Settling an arguement

Martin   Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:51 pm GMT
Hi, i'm a native english speaker from Australia and i have a question in relation to the following sentences. The topic of conversation was in regards to Blackjack dealers stealing money from the casino, and then claiming the reason they were doing so was because they felt guilty about players always losing.

"But the casino does take advantage of them, though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that."
"No. These dealers stole because it's so tempting."

Is the use of the word "No" acceptable in this situation or should the second person have used the word "Yes" instead. Essentially the second person is agreeing with the first persons statement, but at the same time they are argueing that the initial dealers statement was untrue. I would really appreciate some others opinions on this to help settle an argument.
Ant_222   Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:20 pm GMT
«No» means that the second person thinks the dealers were cheating NOT due to the sentiment of pity toward losers. Thus, it is ok.

Warning: I am not a native speaker, as you have probably mentioned from the above...
Gjones2   Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:38 am GMT
>"But the casino does take advantage of them, though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that."
"No [, these men weren't cheating because of that]. These dealers stole because it's so tempting."

I agree with Ant_222 that the use of 'No' there is acceptable. The way I determine that -- besides on the basis of the feeling that I have as I hear it -- is to separate the clauses and simplify the response.

Examples:
- I doubt that these men were cheating because of that.
- No, they weren't [cheating because of that].

'Yes' wouldn't fit with 'they weren't'. But:

- The casino does take advantage of them.
- Yes, it does [take advantage of them].

The sentence that elicited the response has two clauses, and persons who respond to it could choose to focus on either one. 'No' would seem the acceptable form to go with the second one.
Martin   Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:45 am GMT
Thanks, i really appreciate you're input. I'm not an expert on grammar, but does this have any relevance to "subjects and predicates" ? what is the subject in this sentence?

"But the casino does take advantage of them, though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that."
Ant_222   Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:02 pm GMT
The predicate is an extension of the statement.

«Acya is a cat» — this is a statement. It may be true or false.
«X is a cat» — this a predicate. X is an object variable. By substituting X by say "Acya" or "Ant_222" we'll turn the predicate into a statement with subjects "Acya" and "Ant_222" respectively.

«But the casino does take advantage of them, though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that.»

This is a composite sentence, since it has three Subject-Predicate pairs. "Casino", "I", "[these] men" are the subjects in this sentence.
Gjones2   Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:48 am GMT
>...does this have any relevance to "subjects and predicates" ? what is the subject in this sentence? [Martin]

A response doesn't have to deal with the grammatical subject of the preceding sentence. In this case it doesn't (not according to the method that I use for analyzing sentences). I'd say that 'casino' is the subject of the main clause, so I'd call it the subject of the sentence.

"But the casino does take advantage of them, though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that."

"But the casino does take advantage of them"
Main clause (subject 'casino')

"though I doubt that these men were cheating because of that"
Subordinate clause (subject 'I')

Within that subordinate clause:
"that these men were cheating because of that"
Noun clause acting as a direct object (it answers the question, "I doubt what?") Subject of the noun clause -- 'men'

[I've used traditional terminology. I don't bother to keep up with the grammatical terms that linguists are currently using.]
Martin   Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:30 pm GMT
Thank you both for your help.