors engaged in battle. Neither side had a clear advantage at that time.

I am thinking about the novels & how they were used there, by the people who made the universe, whose thoughts & opinions, trumps yours. So again do it correctly. Nobody like a person that makes a mistake, is told about the mistake then plods on wrong & strong. I have the novels to back me up sir & I am not the one only noticing your errors. Deal with it.

Or perhaps it is possible for multiple semantic classifications to exist within one lexical definition?

Once again, my guidelines are in accord with how it is used in the books. You are still dealing in absolutes.


"We are bored with your idle boasts, Dwillt Radick. If you wish to fight, fight. Combat instead of bombast, quiaff?" - Disdain (as covered by my fourth point)

The only other "dissenter" of whom you are agreeing with did nothing but restate exactly what I had said in not-so-eloquent wording.

It is you, my friend, who plods on wrong and strong.

Semantics is a losing game for everyone. Sadly, refusing to argue my point with you would only be seen on your behalf as me conceding to your mistaken point.

EDIT: And yet, out of nearly 300 topic views, many thanks, and many likes of my posts, it is only you and one other that that have disagreed with my point. The other guy restated what I had said, you simply failed to grasp it. I applaud you in structuring your argument and your willingness to voice your opinion. An empty can rattles the loudest, quiaff?

Edited by CanAm, 02 July 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

You call it semantics, I call it paying attention to details. Plod on.

Is the can empty when the source backs it? Quineg?

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[CanAm]

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

You call it semantics, I call it paying attention to details. Plod on.

Is the can empty when the source backs it? Quineg?

Why attempt to argue your point when you cannot use the term correctly yourself? You posited an interrogative followed by a rhetorical modifier. As stated in the OP (and in a couple of the books), quiaff and quineg are used to turn a statement into a rhetorical question. A question by itself is not a statement.


I will grant you argumentative hegira, that you may cede this argument with no shame or dishonor. You have argued well, and I will see to it that your efforts are recorded in the Clan Subforum Remembrance.

[Jaroth Corbett]

What nonsense are you speaking about? I used the term correctly. Your OP is flawed as mentioned before. You want to speak about books?



Do you see that? That is from The Clans - Warriors of Kerensky which says the same thing I said. The terms are used when the speaker expects a positive or negative reply. It has not always meant to be rhetorical. Someone who may have read old intelligence reports may ask a question about something that he expects a certain reply to & may get the opposite reply from someone with fresh intel. Now who is dealing in absolutes? Are you going to argue with the source material that is in your face?

The only one that needs hegira is you. You embarrass yourself when you get uppity when someone simply says, "Hey you made a mistake here." and you are WRONG. As I said, I have the source material to back me up. You have argued poorly.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Endless Ike]

All Clanners must hang

[CanAm]

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

What nonsense are you speaking about? I used the term correctly. Your OP is flawed as mentioned before. You want to speak about books?



Do you see that? That is from The Clans - Warriors of Kerensky which says the same thing I said. The terms are used when the speaker expects a positive or negative reply. It has not always meant to be rhetorical. Someone who may have read old intelligence reports may ask a question about something that he expects a certain reply to & may get the opposite reply from someone with fresh intel. Now who is dealing in absolutes? Are you going to argue with the source material that is in your face?

The only one that needs hegira is you. You embarrass yourself when you get uppity when someone simply says, "Hey you made a mistake here." and you are WRONG. As I said, I have the source material to back me up. You have argued poorly.

And yet it says right in the very definition that they are associated with rhetorical questions. A linguistic association is causal and not correlative, meaning in this case, that if you see quiaff, it is a rhetorical question.

You are arguing my point for me.

Let me make this simple- As I clearly stated, a rhetorical question is one you already know the answer to. This means you are expecting the answer to be yes or no as you already know the answer you are looking for.

And here's the kicker, you entirely agree-

Jaroth Winson, on 02 July 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

The terms are used when the speaker expects a positive or negative reply.

Rhetorical question as defined by Brigham-Young University-

Quote

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks.

Edit: To clear some things up, I study and dissect languages for a living. Included in this are conlangs (constructed languages- man-made languages, and do not start on the whole "but aren't all languages man made" pseudo-philosophical tangent). This argument is entirely analogous with me telling a nuclear physicist they are wrong about X or Y things about fusion reactors because I read about fusion reactors in a Battletech book. Battletech is just the venue, the linguistic principle remains either way.

Edited by CanAm, 02 July 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Clearly you are mentally ill. You are the same one that said:

Quote

3) Avoid using quiaff and quineg for something that is blatantly obvious or a universally accepted opinion or fact. Quiaff and quineg should NOT be used if everyone is going to agree

That was you. Me & other guy pointed out your mistake, because that is how it was used in the books now you are arguing FOR it? Enjoy your stay at the asylum.

P.S. For the record, it does not say only associated.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 02 July 2012 - 06:54 PM.