If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning keep the same?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, Efl, Not Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Context:

with the Russian professors Kramer and Kozhevnikov:
March 20, 1923 – Endarteritis luetica with softening is
very probable, although the diagnosis of lues is uncer-
tain . The next day he examined Lenin in his apartment.
Lenin extended his left hand to him in a friendly
manner. Right hemiplegia and near-complete motor
aphasia with right hemianopsia were diagnosed. The
same afternoon, the full team of consultants met and
discussed endarteritis luetica with secondary softening
as the highly likely diagnosis. However, this diagnosis
remained uncertain as the CSF was normal and Wass-
erman’s test was negative but in tertiary syphilis
Wasserman’s test in the CSF is false negative in 34–
90%, while as in blood tests only 5% are false negatives

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 7,654 • Replies: 37

[+3] - InfraBlue - 05/31/2012Probable means the likelihood of something occurring is high, almost a given. Possible means that something could, or may, occur, but the chance isn't as high as something that is probable.

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Probable means the likelihood of something occurring is high, almost a given.

Possible means that something could, or may, occur, but the chance isn't as high as something that is probable.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Something is POSSIBLE if it CAN happen, however unlikely;
e.g., it is possible that I will get elected President, tho extremely improbable.

To be probable,
something must be more likely than not to happen;
i.e., more than a 50% chance of its happening.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Something is POSSIBLE if it CAN happen, however unlikely;
e.g., it is possible that I will get elected President, tho extremely improbable.

To be probable,
something must be more likely than not to happen;
i.e., more than a 50% chance of its happening.

David

Excellent!
Thank you both.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Probable means the likelihood of something occurring is high, almost a given.

Not a given; that would be the province more of 'must/almost certainly'.

'probably/likely' occupy, as Om mentioned, greater than 50% to as high as 90-95%. To state the higher range of 'probably/likely' we use intonation or intensifiers like 'very'.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Something is POSSIBLE if it CAN happen,

Something is possible if it can or could happen. That's all can and could say - it's a possibility.

'may' and 'might' describe actual ranges of speaker certainty, with 'might' showing a lower expression of certainty and 'may' a higher. 'may' doesn't go past a 50% chance because that is what 'probably/likely' describe.

0 Replies

David says:

Quote:

it is possible that I will get elected President, tho extremely improbable.

thank the gods for that.

JTT has quantified the words quite a bit more than I suspect most users would.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

JTT has quantified the words quite a bit more than I suspect most users would.

That's what people who study language do, MJ. They describe how it works. Most, no, the vast majority of users couldn't consciously quantify much at all about language. They just know how to unconsciously use it.

=================
Level of speaker [individual] certainty - epistemic modal meaning

100% will/won't [+ lexical verb]

90-99% Almost certainly will / must [+ lexical verb]

51 - 89% probably/likely will // should [+ lexical verb]

26-50% may [+ lexical verb]

1-25% might [+ lexical verb]

can/could - these two words, without intonation or other intensifiers simply express an [alphabet] A possibility.

Allowed, these ranges have some weaknesses. They are an excellent pedagogical tool for helping ESL/EFLs get an overall idea of the epistemic [level of certainty] meaning of the modal verbs.

They are especially helpful in curing the nonsensical idea that modal verbs have tense, eg. that 'might' is the past tense of 'may', 'would' of 'will' and so on.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning keep the same?

With an active verb like 'keep', Ori, it's not natural to ascribe to 'meaning' an ability to be active. Is it possible in Chinese to ascribe such a meaning to the dictionary translation of 'keep'?

You can use the passive voice here with 'keep', as in,

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, [does] is the meaning [keep] kept the same?

Or more likely, we would use an inactive verb, as in

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning [keep] stay the same?

1 Reply

JTT, your quantification is not how "people who study language" do it, and it certainly is not an accurate description of how language works. As you should know well. It's a totally spurious kind of precision that language does not have, and it quantifies life that is nowhere near so precisely quantifiable. It may have value as a pedagogical tool,to give non-English speakers (but people who have some fairly sophisticated math knowledge) a comprehensibe idea of roughly how the words are used, but it doesn't much applicability to use of language in real life. Do you seriously mean to tell me that you can assert, for example, that virtually anything you are involved with will, or will not, occur with, say, 87% certainty. How the hell would you calculate it? If something occurs with say 89% certainty, would you really be likely to use a different term than something with 90% certainty? And again, how would you calculate them. Is something with 51% certainty really probably likely to happen? I wouldn't use the term till somewhere more like 60 or 70 percent. If you could compute something that precisely. Which you mostly can't. And I'd say people are more likely to say something will probably happen than somethin will "certainly' or "very certainly" happen. As you know, there are a number of ways to say almost anything, and you're arbitrarily restricting the choice and imposing word selection criteria that nobody is likely to actually use.. And indeed can't reasonably use.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
JTT has quantified the words quite a bit more than I suspect most users would.

That's what people who study language do, MJ. They describe how it works. Most, no, the vast majority of users couldn't consciously quantify much at all about language. They just know how to unconsciously use it.

=================
Level of speaker [individual] certainty - epistemic modal meaning

100% will/won't [+ lexical verb]

90-99% Almost certainly will / must [+ lexical verb]

51 - 89% probably/likely will // should [+ lexical verb]

26-50% may [+ lexical verb]

1-25% might [+ lexical verb]

can/could - these two words, without intonation or other intensifiers simply express an [alphabet] A possibility.

Allowed, these ranges have some weaknesses. They are an excellent pedagogical tool for helping ESL/EFLs get an overall idea of the epistemic [level of certainty] meaning of the modal verbs.

They are especially helpful in curing the nonsensical idea that modal verbs have tense, eg. that 'might' is the past tense of 'may', 'would' of 'will' and so on.

Excellent!

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning keep the same?

With an active verb like 'keep', Ori, it's not natural to ascribe to 'meaning' an ability to be active. Is it possible in Chinese to ascribe such a meaning to the dictionary translation of 'keep'?

You can use the passive voice here with 'keep', as in,

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, [does] is the meaning [keep] kept the same?

Or more likely, we would use an inactive verb, as in

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning [keep] stay the same?

Thank you, JTT.

I've not known much of the nuance of the word "keep." I will keep an eye on it.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you can assert, for example, that virtually anything you are involved with will, or will not, occur with, say, 87% certainty. How the hell would you calculate it?

No, I've not suggested that, MJ. You have to look at these words in their totality, set against one another. And, [THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF MODAL/SEMI-MODAL VERBS] you have to always keep in mind that each expression is ONLY an individual's opinion as to the likelihood of something happening. It doesn't tell us what actually will occur.

If we take Person A saying, "I will go to New York" and Person B saying, "I miiiiiight go to New York", and look down the road at the results, we could easily find that the former, a strong expression of certainty, never came to fruitition, while the latter, as weak an expression of certainty as our language allows, might find that person working on Wall Street.

The "probable" range denotes an event that is, [in the view of the speaker] more likely than less likely, which puts it 50%+. When we get to the high range, 'must' [M] and 'almost certainly' [AC] [pragmatically they are used differently] both denote an exceptional certainty that you [and every other native speaker] intuitively detects as being stronger than 'probably/likely/should' [the latter is also used differently in a pragmatic sense than the former two].

We know that M & AC occupy a smaller range because that level of certainty is near the top end; that level of certainty has to occupy the range close to an expression of 100% certainty .

We can't intensify epistemic [level of certainty] 'must' and 'almost certainly',

*very must go

*very almost certainly go

[* denotes ungrammatical]

But we can intensify the level of certainty for 'probably/likely' with, for example, "very", so obviously those semi-modals [periphrastic modals] occupy a wider range than M&AC.

That leaves the range 50% and below for the other two modals, may and might, which each occupy half of the lower 50%. I can see no language reason to ascribe a wider range to either one.

Quote:

It's a totally spurious kind of precision that language does not have, and it quantifies life that is nowhere near so precisely quantifiable.

I agree, MJ, and it would have, has little to no value for native speakers. It does have great value for, as I've noted and you've grudgingly agreed, ESL/EFLs.

Quote:

If something occurs with say 89% certainty, would you really be likely to use a different term than something with 90% certainty?

Some of the cutoff points are arbitrary. But we are in agreement. It's a great teaching tool but it can't PRECISELY describe how we actually use modal/semi-modal verbs in English.

Quote:

And again, how would you calculate them. Is something with 51% certainty really probably likely to happen?

None of these things are destined to happen. Modals/semi-modals are individual descriptions of people's feelings as to level of certainty. As we all know, people delude themselves, people misrepresent, people wish for things to happen - these all represent feelings which are highly variable. That doesn't change the structure of language. The words retain their epistemic value as they issue from a person's mouth [usually, except, giving just one example, situations where there is sarcasm and the epistemic modal takes on a deontic [social] meaning/nuance]

Quote:

I wouldn't use the term till somewhere more like 60 or 70 percent.

You suggest to me that this scale has no merit for native speakers [I fully concur] yet you feel you can decide, for your own speech, where "probably/likely/should" begins.

Your idea goes against the precise meaning of 'probably/likely/should', which is that "there is a greater chance of an event happening than not happening. [REMEMBER - in an individual speaker's mind]

That point, as we both know, is anywhere above 50%.

I really, really appreciate your thought provoking reply, MJ. Where I might appear snide, please understand I was not. I was frank and honest, as were you. And again, I have to tell you that I really appreciate that.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
JTT has quantified the words quite a bit more than I suspect most users would.

That's what people who study language do, MJ. They describe how it works. Most, no, the vast majority of users couldn't consciously quantify much at all about language. They just know how to unconsciously use it.

=================
Level of speaker [individual] certainty - epistemic modal meaning

100% will/won't [+ lexical verb]

90-99% Almost certainly will / must [+ lexical verb]

51 - 89% probably/likely will // should [+ lexical verb]

26-50% may [+ lexical verb]

1-25% might [+ lexical verb]

can/could - these two words, without intonation or other intensifiers simply express an [alphabet] A possibility.

Allowed, these ranges have some weaknesses. They are an excellent pedagogical tool for helping ESL/EFLs get an overall idea of the epistemic [level of certainty] meaning of the modal verbs.

They are especially helpful in curing the nonsensical idea that modal verbs have tense, eg. that 'might' is the past tense of 'may', 'would' of 'will' and so on.

How about "would"? How sad I've misused it around ...

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

How about "would"? How sad I've misused it around ...

You "misused" would in its deontic/social meaning, Ori. Those minor nuances are extremely difficult.

I can't recall seeing you "misuse" would with an epistemic/level of certainty meaning.

======================

Quote:

Level of speaker [individual] certainty - epistemic modal meaning

110% S definitely/absolutely/certainly would/wouldn't [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

100% S would/wouldn't [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

90-99% S almost certainly would/wouldn't [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

51 - 89% S probably/likely would/wouldn't [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

26-50% S may [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

1-25% S might [+ lexical verb] or [semi-modal]

[S = subject]

Note that I've added a section for 110%. I should have added that for the other ones as well. It isn't really 110%. That is meant to illustrate that with the addition of an intensifier, the speaker is illustrating a degree of certainty that is "stronger" than complete certainty.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Your reading skills are lacking, JTT. I didn't say "a given," I said "almost a given."

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Your reading skills are lacking, JTT. I didn't say "a given," I said "almost a given."

My apologies for that, Infra.

I shouldn't have been so circumspect in my reply.

Quote:

Probable means the likelihood of something occurring is high, almost a given.

Your entire definition of probable is bad. It places it at the high range on the certainty scale. The majority of the range of probable is most assuredly not "almost a given". Much of it is not "the likelihood of something occurring is high".

1 Reply

@JTT,

Sez, you, you hypocrite prescriptivist in denial.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You're becoming as bad as Gungasnake, Foofie, Okie and some others, Infra. The facts are there, right in front of you and this is how you choose to deal with them. Rolling Eyes

I just went thru this with Gunga. What is it with you Americans?

Quote:

Sez, you, you hypocrite prescriptivist in denial.

I won't take the time to explain what apparently is something that's beyond you.

0 Replies

JTT, I think Infra is onto something here--you really are being prescriptivist on this, and not looking at how people do in fact use these words. I disagreed with you on your quantification of probable as "above 50%", saying I would use a higher probability, and Infra wants a higher probability than I do. Which is in fact indicative that the word has a highly variable sense, dependent on the individual user.

I repeat, I don't think people usually are computing finite probabilities in their heads when they use the term, nor in most cases is there any way they could actually compute any mathematical probability at all. They are making a rough guess, or perhaps an educated guess as to likelihoods, and using that to choose vocabulary, but it ain"t "83%", or even "51%".

I'll provide a concrete example, where we can in fact come up with something like a moderately precise probability: US presidential elections (and DO NOT go off on a war crimes tangent here), as a case where we do have some numbers and can hypotesize with a fair amount of certainty about others, and where people with other electoral systems will still understand ours. If Obama's poll numbers were 51% and Romney's 49%, then you would presumably say "Obama will probably be re-elected", since he is above 50%, as has been your criterion. You would be alone in your certainty, and alone in your vocabulary choice. If Obama were 47% and Romney 46% (as they are in one poll now), i.e. both under 50, would you say "they will probably both lose", or "probably neither will win"? On the other hand, if they were at, say, 47% and 42%, tho neither had more than 50% and there were more than enough undecideds to swing the election to one or the other, I'd be inclined to say Obama would probably win. The actual usage, and the complexities and ambiguities of the usage, are nowhere near so precise as you make them out to be.

1 Reply

If "possible", but not "probable", is used here, does the meaning keep the same?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know