Comment by galaxyLogic
2 years ago
It's interesting, it somehow means you are agreeing with them if they don't have it, so they don't have to feel so bad about not having it.
2 years ago
It's interesting, it somehow means you are agreeing with them if they don't have it, so they don't have to feel so bad about not having it.
I'm from Appalachia and we have the same thing, and yeah at least for us it's like you're agreeing with them that they don't have it.
"Do you not have bananas?" is like "is it true that there are no bananas?". Then if there are bananas, the host can gleefully surprise you with them and feel like they solved a problem for you. This is only if it's said in a constantly upwardly-shifting tone, though.
It can be said another way, same words different tone, which sounds more like "how perplexing, there's no bananas, let me just make sure I didn't miss them because I thought they should be here". The host usually backs their answer up with an explanation of why there are no bananas.
A third form exists where it does sound accusatory. Like "you should have bananas you piece of crap". Usually said in a huffy puffy I-dont-have-time-for-this tone.
I read somewhere that a good negotiating strategy is to start with something that both can agree to.
Speaking of negotiating, the book Never Split The Difference by Chris Voss who was an FBI hostage negotiator is an incredible book that showed me how compromising may not always be in one's best interest (because, given his experience, you can't compromise on only having X hostages be killed).
Interesting. Maybe more like a "You don't have x, right?" than a "do you not have x?"