Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

Some of us are more unique than others.....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Hmmmm - despite logic, phrases such as "very pregnant" and "spectacularly pregnant" DO make sense and are very, and often amusingly, descriptive!

Yep, and interestingly one of my favorite old grammar books (I don't remember the title) attacks the "rule" against modifying words like "pregnant" saying that a 9 month twin pregnancy lends meaning to "more pregnant".

There are very few words that do not take modifiers well.

That's not 'despite logic' that is an inclusion of overarching logic.

For e.g. there is a simple binary difference between probable and improbable. But in addition to that there are degrees. Anything over 50 is probable, anything under 50 is improbable. But there are degrees of probability beyond that.

1 Reply

how rigid is that?

0 Replies

Hmmm - that is an interesting point about overarching logic...

0 Replies

It's a point I try to make very frequently on these boards. Finding a logical nugget is worthless if there are overarching factors that negate it.

Lots of simplification runs the risk of failing to consider all and making a nugget that's only logical as a subset.

That's also why you hear me talking about lateral thinking a lot. I usually mean making sure all bases are covered and through exploring not only probability but the entire realm of possibility you can be better assured that your nugget isn't a logically flawed subset.

0 Replies

Or fool's gold, eh?

0 Replies

Elizabethan English had no cavil with double negatives used to amplify, rather than neutralise - or with phrases like "more holier", and all sorts of expressive oddities...

0 Replies

I am said to be the blackest sheep of the black sheeps in our family, btw - although everyone says that I'm rather red Confused

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Elizabethan English had no cavil with double negatives used to amplify, rather than neutralise.

Neither does modern English (as long as they don't neutralize).

0 Replies

Misread, perhaps?

0 Replies

Huh?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

For e.g. there is a simple binary difference between probable and improbable. But in addition to that there are degrees. Anything over 50 is probable, anything under 50 is improbable. But there are degrees of probability beyond that.

Actually, there isn't.

Once a thing is probable -- it is probable.

It may or may not be more or less likely -- but once a thing is probable -- it simply is probable -- which means, as Craven correctly pointed out -- that the likelyhood that it will happen is more than 50%.

If a thing has a likelihood of 51%, it is probable. If it has a likelihood of 99 %, it is probable. The former is less likely than the latter -- but it is not less probable.

Saying a thing is more probable is done -- as I said, I do it myself. But strictly speaking, it is incorrect.

But I can see that attempting to make that point with Craven is improbable.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
For e.g. there is a simple binary difference between probable and improbable. But in addition to that there are degrees. Anything over 50 is probable, anything under 50 is improbable. But there are degrees of probability beyond that.

Actually, there isn't.

Yes, there are degrees of probability. But now you are in math, and your errors can be disproven instead of just argued over.

Quote:

Once a thing is probable -- it is probable.

It may or may not be more or less likely -- but once a thing is probable -- it simply is probable -- which means, as Craven correctly pointed out -- that the likelyhood that it will happen is more than 50%.

If a thing has a likelihood of 51%, it is probable. If it has a likelihood of 99 %, it is probable. The former is less likely than the latter -- but it is not less probable.

I will explain it again.

You are correc that there is a simple line between probable and improbable.

You are incorrect to assert that degrees of probability don't exist.

M-W wrote:

probability
1 : the quality or state of being probable
2 : something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4 : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree

Your comments herein relate exclusively to definition number one. Whether it is or is not probable.

Your arguments ignore the other definitions such as definition number 3.

Now you are simply contradicting demonstratable mathematics.

Quote:

Saying a thing is more probable is done -- as I said, I do it myself. But strictly speaking, it is incorrect.

Ok, how's this, please source this "strict" rule. Please find one respectable authority that has this rule on the books.

That would not settle the argument but it will at least let us know if we are just listening to Frank "strictly speaking".

Quote:

But I can see that attempting to make that point with Craven is improbable.

Making a fallacious point is improbable so it should not be any consolation.

Please source your "rule". If you can't source it and it is merely Frank "strictly speaking" then we'll have to agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Okay, we can agree to disagree.

But any chance I can get to to agree on the obvious: That you are wrong?

0 Replies

Frank, it may be obvious to you. But consider the possibility that it is uniquely so.

BTW, are you telling me that you made up this "rule"?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank, it may be obvious to you. But consider the possibility that it is uniquely so.

BTW, are you telling me that you made up this "rule"?

Setanta agrees with your position.

If that doesn't convince you that you're wrong -- it makes no sense to keep explaining.

But ..I never ever give up.

A thing can be more or less likely -- but as to the standard of "probable" -- it either is probable or it is not.

To say a thing is more or less likely makes sense. To misuse the word probable...as in "it is more probable" or "less probable," really doesn't -- even though I acknowledge almost every speaker of English does it.

Discussing those kinds of inconsistencies is the essence of this thread.

Hell, the founding fathers decided they could use "more perfect."

They were wrong in what they said.

You are wrong in what you are saying.

Get it or don't get it. Your choice and your loss if you choose inappropriately.

0 Replies

I'm going to ask this question again:

Craven de Kere wrote:

BTW, are you telling me that you made up this "rule"?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Setanta agrees with your position.

If that doesn't convince you that you're wrong -- it makes no sense to keep explaining.

What doesn't make sense is the logic of trying to assert what's right by who agrees on it. That is an argument predicated on several logical fallacies (to name just one, "guilt by asssociation").

But since it was a meaningless insult to Setanta I would rather ask you why you need to insult people when they disagree with you than argue its merits.

Quote:

But ..I never ever give up.

Not even when you are wrong?

Quote:

A thing can be more or less likely -- but as to the standard of "probable" -- it either is probable or it is not.

You are just repeating yourself. And I'd like to know if you have a source for this claim.

Quote:

To say a thing is more or less likely makes sense. To misuse the word probable...as in "it is more probable" or "less probable," really doesn't -- even though I acknowledge almost every speaker of English does it.

There are degrees of probability. It makes perfect sense to delienate between them and not restrict oneself to the arbitrary under/over 50 rule you would establish.

Quote:

Discussing those kinds of inconsistencies is the essence of this thread.

What "inconsistency"? You have illustrated none.

Quote:

Hell, the founding fathers decided they could use "more perfect."

They were wrong in what they said.

"Perfect" is a good example of a word that should not be modified (with rare exception).

That makes it an attractive comparison for you but does nothing to validate the comparison at all.

And this is why I keep asking you if you have a source or if you just made this rule up.

See, if you just up and decided that "strictly speaking" there is a rule against modifying "probable" then this is the equivalent of a discussion with someone who has arbitrarily decided that they are right.

But if you ahve a source, I would like to hear it.

Either way, there is no logical inconsistency to modify "probable" so the rule will ahve to be a grammar rule, and specifically one of collocation.

So can you source this "rule" you propose?

Quote:

You are wrong in what you are saying.

Get it or don't get it. Your choice and your loss if you choose inappropriately.

Now Frank, it's not a choice of "getting" it or not. I "get" what you are saying very well. And I find it absurd and laughable.

All you have done is repeat yourself. You can't make a logical case for the exclusion of modifiers and you are thus far unwilling to provide a source.

As it stands you are in the same position as someone who arbitrarily invents a grammar rule and says everyone else is "obviously wrong".

So please cut to the chase:

Do you have a source for this "rule"?

If not, did you make this rule up?

0 Replies

Incidentally, if you would like me to source my refutation of your "rule" I can do so.

0 Replies

Ahhh...yer WRONG, Craven.

But you are wrong so often, I guess you must be immune by now.

0 Replies

Frank, you sre still just repeating yourself, declaring yourself right and myself wrong and tossing in the usual insults. But if you find the time, please source your "rule" and clarify whether or not you made it up.

I have offered to source my refutation of the rule you propose. If you are finished with the insults and repeating "I'm right, you are wrong" ad nauseum would you like to explore what the academic world has to say about this?

0 Replies

Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know