Is this really an encyclopedia article? And if you ''can'' justify an article about something so trivial and context-dependent, how can you possibly omit any mention of Jamaica, which would seem central to the phrase? --LDC
:ok, Jamaican and Nigeria get equal billing - and what's interesting about this phrase is the way it seems to be, like "okay" in some contexts, or the infamous Japanese "yes" (which means "yes i hear you" not "yes I agree"), and has reversed meanings seemingly due to the pressures of colonial etiquette (although I did not say that directly). Linguists talk about this but I'm not sure they *write* about it - it's like they don't want to admit that phrases may carry *only* contextual meaning, as that would obsolete their own field.
----
The fact that you associate it with Jamaica and I associate it with Nigeria is interesting in itself.
Look, there are maybe 100 such phrases in the world, and people *do* ask "what the hell does that mean?" about these things all the time, especially if they don't speak English as a first language. It's an idiom.
Even if we defined all 4000 English idioms here, that wouldn't be too much for any encyclopedia. 4000 out of 100,000 is only 4% of the grand total but they are probably 15% of English usage itself. Dictionaries can't cover them so encyclopedias should.
----
Dictionaries can and do cover such idioms, and many do a very good job. Some of them can't keep up with the pace of creation of new ones very well, though. Larry was very adamant that [[wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], but I'm quite happy to include dictionary entries here--just make sure they actually say something useful. -- [[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]]
----
I think citing two extreme meanings is useful. I personally know people who have heard the phrase "no problem" to mean both things, in Canada and Nigeria, respectively.
The problem is that dictionaries must report the original/official meaning of a phrase, i.e. "no problem" means "I'll take care of it" or "there's nothing to worry about". It's possible to cite the extreme meanings in different numbered entries but there is no sense that the phrase couuld mean anything in between...
So, maybe this is the minimal encyclopedia article? Two dictionary meanings and an assertion that the phrase is used to mean everything from one to the other, thus effectively meaning nothing other than "I'm not going to give you any other assurances"... ?
----
:Here's the old text, in the hopes that someone can extract more content from it. (I didn't want to delete it entirely, so I put it here.) If someone has a cite of "no problem" being used in some of the other senses mentioned here, please add that to the entry. - Rootbeer 2002-04-04
::I rewrote the whole thing, and subordinated the controversial phrase "viral meme" which LDC seems to think does not exist, despite the fact that the original term "meme" he wants to monopolize for Dawkins' original (unscientific) meaning.
The phrase "no problem" is a viral meme which seems to mean everything from "really, no problem, I've taken care of it and will completely indemnify and insure you for all risks of trusting me and against every conceivable threat to the maximum of my own ability" to "I have just sold you and your firstborn into slavery, to this nice man." It has no real meaning outside of the context in which it is used, and is thus interesting.
A phrase or idiom dictionary translation of "no problem" might read "I'll take care of it" or "there's nothing to worry about". However, it effectively means nothing other than "I'm not going to give you any other assurances" - and thus ends a conversation about whatever risk is about to be incurred. Some think it means roughly the same thing as "shut up".
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
