"Little" Vs "Few"

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

For example, many of the discussions here deal with vocabulary usage, no generative aspect at all. You seem impervious to the fact that word choice is definitely NOT determined by the time kids have a pretty good (tho not complete and not conscious) idea of how to correctly generate meaningful sentences. People learn aspects of language and meanings and contexts of words all thru their lives, and modify those usages. And if people use words in a particular way, and if that way is accepted as valid by other speakers, then it really makes no difference if they learned it holistically in the cradle, or accepted it as their usage rule because it came from a widely accepted style book.

What's your point?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You don't consider the clear indications you should have gotten from the discussion that "can" and "may", for example, show strong likelihood of being conditioned by, among other things, sex, nationality, generation (as in age, not as in generation of sentences), social class, ethnicity, and kind of education the speaker had.

You were a study in confusion in that discussion, MJ, so again, what's your point?

Quote:

As someone said, corpus studies tell "what" people say, not "why" they say it.

I see that you haven't had much exposure to corpus studies.

Quote:

but the "why" is often just as important,

Yes, I pointed that out and I often point out the reasons for language choice. I have seen you do that a time or two and I've seen you royally screw it up a few times.

Quote:

The rules they learn have to be conscious and the word choice conscious, until they get sufficient examples and sufficient models for it to start to become internalized.

That's false, Jack. But even when rules are promulgated, there is no reason to provide rules that are not rules, concocted rules. What good is it to pass on the silly notions you learned from your Strunk & White?

Think outside your Strunk & White, Jack.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You have a limited repertoire of arguments and you'll repeatthem endlessly, impervious to any counter examples which show your viewpoint is limited and only deals with a small subset of language usage.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

What does your little Strunk & White deal with?

0 Replies

Whaddaya mean "MY little Strunk & White"? I've never read it and have no intention of doing so. You become incredibly prescriptivist when the way somebody speaks or chooses to speak doesn't agree with the way you think they should speak, or follows rules you regard as mistaken, even though what they produce is perfectly acceptable language. As was apparent from the discussion, "may" has different connotations to many people than "can" (far from all people, and I generally just use "can", but then I'm not presuming to rule their usage out, as you are). It doesn't really matter where they learned it: at their parent's knee, in school, from a style book, whatever. If it produces valid sentences, and it does, which mean what they intend them to mean,which they do, then it functions as a rule for them.
And as far as "probably" goes, you were also presented evidence that it does NOT mean the same to other people as it does to you, and you accepted OmSigDavid's absurd quantification as being the only valid use of "probably". For god's sake, David? of all lingusitically unreliable people he's right up there at the top. And you were extraordinarily prescriptive that "probably" MUST mean anything over 50%, ven if it's 50.00000001%. You don't seem to have absorbed one of the most basic insights about language: the same term can mean different things to different people, and to assert out of hand that everyone must accept your interpretation of a term is arrogance at its worst.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

tired of recycling A2k posts?

If something can happen then it's probable.

0 Replies

Got that, JTT? Another totally different view of what "probable" means.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

If something can happen then it's probable.

MJ writes:

Quote:

Got that, JTT? Another totally different view of what "probable" means.

What's your point, Jack? Are you saying that you're comfortable that that definition is an accurate portrayal of English?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

As was apparent from the discussion, "may" has different connotations to many people than "can" (far from all people, and I generally just use "can", but then I'm not presuming to rule their usage out, as you are). It doesn't really matter where they learned it: at their parent's knee, in school, from a style book, whatever. If it produces valid sentences, and it does, which mean what they intend them to mean,which they do, then it functions as a rule for them.

Now I see your problem. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. You are so far off the mark in how you have analyzed my reaction to 'may/can'
that it's actually quite foolish of me to have used the word 'analyzed'.

Quote:

And as far as "probably" goes, you were also presented evidence that it does NOT mean the same to other people as it does to you,

Again, you are right out to lunch, MJ. Go to the thread and discuss it if you like but you really make the silliest assumptions.

Quote:

and you accepted OmSigDavid's absurd quantification as being the only valid use of "probably". For god's sake, David? of all lingusitically unreliable people he's right up there at the top.

As I recall, Om's definition matched the dictionary definition of 'probably'. The one that everyone knows - more likely to happen than not.

Quote:

And you were extraordinarily prescriptive that "probably" MUST mean anything over 50%, ven if it's 50.00000001%. You don't seem to have absorbed one of the most basic insights about language: the same term can mean different things to different people, and to assert out of hand that everyone must accept your interpretation of a term is arrogance at its worst.

As the LGSWE states, native speakers are notoriously bad at describing how their language works. You stand as a perfect example of that.

I described a range for 'probably'. Just as there can be a weak to a strong 'may' or 'might', so too can there be a weak to a strong 'probably'.

We know there's a range because 'probably and 'likely' can be intensified with, for example, 'very/highly'.

If there's a range, that means there is a bottom end. And 'probable' means more likely than not. That means above 50% to the high end.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Whaddaya mean "MY little Strunk & White"?

You are so dishonest, Jack. You make a patently absurd claim, I illustrate that you are completely out to lunch, [see below] and you ignore it.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course only deals with a small subset of language use, Jack?

What do you use, Warriners, Harcourt Brace?

0 Replies

Claiming a whole book as backing up something you say is a freshman's research paper trick, and you'd be marked down severely for it. If you claim they support you, you;ll have to do a sentence by sentence analysis of all of them to prove it. And, I might add, you're not them. You're using only a small subset of findings about language.

2 Replies

Do try to read the dictionary definition of probably again. "without much doubt". You are not without much doubt at 50%. You are not without much doubt at 60%. You're not without much doubt at 70%. If you had a 70% probability of not getting T--boned by a car coming through an intersection on a cross street, would you say "It's probably safe to drive through without looking?" How many times would you be willing to run the experiment? Of course you can intensify it or minimize it, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word itself. You may use it differently. It was apparent that other people do not use it the same way you do. You invented a rule and then claimed the only proper way to use the word was following your rule.

1 Reply

JTT says:

Quote:

As the LGSWE states, native speakers are notoriously bad at describing how their language works. You stand as a perfect example of that

Unless you're a native speaker of Xhosa, so do you. I think you've used that quote at least once before. You have just a small corpus of things you learned in school to fall back on time and again, eh?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You're using only a small subset of findings about language.

You've used none of the findings about language. You've only used and advanced silly prescriptions. You directly avoid the facts in favor of these nonsensical aberrations. When I point out your absurdities you go off on another tangent.

By the way, you have a misplaced verb in your sentence, above. You do this often and it leads your writing to be hard to understand, not to mention that it doesn't flow nicely.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You invented a rule and then claimed the only proper way to use the word was following your rule.

Here again, you lie or you are seriously lacking in reading comprehension. I've not done anything even close to what you suggest. I have described for each modal a range - a range which includes the 'values you insist 'probably' sits at.

Then you allow that 'probably/likely' can be intensified, which makes your idea of its placement nonsensical. The intensified versions can't occupy the same zone as the unintensified bare ones.

Every degree of certainty must be expressable with the modal/semi modal [SM] forms that are available to speakers of English.

He proooooooobably is at home

does not suggest a high degree of certainty. You continue to deny reality, a hallmark of the prescriptivist, to defend your outlandish claims.

'probably' and 'likely' hold a meaning that begins as "a greater chance of happening than not". Numerically, that means above 50%. That bit of reality cannot be denied, by anyone who is sentient at least. That the range for these words extends upward is also undeniable and your pathetic attempts to suggest that I have denied that also illustrates that you either have a great propensity for lying or you don't deal well with issues of reality.

Quote:

Of course you can intensify it or minimize it, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word itself.

You would then instruct that,

She is very, very, very verrrry happy.

holds the same meaning as

She is happy.

Quote:

You may use it differently. It was apparent that other people do not use it the same way you do.

Really, Jack, you are an idiot. We all use these modals/SMs in the same fashion. In complete defiance of reality you have, more than once, tried to attribute to me things that I have never said. I stated from the get go that these SMs cover a range. The range I described adequately covered the zone you suggested.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Claiming a whole book as backing up something you say is a freshman's research paper trick,

I made no such claim. I pointed those out to refute your patently absurd claim, which was,

You have a limited repertoire of arguments and you'll repeatthem endlessly, impervious to any counter examples which show your viewpoint is limited and only deals with a small subset of language usage.

Quote:

and you'd be marked down severely for it.

With all your lying, your twisting of my words and ideas, your abysmal reading comprehension, your distortion of reality, do you consider that you deserve anything more than an F?

0 Replies

The argument was with you, not with a reference book. You are not the book. You have in no way tied your argument to something in one of your cites. It apparently springs de novo from your head. Similarly citing a book in no way refutes my argument. You are simply displaing your lack of logic.

I suggest you look up "likely"again: "having a high proibability of occurring or being true: very probable", "in all probability".

and "probably": "without much doubt".

"High probability" most emphatically does NOT start at 51%. Neither does "without much doubt". If you think it does, you really should take remedial statistics, and for that matter, remedial life.

51% is "slightly more likely to happen than not". "likely" is a probability that is much more likely to happen than not, not "slightly".

Similarly your "proooobably" is a way of saying that something is pretty likely to not happen, i.e. that it is improbable, not probable. As you outght to know, you can negate something without using a negative, as you are doing there.

Again, you are prescriptively stating a definition of "likely" and "probably" which is not the way the world uses those terms, and then saying your definition is correct. You are in fact falling into the error, so-called, of the style books you rant about.

And by the way no verbs were misplaced.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The argument was with you, not with a reference book.

You are a bald faced liar, MJ. The grammar book issue came up, as I've already mentioned but you're trying desperately to avoid discussing, because of your patently absurd comment, which was,

You have a limited repertoire of arguments and you'll repeatthem endlessly, impervious to any counter examples which show your viewpoint is limited and only deals with a small subset of language usage.

This is, of course, completely false. You actually have described yourself here, what with your terribly lame comments of language use.

You still haven't described your "sources", Jack. How come?

I can't even begin to imagine how you can suggest the above [arrant stupidity?]. You have repeatedly ignored the FACT that 'probable' means "more likely to happen than not".

You have lied, more than once, by stating,

"You invented a rule and then claimed the only proper way to use the word was following your rule."

No, I most certainly did not. What is wrong with your comprehension skills? Or more likely, why do you persist in lying?

It's absurd for you to suggest that when I described an epistemic/level of certainty/logical probability range for 'probably/likely/should' that went from +50% to the high 80% range, I was telling people that it could only mean the narrow range around "+50%".

Quote:

51% is "slightly more likely to happen than not".

I've not argued that it isn't. Of course, just above 50% is well described by "slightly".

"slightly" more likely to happen is only different than "quite" likely to happen by the degree of certainty that a speaker feels. And those two are only different from "very" likely to happen" by that same degree of certainty that a speaker feels.

Now you really should be able to see that 'probably/likely' obviously covers a wide range of certainty. And something has to cover that lower range just above 50%.

What modal/periphrastic modal do you think covers that section?

"likely" is a probability that is much more likely to happen than not, not "slightly".[/quote]

That can't be, Jack, because "highly/very likely" [and others] covers that range of the should/probably/likely spectrum.

Quote:

Wilbur: Someone was asking for you.

Gertrude: [possible replies]

That must have been Sydney. [High Certainty]
That (will/would) have been Sydney.
That should have been Sydney.
That may have been Sydney.
That (could/might) have been Sydney. [Low Certainty]

The Grammar Book - An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course 2nd edition @ page 143

There is a vertical, double pointed arrow that goes between the "High Certainty" and the "Low Certainty" which I can't draw here.

Quote:

Medium Modality

There is a third category on the scale of strength which we call medium modality, though intuitively it is closer to the strong end than to the weak. It is expressed by should, ought, and comparable lexical modals such as probable, likely, appear, seem:

[6]

i The meeting must be over by now. [strong]
ii The meeting should be over by now. [medium]
iii The meeting may be over by now. [weak]

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language @ page 177

0 Replies

I'm not inventing a definition of "likely" or "probably". You seem to be. Again, I refer you to the dictionary (pick one of your choice). And refer back to your own cite:

Quote:

intuitively it is closer to the strong end than to the weak.

1 Reply

JTT< I spent the last six days doped up to the eyeballs with painkillers because of a kidney stone which stubbornly refused to pass. They say it ranks right up there with childbirth as two of the most agonizing things humans have to endure. Being biologically unlikely to ever go through childbirth, I can't compare them, so all I can say if that's true is may the gods help women. It finally passed early yesterday morning and i spent Saturday euphorically, filled with the milk of human kindness toward all humanity, even you. You sucked me in there momentarily, but I fully intend to spend Sunday the same way. Which means I have no intention of getting back to you before Monday or Tuesday. Have a marvelous day.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

I'm not inventing a definition of "likely" or "probably". You seem to be. Again, I refer you to the dictionary (pick one of your choice). And refer back to your own cite:

Again, with the deception. But you are wavering - 'seem to be'. You have denied that this set of modals, should, probably, likely do not exist at the low end of their range.

Because of your limited capacity to view something as complicated as language you have denied the essential meaning of 'probable/likely'. You've allowed yourself to be overwhelmed by the fact that their use more often sits higher on the scale.

"There is a third category on the scale of strength which we call medium modality, though intuitively it is closer to the strong end than to the weak."

This quote from the CGEL does not support your view. "medium modality" is just that - the modality that occupies the medium range. It tells us that the 'probable' group occupies a range of certainty, just as all modals do.

The vast majority of epistemic mights or mays don't issue from our mouths as,

He miiiiiiiiiight want to go // She maaaaaaay have the money

but that doesn't mean that these fact situations never exist in life. They do and therefore, that has to be reflected in language.

Even 'must' which occupies a very narrow range of certainty at the high end of the certainty range could be intonationally weakened and yet it most assuredly does, intuitively, occupy the very highest range of certainty.

Additionally, I told you at the outset that this was a pedogogical tool for helping second language learners get a feel for the range of epistemic modal use. It was never, would never be used as an instructional tool for native speakers because native speakers don't need it.

Yet you tried to twist the argument in that direction, suggesting that I was denying the 'probable' group's existence at the higher end of their range. Not once did I do that, Jack.

This works exceedingly well for giving ESLs a good overall feel for modal range. It is highly effective in overcoming the nonsensical notion that all ESLs are taught that modal verbs have tense.

ESLs, having been told that 'might' is the past tense of 'may', [would of will, could of can, should of shall] actually believe that which makes it impossible for them to understand one of the most complicated, and most used areas of the English language.

Now that this issue has been resolved, we can move on to may/can. You were equally confused on what I was saying about that issue.

0 Replies

"Little" Vs "Few"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know