@MontereyJack,
Quote: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.
With all due respect, MJ. Do you think that because you two have thought about this for a few days and decided where 'probable' lands, that this, one, makes me prescriptive, and more importantly, two, that you are accurate?
Infra simply doesn't understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive. But note which one he hurls as an epithet.
"... Hitherto this information has been based on native-speaker intuition. However, native speakers rarely have accurate perceptions of these differences."
While
The Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English was directly addressing usage frequency, this also holds true for how language structure is used. One only has to look at the peeves threads and the various pieces of advice given to ESLs to see that native speakers don't well understand how language works.
If Infra actually had something, don't you expect that you would have seen more than his last response?
As to my being prescriptive. That was/is impossible. It's certainly possible that I could have been wrong in my description, but I was not stating that people, users of the language,
must or
should follow anything. I am attempting to describe the range of certainty covered by epistemic modals.
I described how I believe, after a quarter century of study and teaching, how to best help ESLs understand and use English modal verbs. Could I be wrong in my analysis? Most assuredly I can. That's why I said I appreciated you input. And I still do.
Quote: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.
You are confused here, MJ. Let me try to explain. Yes, the semi-modals 'probably' and 'likely' [and the modal 'should'] have a "highly variable sense".
For any given and the same situation, one person could hold a 51% certainty, another a 67% certainty and another an 85% certainty. Of course we don't think of them that way, in a numerical sense; the numbers are only illustrative that these words cover a range of certainty.
If those same three people heard some more info specific to the topic/situation in question, we could find that their positions had varied. They could now hold a weaker sense of probable or an even stronger one. Or one or all might be raised to an "almost certainly/must", or we might even see a drop into the 'may' or 'might' range.
You'll agree that some word, and its attendant helpers, has to cover every portion of the range of certainty. Helpers, such as intonation [eg. prrrrobably] or a tilt of the head are used to show greater doubt and these could be seen in those who hold in the low 50 percentile range.
We agree that 'probable' has a highly variable sense. From above 50% to a range that becomes more of "a given", which is kind of what the definition of 'must' is - "based on the facts available to me at this time, I can't see any option but blah blah blah".
'probable' means a greater chance than not. 50+ percent is the starting point that fits that description. Where it begins is not in dispute. Where it ends is a matter of greater dispute.
Quote: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 thought we put that point to rest, MJ. We agree. But just because people don't think in that fashion doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of probability.
Quote: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.
That was a cheap shot, but no problem.
Quote: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.
This isn't a cheap shot. You are badly confused, MJ. Do you consider that one set of poll numbers is enough to sway the minds of every voter. Obama's 51% poll number isn't the only thing that would make up an individual's choice of modal verb. There are myriad, almost an infinite numbers of things, events, situations that determine what modal a speaker chooses; facts, opinions, feelings, tastes for, delusions, wishes, dreams, relationships, ... .
When a poll comes out with Obama at 51%, everyone in the world doesn't then fall into "probably/likely" mode. We know this because we hear all manner of modal use associated with such events - He might/may/will/has to/most assuredly will/could/must/probably will win
Quote: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.
Your last sentence, up to 'usage' explains it all. But it's certainly not me that has badly confused poll numbers with epistemic [level of certainty] modal meaning.
