Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did it as an undergraduate when I had to take a statistics course as a math substitute; I did it again as an undergraduate when, as an economics major, I had to take economics statistics; and I did it in graduate school when I decided to take an MA in Psychology and had to take a psych statistics course..

You are a slow learner !!! Very Happy

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

Frank,

Are you unready for the subtle incremental changes in language that over time result in profound change? Perhaps a student writing, as you did incorrectly, would be deemed correct today? I don't approve of this license with language precisely because it leads to imprecision in communication but............

I understand what you are saying, Gozmo.

I am absolutely positive that no teacher or professor would make a fuss over using more probable or less probable -- not today; not back then. And I certainly would have no problem whatever with using more probable or less probable.

My point here was to discuss a subtlty of language associated with the "unique" issue raised by the thread.

Obviously it has gotten way beyond that -- and since I tend look for the silver lining in things -- I am just enjoying the give and take on the issue.

Obviously one or two people here are taking the issue way too seriously -- and probably are bothered by the fact that they are wrong and I am correct.

But, hey....

0 Replies

Apart from the native fluidity of langauge, which can lead to such silly disagreements, there is the problem of specialization of vocabulary. For example, i work in the security equipment and systems industry. We have a verb, so to speak, which likely would make the anal-retentive proponent of linguistic rectitude cringe--it only appears in the present participle, falsing. It refers to a motion detector, alarm point or alarm panel which sends in alarms, which subsequent investigation prove to have been false. One could undoubtedly raise the usual objections to making a verb of an adjective, but there really is no better way to briefly describe the fault in an alarm system. This sort of thing will be readily identifiable in any specialized vocabulary. Which is why rigidity in language is silly--the most successful languages will be those which remain the most flexible.

0 Replies

I am continuingly amused by Frank's implicit assertion that he is an authority on usages in the English language.

Does that pay pretty well, Frank?

0 Replies

Hi Frank

It seems to me the real test is whether or not the distinction, more or less probable, has meaning. It seems clear to me that it does, denoting different conditions, even if, strictly speaking, it is an abuse of the original intent of the word.

For example, the AFC and NFC both have four teams left in the playoffs. All have a chance of reaching the Superbowl, with New England and Philadelphia being perhaps the favorites. The odds would vary with the prognosticater, but lets say New England is given a 62% chance in the AFC and Philadelphia a 54% chance in the NFC by the source we trust. If we accept these numbers (and goodness knows very few things in life can be assigned an EXACT probability with such accuracy), it is intelligible to ask which team has the greater probability, AND to reply that New England's chance is more probable than Philadelphia's.

The phrase denotes a true difference, or degree, of probability, and therefore has meaning which modifiers to "unique" do not. Obviously, in any one set, no more than one answer can be probable (51% or more), but in parallel sets, the probability of one can be higher than the probability of the other.

If I am wrong about this, as you insist, I will take the attitude of Huck Finn on the raft pondering the question of turning Jim to avoid damnation. I'll just have to go ahead and be wrong.

0 Replies

Well, first of all, I think Philadelphia's chances of winning the Super Bowl are better than New England's. In fact, I've already placed a bet on Philadelphia winning the big prize taking odds of 3-1.

But that is talking about the odds of one or the other winning.

Once a thing gets to more than 50% in favor, it becomes probable.

It is probable if it is 51%. Once it is probable -- it honestly cannot get "more" probable -- because it already is probable.

The likelihood that it may eventuate may be greater or lesser than the likelihood of some other related eventuality - which is to say that the odds may be greater or less. And I have now acknowledged at least four times that folks, including myself, use the expression "more probable" in that situation.

But it truly is imprecise - and incorrect.

Once you have established that an event or circumstance is probable - that's it. It is probable. It cannot get more probable!

The odds of it happening may increase. If Brady breaks his arm; Philadelphia's chances will increase. If Mc Nabb breaks his; they will decrease.

But that will not effect whether or not it is probable. (Fact is, if either of those things happen, probably the team it happens to will no longer be probable.)

But the expression "more probable" or "less probable" should really be "the odds are greater" or "the odds are lesser."

And subtleties of words are what are being discussed here, even if people like Setanta cannot comprehend that.

0 Replies

Gozmo, Nice to meet you too. Nothing to misunderstand. Or did I miss something in the mismisunderstanding?

I need a nap.

0 Replies

Frank,

Your dismissal is uncharacteristic (remember the "I never give up!" bit?) and I think it is your way of continuing to avoid a few simple questions about the rightness you are crowing about.

See, you are declaring that there is a rule making "probable" an unmodifiable absolute term.

And since I both disagree and have not ever seen that rule in a respectable source I asked you to source your claim.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you are unable to do so, hence the increasing noise about not caring if others "see" that you are right and the facile dismissal when I do in fact source elements of the refutation.

So thus far, you have declared the existence of a rule, failed to make a logical case for it (refresher: the delienation between each side of 50 can be shown to be irrelevant because there is a left/right delienation that is both similar in nature and obviously modifiable) and then failed to source it.

You've said that you are right plenty of times, yes. But you have failed to make a supporting case for it or cite any source.

If it is to remain a "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, I CAN'T SUPPORT OR SOURCE IT BUT I AM RIGHT!" argument it has outlived itself.

If you would like to try to make a case that "probable" is an absolute that can't be modified and whose dictionary definitions are all wrong I would like to hear it.

If you have a source I would like to know.

If you made this rule up I would also like to know.

And I maintain that you deliberately fail to answer these questions because of the inadequacy of your available answers and hence the "me against the world" ruckus and the telling silence on the questions.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am absolutely positive . . .

I presume, Frank, that you were being intentionally ironic here in using a modifier on the unmodifiable term "positive." I'd like to think I wasn't the only one who caught the dry wit implicit in your post.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I am absolutely positive . . .

I presume, Frank, that you were being intentionally ironic here in using a modifier on the unmodifiable term "positive." I'd like to think I wasn't the only one who caught the dry wit implicit in your post.

:wink: :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Craven

Read my first post on this subject again.

Then go back to sorting socks -- or whatever else you were doing before jumping in the deep water.

0 Replies

I enjoyed the quote Craven used from the American Heritage dictionary, re unique - it was a useful explanation of the change.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Craven

Read my first post on this subject again.

Then go back to sorting socks -- or whatever else you were doing before jumping in the deep water.

Please note that your first post in no way addresses the pointed questions I put to you.

Also note that your continued evasion is seeming to validate the assertion I made that you are deliberately avoiding the answers.

And for a new question:

Why do you insult anyone who disagrees with you?

Every time I disagree with you you make extreme proclamations about how you can't understand how you ever expected me to make a reasonable point, how you think I am used to being wrong, how you think I am jumped in "deep water"... Laughing

I don't mind the insults, they are cartoonish and won't change my opinion of you. But I do hope that you can find the time to answer the very simple questions I asked of you.

See, the stream of insults is simply not something I pay much attention to. And since your first post does not answer the questions I asked of you I'll ask for the upteenth time for you to attempt to answer them.

Like I said, even if you have to throw in the usual insults, try to source your claim.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Please note that your first post in no way addresses the pointed questions I put to you.

Also note that your continued evasion is seeming to validate the assertion I made that you are deliberately avoiding the answers.

And for a new question:

Why do you insult anyone who disagrees with you?

Every time I disagree with you you make extreme proclamations about how you can't understand how you ever expected me to make a reasonable point, how you think I am used to being wrong, how you think I am jumped in "deep water"...

I don't mind the insults, they are cartoonish and won't change my opinion of you. But I do hope that you can find the time to answer the very simple questions I asked of you.

See, the stream of insults is simply not something I pay much attention to. And since your first post does not answer the questions I asked of you I'll ask for the upteenth time for you to attempt to answer them.

Like I said, even if you have to throw in the usual insults, try to source your claim.

Okay, Jerkoff, let's see if I can do this in a way that satisfies at least your latest request. (Hummm, pretty good start, I'd say!)

Up above, you wrote:

Quote:

See, you are declaring that there is a rule making "probable" an unmodifiable absolute term. And since I both disagree and have not ever seen that rule in a respectable source I asked you to source your claim.

In response to that, I asked you to read my first post in this thread again.

I am assuming you did not find me declaring any such thing in my first posting.

Now, you should read my second post in this thread.

See if you find it there.

If not, read my third post -- and on and on.

When you finally do find it -- and assuming you have those socks all sorted -- get back to me.

THEN I will discuss why I declared it!

At that time, I will also discuss why you wrote: "Why do you insult anyone who disagrees with you? "

We can also discuss why you wrote: "Every time I disagree with you you make extreme proclamations about how..."

Good grief, I've told you a hundred thousand times not to exaggerate when you write, because it makes you look like a goddam chump!

In any case, I'll be waiting!

0 Replies

Frank, I have read your posts you do not cite a source.

In between the insults if you could cite the source I would appreciate it. ;-)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank, I have read your posts you do not cite a source.

In between the insults if you could cite the source I would appreciate it. ;-)

I gotta quote a source for something you invented????

Get your head out of your ass!

Hey, did it ever stop raining out there? I know you people needed it, but seems to me you've been getting more than your fair share.

0 Replies

Frank, you are deliberately twisting my request. I asked you to cite a source for the rule you proposed.

For many of your last posts you have simply decided to hurl insults instead of answering the simple questions.

While that might be great fun to you it's boring for me. So I'll be back if you attempt to formulate a case. Otherwise you'll have to insult me in absentia.

0 Replies

Back from my nap.

I often cringe at what becomes newly accepted in English. I cringed when it no longer became necessary to worry about sentences that ended in prepositions. I cringed when split infinitives were no longer no-nos. And I cringed when I found that some authorities accept unique as a modifiable word. But through usage the language remains alive.

I don't know whether "probable" was ever a nonmodifiable word. But whether it was or it wasn't is no longer relevant. It isn't anymore.

1 Reply

Roberta wrote:

Back from my nap.

I often cringe at what becomes newly accepted in English. I cringed when it no longer became necessary to worry about sentences that ended in prepositions. I cringed when split infinitives were no longer no-nos. And I cringed when I found that some authorities accept unique as a modifiable word. But through usage the language remains alive.

I don't know whether "probable" was ever a nonmodifiable word. But whether it was or it wasn't is no longer relevant. It isn't anymore.

Neither, apparently, is "unique." Nor "perfect."

By the way, I think I read somewhere that a significant percentage of English language scholars (perhaps English professors) now hold that it is proper -- even preferable in some instances -- to end a sentence in a preposition.

I try not to!

0 Replies

That's a good rule, Frank

It is a situation up with which we should not put.

0 Replies

Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know