Quantifiers and Absolute Words 2

[CajunCenturion]

[li]More complete[/li]
[li]Nearly perfect[/li]
[li]Almost unique[/li]
The above three examples illustrate the use of a quantifier on an absolute word.

Would anyone care to comment on these 'almost oxymoronic' constructions?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Stella740pl]

Maybe the were other people in the accident, who did die, so the headline was not so wrong as it seems to be? Weird though, I agree.

 

[YannaTY]

More complete makes me wonder about existency of less complete. Make sense.

Nearly perfect is the same as not perfect IMO.
Is this dimond perfect? NO, it is nearly perfect. So key word here is NO. But it makes language more colorful, doesn't it.

 

[Dimandja]

Yes, a nearly perfect diamond is understandably not perfect. But there are no diamonds that are simply "more perfect". Nor are there "less perfect" gems.

__________________________________________
Try forum1391 for lively discussions

 

[Genimuse]

I don't hear "near dead," but "near death" works.

The one that bugs me, a mathematical term, is "approaching infinity." Bwuh?

 

[jsteph]

To add to the oxymoronics, one of my pet peeves:
...this topic can be dangerous.

If there is some risk of some harm for something, then the notion of 'can be' is already part of the meaning of
Dangerous--so either it's dangerous or it's not.

Maybe more dangerous or less dangerous makes sense--more or less risk, but if it can be dangerous--how far can you stretch that-- there is some risk of there being some risk of there being some risk of there being some risk of there being some risk that maybe it can be dangerous?
-J

 

[mscallisto]

What about his glass is nearly full,while her glass is near empty?

 

[Elsebet]

...this topic can be dangerous.

Lots of events can be dangerous in some situations, and safe in others. Sitting quietly in your home can be dangerous if there is a tornado overhead. A roller coaster ride can be dangerous if the structure has not been inspected and maintained. Both of those events, under ordinary circumstances, are considered safe. It's the context that follows "can be dangerous" that qualifies it as such, similar to "more complete than" above. Anything can be dangerous under some circumstance(s), even something as basic as breathing.

 

[Thadeus]

Radio station in the Philadelphia area advertises:

The most unique sports radio station in the country.

[facetious]How can you argue with that kind of logic?[/facetious]

~Thadeus

 

[jsteph]

Elesbet

Lots of events can be dangerous in some situations, and safe in others. Sitting quietly in your home can be dangerous if there is a tornado overhead.

No...that's exactly my point. If there is a tornado overhead, then sitting in your house is dangerous--not can be, it is, period. Even though the tornado may fly over with no damage to you or the house--the danger (risk of injury) was indeed there.

Without qualifying the phrase, ie, "just sitting in your house"--since danger is a relative term, that is not (for most of us) 'dangerous'. I think it would be more correct to say "There are situations when just sitting in your house is dangerous, such as when a tornado is overhead."

I know it may be splitting hairs or nitpicking...and I myself use 'can be' with dangerous, but from a purely grammatical (or is it 'grammarical') standpoint, I believe the 'can be' is redundant.

--Jim

 

[Thadeus]

On the ride in I heard the announcer say (and repeat) that if the local American football club doesn't win their championship this weekend that some of the fans may go "mentally insane".

~Thadeus "Crazy Legs" Johnson

 

[hotfusion]

Hmmm....
The 'mentally' part of the statement is redundant, as 'insane' implies a mental condition anyhow.

Pancreatically insane?? No.

Regards, Andy.
**************************************
My pathetic attempts at learning HTML can be laughed at here:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/andyspatch/index.htm

 

[tsdragon]

This one is new to me, so I've got a few observations to make. Most of the expressions complained about above are grammatically incorrect anyway. You cannot be "near perfect," unless perfect is the little town in the insurance ads (sorry for the reference all of you who don't live in the US). Perfect is not a noun, it's an adjective, and as such requires "nearly" as a modifier, not "near". I noticed that few of you seriously objected to "nearly perfect". The opposite is true of "near death". "Death" is a noun, and as such can take a modifier like "near".

Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[Mr3Putt]

January 20, 2005 SEATTLE Post Intelligencer

The front page story regarding federal funding for a massive highway project to be undertaken in the next five years begins:

[gray]WASHINGTON - [/gray]Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, said yesterday it will be "very, very impossible" for the federal government to dedicate $1 billion... etc, etc

Ummmmm... how impossible can it possibly be?

Yeesh.

[red]Note:[/red] [gray]The above comments are the opinionated ravings of Mr3Putt. As such, Mr3Putt accepts no responsibility for damages, real or contrived, resulting from acceptance of his opinions as fact.[/gray]