What's a partridge in a pear tree
Cad
hmm, what's turtle doves, calling birds, goose-alaying,
pipers?
Should I just enjoy the song instead of knocking on these
words.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
$3.99 a pound. Tree extra.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Alan Jones
"Cad" <C...@draw.com> wrote in message
news:kbof0u4u97bui22oe...@4ax.com...
Try
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/partridge_in_a_pear_tree.html
Alan Jones
Murray Arnow
>Cad wrote:
>
>> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
>
>$3.99 a pound. Tree extra.
>
I knew I should've joined Costco.
Simon R. Hughes
> Cad wrote:
>
> > What's a partridge in a pear tree?
>
> $3.99 a pound. Tree extra.
Don't you own a shotgun or a chainsaw?
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!--So much to do, so little time; so much time, so little done.-->
Harvey V
> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
I've seen it stated that it developed from an English corruption of a
bilingual song-lyric: "and a partridge/une perdrix". (The corruption
to "a pear tree" comes, of course, from the practice of pronouncing
words such as "une" as two syllables rather than one when sung in
French).
It always sounded plausible to me, but I'm not sure if it's folk
etymology.
Harvey
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Thus Spake Reinhold (Rey) Aman:
> > Cad wrote:
> > > What's a partridge in a pear tree?
> > $3.99 a pound. Tree extra.
> Don't you own a shotgun or a chainsaw?
Ach, you bloodthirsty, environmentally insensitive Anglo-Norwegian
brute! Shoot & chop, shoot & chop, that's all you think of.
We civilized bird- and tree-loving humans have Costco and their brutish
hirelings to do the dirty work for us.
BTW, with the two-dollar mail-in rebate, the partridge is only $1.99/lb,
plus sales tax (here 7.25%). That's cheaper than salted herring.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
N.Mitchum
----
> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
A partridge is a bird. A pear tree is a tree that, well...
----
> hmm, what's turtle doves, calling birds, goose-alaying,
> pipers?
>....
Turtle doves are mourning doves. Calling birds must be birds that
call. The goose is laying eggs. Pipers are men playing pipes.
----
> Should I just enjoy the song instead of knocking on these
> words.
>....
Yes, until you decide to come trolling again.
----NM
Donna Richoux
That is really charming. "Perdrix" means partridge and it sounds like
"pear-tree," so it's utterly plausible. Thing is, it will be very hard
to prove that it's true -- the true historical origin, that is. I doubt
you'll find any ancient written version that mentions it, or else the
connection would already be well-known.
I'll keep my eyes open for it.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
John Dean
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f3pqc5.12bun25mrrx6N%tr...@euronet.nl...
If you'd like a real urban-legend type story about this, the one I heard was
that it is a corruption of the Latin 'apartuit in aperto' - 'she gave birth
in an open place' referring to the Virgin Birth. Never heard any further
plausible sounding cod-latin for the rest of the song.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Murray Arnow
>
>That is really charming. "Perdrix" means partridge and it sounds like
I see this thread taking a familiar turn. Donna, the modified Godwin Law for
AUE is "All threads dead-end at 'cot'/'caught'."
Donna Richoux
Cot? Caught? Is that the sound of a partridge clucking?
By the way, since you trimmed the rest of what I said, I think I'd
better emphasize that being plausible is a far cry from being *true*.
--
Then there are those calling birds --- Donna Richoux
Padraig Breathnach
>... I'd
>better emphasize that being plausible is a far cry from being *true*.
Most people accept that in most circumstances. I find the word used
most often to imply "untrue", as in "She gave a plausible explanation
for being late" being taken to mean that there was nothing obviously
wrong with the explanation, but it was not believed.
Is that how most people here find the word used?
PB
Mike Oliver
> I find the word used
> most often to imply "untrue", as in "She gave a plausible explanation
> for being late" being taken to mean that there was nothing obviously
> wrong with the explanation, but it was not believed.
Well, I wouldn't say it means the explanation was *disbelieved*. It
seems more that the speaker is reserving judgment but willing to extend
the benefit of the doubt pending further evidence.
perchprism
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:f4bg0usg710dkapld...@4ax.com...
You're there--what are you asking me for?
All kidding aside, I think "plausible" is neutral here. I remember seeing a
British TV show not too long ago where a man was described by one woman to
another as being "a *plausible* man," said with a sneer. That clued me in to
the meaning you're asking about, so I'd have to say I was unaware of it
before that.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
satchi
Cad wrote:
>
> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
It's certainly not a bird in the hand.
Satchi
http//www.bombhumor.com
Steve Hayes
>What's a partridge in a pear tree?
A partridge is a kind of bird. A tree is a large plant with a strong stem
called a trunk. A pear tree is a tree that produces edible fruit called pears.
>hmm, what's turtle doves, calling birds, goose-alaying,
>pipers?
A dove is another kind of bird. A turtle dove is a kind of dove. A goose is
another kind of bird, whose eggs are eaten by people. If it's a-laying, it's
producing eggs.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Padraig Breathnach
>
>"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>news:f4bg0usg710dkapld...@4ax.com...
>> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>>
>> >... I'd
>> >better emphasize that being plausible is a far cry from being *true*.
>>
>> Most people accept that in most circumstances. I find the word used
>> most often to imply "untrue", as in "She gave a plausible explanation
>> for being late" being taken to mean that there was nothing obviously
>> wrong with the explanation, but it was not believed.
>>
>> Is that how most people here find the word used?
>
>You're there--what are you asking me for?
>
>All kidding aside, I think "plausible" is neutral here. I remember seeing a
>British TV show not too long ago where a man was described by one woman to
>another as being "a *plausible* man," said with a sneer. That clued me in to
>the meaning you're asking about, so I'd have to say I was unaware of it
>before that.
On reflection, and taking your response and Mike Oliver's into
account, I wish to qualify my claim that the word is used most often
to imply "untrue". I don't use it that way myself.
But I know many people who use it that way, and I think they use it
that way only. While they might not sneer, the tone of voice conveys
much. I am sure that some of them think that the word is negative in
connotation, rather than neutral. I have just checked with herself,
and she shares my impression.
We tend to edit our use of language so as to avoid using words which
can cause problems. I think that I limit my use of the word
"plausible" because so many people of my acquaintance use it
differently from the way I do.
PB
Donna Richoux
Mine is more positive than that. It matches Merriam-Webster's third
entry:
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was
both powerful and plausible>
So it means a reasonable candidate for truth-hood and doesn't address
whether or not anyone does believe it to be true.
The other two meanings, by the way, are shadier:
Date: 1565
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but
often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a
swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible
gentleman -- R. W. Emerson>
Padraig Breathnach
Thanks, Donna.
I have no problem with the dictionary meanings. What interests me is
the possibility of the word carrying different connotations in
different places, or a shift in the dominant usage of the word.
PB
John O'Flaherty
I think it depends entirely on context. I arrive late to work, and give
the boss an explanation. He relays my explanation to his boss, who says
'Is that likely?'. My boss replies, 'It's plausible.', meaning that it's
at least believable.
But if when I give my excuse to the boss, he says to me, 'That's a
plausible explanation.', he probably means 'merely believable, not likely
to be true'.
john
Cad
Arnow) wrote:
>"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Cad wrote:
>>
>>> What's a partridge in a pear tree?
>>
>>$3.99 a pound. Tree extra.
>>
What do you use it for?
>
>I knew I should've joined Costco.
Which aisle? I think I'll take a trip there.
Tony Cooper
>
> I have no problem with the dictionary meanings. What interests me is
> the possibility of the word carrying different connotations in
> different places, or a shift in the dominant usage of the word.
I agree. In my view, the word "plausible" is never
introduced into a conversation unless the scenario is either
"barely plausible" or "just plausible". In short,
conditions that may be true but are subject to a great deal
of doubt.
It's also used in a sarcastic manner: "Yeah, that's
plausible." meaning there's not a chance in hell that it
could happen.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Donna Richoux
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with the dictionary meanings. What interests me is
> > the possibility of the word carrying different connotations in
> > different places, or a shift in the dominant usage of the word.
I think I failed to convey the fact that I *was* speaking to that. The
dictionary just happened to back me up and explain the different shades
of meaning, so I threw it in the quotes.
>
> I agree. In my view, the word "plausible" is never
> introduced into a conversation unless the scenario is either
> "barely plausible" or "just plausible". In short,
> conditions that may be true but are subject to a great deal
> of doubt.
>
> It's also used in a sarcastic manner: "Yeah, that's
> plausible." meaning there's not a chance in hell that it
> could happen.
I guess I live in a different world from the rest of you. I don't come
across the "just barely plausible" use much at all, or the sarcastic
one.
I searched on "+it +is plausible" on Google to see if other people use
it straight, as I do, with the sense of "quite plausible, believable,
reasonable," and I found plenty, such as these. I suppose you'd have to
read the full entry carefully to be sure each writer wasn't being
sarcastic, but I don't see any signs of it:
# It is plausible that it originated from something else.
# Because only half are expected to be mature, it is plausible that
fewer than 50 mature individuals remain
# in theory it is plausible to carry large stocks of (Xenon)
# In this day and age of technology, it is plausible for malls to
be guarded by robots instead of security guards.
# Everything that has happened is recorded in libraries, therefore
it is plausible to draw the conclusion that without a library we
would have no past.
It seems quite routine, to me. But it seems like adjectives change
meanings faster than anything else, so I shouldn't be surprise if people
don't agree on what it means to be "plausible."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
>Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Examples for different senses of "plausible" in _Webster's Third New
International Dictionary_:
a more plausible site for a house— E.B.White
a plausible pretext
a plausible conclusion
a jewel too big to be plausible
And from _The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_, again representing
different senses:
H. E. BATES Nothing plausible or logical..emerged in anything
that anybody said.
P. H. NEWBY The information..is plausible, but it is not
accurate.
G. VIDAL He was always able to express himself in the most
plausible way.
W. MARCH She had been so innocent, so plausible in her
denials.
Don Aitken
>I searched on "+it +is plausible" on Google to see if other people use
>it straight, as I do, with the sense of "quite plausible, believable,
>reasonable," and I found plenty, such as these. I suppose you'd have to
>read the full entry carefully to be sure each writer wasn't being
>sarcastic, but I don't see any signs of it:
>
> # It is plausible that it originated from something else.
>
Ok, I think.
> # Because only half are expected to be mature, it is plausible that
> fewer than 50 mature individuals remain
>
Doubtful. "Possible" would be better.
> # in theory it is plausible to carry large stocks of (Xenon)
>
Dead wrong. "Practical"?
> # In this day and age of technology, it is plausible for malls to
> be guarded by robots instead of security guards.
>
As above.
> # Everything that has happened is recorded in libraries, therefore
> it is plausible to draw the conclusion that without a library we
> would have no past.
>
The conclusion can be plausible, but the drawing of the conclusion
cannot.
>It seems quite routine, to me. But it seems like adjectives change
>meanings faster than anything else, so I shouldn't be surprise if people
>don't agree on what it means to be "plausible."
>
I suspect that there is a hard core of agreed meaning, surrounded by a
substantial area of doubt,shading into straight misuse.
--
Don Aitken
Richard Fontana
I think that most of those examples misuse "plausible", using it to mean
"possible". I think this may be a common error, since I remember reading
about it in 'usage guide' materials when I were a lad. In my experience,
though, plausible means 'believable, though not *too* strongly so'. So I
suppose I agree with Tony (?) to that extent, though I wouldn't make it as
extreme as "just barely believable". I think "plausible" usually suggests
that there is still some doubt. But I am not familiar with any
particularly sarcastic use of "plausible".
Donna Richoux
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:48:10 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
>
> >I searched on "+it +is plausible" on Google to see if other people use
> >it straight, as I do, with the sense of "quite plausible, believable,
> >reasonable," and I found plenty, such as these. I suppose you'd have to
> >read the full entry carefully to be sure each writer wasn't being
> >sarcastic, but I don't see any signs of it:
> >
> > # It is plausible that it originated from something else.
> >
> Ok, I think.
>
> > # Because only half are expected to be mature, it is plausible that
> > fewer than 50 mature individuals remain
> >
> Doubtful. "Possible" would be better.
>
> > # in theory it is plausible to carry large stocks of (Xenon)
> >
> Dead wrong. "Practical"?
>
> > # In this day and age of technology, it is plausible for malls to
> > be guarded by robots instead of security guards.
> >
> As above.
I'm afraid I must have inveigled you into making these snap judgements
by posting too short of excerpts. Sure, "possible" and "practical" can
fit in the same slot that "plausible" fits into -- so could "ridiculous"
and "mandatory." I'm not sure if you think that no one ever uses
"plausible" in the sense of "believable," or just that these examples
aren't sufficient to require "plausible" and nothing else.
I'm not sure if there are *any* sentences where "plausible" couldn't be
replaced by some completely different adjective and still make sense.
That's the trouble with adjectives. They're not self-evident.
Maybe these examples are better. Granted, without knowing as much as the
speaker knew about the topic, we can't be *certain* that "plausible"
means "believable" here, but surely it is a good fit:
# spent several months investigating the loss and concluded that
the most plausible theory was that a critical failure in the
propulsion system
# the ideas may seem crazy, but turn out to be quite coherent and
even plausible.
# The theory is possible, even plausible, but as Mr. Nicholl
acknowledges, his evidence falls short of proof .
# the most plausible theory thus far seems to be that the copilot
had inadvertently left the
# As for whether this is just in vogue or is a plausible theory...
If you like these better, is it when "plausible" directly modifies
"theory"? Do you have any problem if we turn it around and say "The
theory is plausible"?
Richard Fontana
> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:48:10 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I searched on "+it +is plausible" on Google to see if other people use
> > >it straight, as I do, with the sense of "quite plausible, believable,
> > >reasonable," and I found plenty, such as these. I suppose you'd have to
> > >read the full entry carefully to be sure each writer wasn't being
> > >sarcastic, but I don't see any signs of it:
> > >
> > > # It is plausible that it originated from something else.
> > >
> > Ok, I think.
> >
> > > # Because only half are expected to be mature, it is plausible that
> > > fewer than 50 mature individuals remain
> > >
> > Doubtful. "Possible" would be better.
I agree with Commissar Aitken. While "plausible" *seems* to work, the
sentence *feels* like the writer really meant to use "possible".
> > > # in theory it is plausible to carry large stocks of (Xenon)
> > >
> > Dead wrong. "Practical"?
I agree with the Commissar. This makes no sense whatsoever with
"plausible", subject to the a1a exception. It feels like the writer meant
"possible" (maybe, in fact, "possible but impractical" is implied), only
in this case "plausible" doesn't work at all.
> > > # In this day and age of technology, it is plausible for malls to
> > > be guarded by robots instead of security guards.
> > >
> > As above.
Agreed. This makes no sense with "plausible". It feels like the writer
meant "conceivable".
> I'm afraid I must have inveigled you into making these snap judgements
> by posting too short of excerpts. Sure, "possible" and "practical" can
> fit in the same slot that "plausible" fits into -- so could "ridiculous"
> and "mandatory." I'm not sure if you think that no one ever uses
> "plausible" in the sense of "believable," or just that these examples
> aren't sufficient to require "plausible" and nothing else.
>
> I'm not sure if there are *any* sentences where "plausible" couldn't be
> replaced by some completely different adjective and still make sense.
> That's the trouble with adjectives. They're not self-evident.
>
> Maybe these examples are better. Granted, without knowing as much as the
> speaker knew about the topic, we can't be *certain* that "plausible"
> means "believable" here, but surely it is a good fit:
>
> # spent several months investigating the loss and concluded that
> the most plausible theory was that a critical failure in the
> propulsion system
Dead right.
> # the ideas may seem crazy, but turn out to be quite coherent and
> even plausible.
Dead right.
>
> # The theory is possible, even plausible, but as Mr. Nicholl
> acknowledges, his evidence falls short of proof .
What bothers me there is the implication that you can say "a possible
theory". The use of "plausible" is dead right. I think the writer must
have meant "The theory is possibly correct, and is even plausible, but
...".
> # the most plausible theory thus far seems to be that the copilot
> had inadvertently left the
Dead right.
> # As for whether this is just in vogue or is a plausible theory...
Probably dead right.
> If you like these better, is it when "plausible" directly modifies
> "theory"? Do you have any problem if we turn it around and say "The
> theory is plausible"?
I don't think that makes a difference. I'm actually getting confused
about what this discussion is about.
Donna Richoux
[snip discussion of word "plausible"]
> I don't think that makes a difference. I'm actually getting confused
> about what this discussion is about.
Yes, I'm a bit confused, too. One point was to illustrate how *I* use
the word, the straight meaning of "believable," not sneering or
sarcastic as others reported they had seen it. From what several people
reported, they had never noticed the kind of use I cited.
I'm glad you and I agree on the second set; forget the first set, as I
did not provide enough information for anyone to know if "plausible" was
correct.
Now I've gone looking for instances of the reported sneering use. It was
a little hard to think of where might I find examples of "plausible"
being used to mean not plausible at all, but I thought it might be in
the compound "plausible excuse," since excuses by their very nature are
subject to doubt. Then I thought I had better limit it the search to
documents containing ".uk" because we appeared to have a pondal bias
here (though not completely).
I found several hundred such hits and read a few of the linked articles
in their entirety. They were full of sneers (I don't see how those
writers can see the keyboard with their faces screwed up in such deep
scorn) and they didn't think much of the things they labeled "plausible
excuses." For example:
When challenged with their
frivolity, Ken [Livingston]
voters tend to turn
defensive: "Well it's all
Blair's fault. If he hadn't
tried his control freakery on
London it never would have
happened." It's a plausible
excuse but bunk nonetheless.
They'd have voted Ken come
what may. They're bored,
bored, bored with basically
good dull government.
To say "plausible excuse" and "bunk" in the same breath is foreign to
me. I wonder what the writer meant by it -- a barely logical excuse? A
pathetic attempt at rationality? Something that has a grain of truth to
it? Something that might fool someone who was less sharp than the
Guardian writer?
Rob Bannister
Wow! You finally made me look up 'plausible' - don't think I'd ever done that
before. I always assumed it meant, more or less, 'credible', when the
etymology should have hit me in the face. Good to learn new things!
-- Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
>
> To say "plausible excuse" and "bunk" in the same breath is foreign to
> me. I wonder what the writer meant by it -- a barely logical excuse? A
> pathetic attempt at rationality? Something that has a grain of truth to
> it? Something that might fool someone who was less sharp than the
> Guardian writer?
I was one that linked "plausible" and sarcasm. Without
rooting through Google, I think of expressions like "Oh,
that's plausible" with an inflection on "that's" that are
clearly sarcastic. It's the kind of thing said when you're
told the dog ate the homework, you forget an anniversary
("Is this the 17th? The calendar function of my watch
broke."), or you're late to work on an important meeting day
("I had to stop to resuscitate a man that was having a heart
attack outside my building."). I would add to the category
that a belief that oral sex is not really sex is a plausible
excuse for saying "I did not have sex with that woman."
Or...Oh, that's plausible.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:48:10 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> > # It is plausible that it originated from something else.
>> >
>> Ok, I think.
>>
>> > # Because only half are expected to be mature, it is plausible that
>> > fewer than 50 mature individuals remain
>> >
>> Doubtful. "Possible" would be better.
>>
>> > # in theory it is plausible to carry large stocks of (Xenon)
>> >
>> Dead wrong. "Practical"?
>>
>> > # In this day and age of technology, it is plausible for malls to
>> > be guarded by robots instead of security guards.
>> >
>> As above.
>
[snip]
> # spent several months investigating the loss and concluded that
> the most plausible theory was that a critical failure in the
> propulsion system
>
> # the ideas may seem crazy, but turn out to be quite coherent and
> even plausible.
>
> # The theory is possible, even plausible, but as Mr. Nicholl
> acknowledges, his evidence falls short of proof .
>
> # the most plausible theory thus far seems to be that the copilot
> had inadvertently left the
>
> # As for whether this is just in vogue or is a plausible theory...
>
All of those seem fine to me.
>If you like these better, is it when "plausible" directly modifies
>"theory"? Do you have any problem if we turn it around and say "The
>theory is plausible"?
>
No. All I require is some approximation to the "believable" meaning.
The word is one I often see misused and the quotes you first provided
did not inspire any confidence the the writers were intending to use
it in that sense. It may be that I am too suspicious.
On reflection I think part of the problem is that your first search
was for "it is plausible", which may be more likely to be incorrectly
used than other phrases containing "plausible". All except the first
(and possibly the second) of your examples seemed to me to be saying
that a set of facts or a course of action was plausible, and I think
this has to be wrong.
--
Don Aitken
Steve Hayes
>I have no problem with the dictionary meanings. What interests me is
>the possibility of the word carrying different connotations in
>different places, or a shift in the dominant usage of the word.
To me it means something that I could accept at first sight as true, but might
require further investigation.
And "a plausible liar" is a good one.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
I think you've got this inverted, Donna!
The writer believes that plausibility implies truth, and hence needs to add
"but bunk nonetheless". There are many writers who would have omitted that
extra phrase because for them "plausibility" implies untruth. The word is
similar to "specious" -- both originally meant "attractive" but have come
to
be used for things which only appear to be so.
Tony's sarcastic examples of "plausible" are also reinforcing the "implies
truth" usage -- if the word implied untruth then the sarcasm wouldn't work.
Matti
John Holmes
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f3psja.lty7tlwzgsmvN%tr...@euronet.nl...
> Mine is more positive than that. It matches Merriam-Webster's third
> entry:
>
> 3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was
> both powerful and plausible>
>
> So it means a reasonable candidate for truth-hood and doesn't address
> whether or not anyone does believe it to be true.
>
> The other two meanings, by the way, are shadier:
>
> Date: 1565
> 1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable
but
> often specious <a plausible pretext>
> 2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a
> swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth,
plausible
> gentleman -- R. W. Emerson>
The Australian Oxford differentiates the meanings as:
plausible adj.
1. (of an argument, statement etc.) seeming reasonable or probable.
2. (of a person) persuasive but deceptive.
I think those correspond to your 3 and 2 respectively, but with nothing
directly corresponding to M-W's number 1. It seems that for us it only
takes on the 'deceptive' connotation when applied to a person.
I can only remember ever using the word myself in AOD's sense 1, and
have rarely encountered sense 2.
--
Regards
John
John Holmes
The writer meant that it seems reasonable at first glance, but turns out
not to be.
I'd say that is quite in line with how you say you use the word. If it
were being used the other way it would have been totally unnecessary to
add 'but bunk nonetheless'.
'Plausible but bunk' in our sense is roughly the same meaning as just
plain 'plausible' in the other sense.
--
Regards
John
Donna Richoux
Well, I said I went looking for the "not plausible at all" meaning, but
I didn't find any on that search. I did find ones like the above,
though.
>
> The writer believes that plausibility implies truth, and hence needs to add
> "but bunk nonetheless".
But the writer does not have the same standard I do. Yes, he appears to
believe that "plausible" means some tiny degree of truthful appearance,
whereas to me, to call something "plausible" is a much stronger
recommendation. (To call it an *excuse* is what conveys doubt.)
I wouldn't say, "That story is believable but it's total nonsense." Nor,
"that theory is possibly true but completely impossible." Too, too
contradictory. I don't call something "believable" if *I* don't believe
it. (Oh, I suppose I can say things like "they found it believable.")
In the same way, I wouldn't call something "plausible" if I didn't think
there was some chance that it was true. How much chance? Well, more of a
chance than this guy apparently did. Somewhere between "possibly true"
and "probably true," maybe. It would depend.
That's why I wonder if the writer's intention was to signal, "Well, some
people might be dumb enough to believe this, some might be fooled, but
not me."
It may be some sort of viewpoint thing. "I believe it it could be true"
vs. "Other people may believe this could be true."
>There are many writers who would have omitted that
> extra phrase because for them "plausibility" implies untruth.
That idea has been stated several times. I would dearly love to see an
example, where it is clear that that "plausibility" implied untruth. Do
you know where to find one?
>The word is similar to "specious" -- both originally meant "attractive"
>but have come to be used for things which only appear to be so.
>
> Tony's sarcastic examples of "plausible" are also reinforcing the "implies
> truth" usage -- if the word implied untruth then the sarcasm wouldn't work.
Yes, I agree about that. I also know that dry, dead-pan sarcasm can lead
some people to believe that a word or phrase truly means the opposite of
its official meaning, so perhaps that comes into play here.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> [...] I would dearly love to see an example, where it is clear that that
> "plausibility" implied untruth. Do you know where to find one?
First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not using the logician's
"implies" there, but the one which means "tends to be associated with".
The word tends to be used within a context which implies untruth. "A
plausible rogue". "I suppose some people might regard that as plausible".
That kind of thing. On its own it comes across all fresh-faced and naive,
but it's tarnished by the company we give it to keep. It's really not a
synonym for "credible", which is genuinely neutral.
I think my next point was crucial:
>
> >The word is similar to "specious" -- both originally meant "attractive"
> >but have come to be used for things which only appear to be so.
> > Tony's sarcastic examples of "plausible" are also reinforcing the
> > "implies truth" usage -- if the word implied untruth then the sarcasm
> > wouldn't work.
>
> Yes, I agree about that. I also know that dry, dead-pan sarcasm can lead
> some people to believe that a word or phrase truly means the opposite of
> its official meaning, so perhaps that comes into play here.
Indeed -- but I really don't think that this is what's happened with
"plausible". From the etymology, it has always implied an attraction which
is only skin-deep.
Matti
Mark Brader
| When challenged with their frivolity, Ken [Livingston] voters tend
| to turn defensive: "Well it's all Blair's fault. If he hadn't
| tried his control freakery on London it never would have happened."
| It's a plausible excuse but bunk nonetheless. They'd have voted
Donna Richoux and Matti Lamprhey write:
>>> To say "plausible excuse" and "bunk" in the same breath is foreign
>>> to me. I wonder what the writer meant by it -- a barely logical
>>> excuse? A pathetic attempt at rationality? Something that has
>>> a grain of truth to it? ...
>> I think you've got this inverted, Donna! The writer believes that
>> plausibility implies truth, and hence needs to add "but bunk
>> nonetheless".
It seems to me that neither of these views is right. If you describe
something as "plausible", you're saying that *it contains nothing that
marks it as obviously false*, but you cannot confirm that it's true.
That is, either you know it's false, or you don't know either way.
So this writer is saying that the remark about Blair is not *obviously*
false, but *is* false -- which is exactly why it was worth writing about.
> But the writer does not have the same standard I do. Yes, he appears to
> believe that "plausible" means some tiny degree of truthful appearance,
> whereas to me, to call something "plausible" is a much stronger
> recommendation.
And I say the correct meaning is in between, as I explained above.
> I wouldn't say, "That story is believable but it's total nonsense." Nor,
> "that theory is possibly true but completely impossible." Too, too
> contradictory. I don't call something "believable" if *I* don't believe
> it. ...
But you can say that "it seems believable, but on investigatio it
turns out to be total nonsense". That's what we're talking about here.
--
Mark Brader | The chief use to which we put our love of the truth is
Toronto | in persuading ourselves that what we love is true.
m...@vex.net | -- Pierre Nicole, c.1675
My text in this article is in the public domain.
John Holmes
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:9uk8vt$2shf$1...@news.tht.net...
> Regarding this passage:
> | When challenged with their frivolity, Ken [Livingston] voters tend
> | to turn defensive: "Well it's all Blair's fault. If he hadn't
> | tried his control freakery on London it never would have happened."
> | It's a plausible excuse but bunk nonetheless. They'd have voted
> | Ken come what may. ...
>
> Donna Richoux and Matti Lamprhey write:
> >>> To say "plausible excuse" and "bunk" in the same breath is foreign
> >>> to me. I wonder what the writer meant by it -- a barely logical
> >>> excuse? A pathetic attempt at rationality? Something that has
> >>> a grain of truth to it? ...
>
> >> I think you've got this inverted, Donna! The writer believes that
> >> plausibility implies truth, and hence needs to add "but bunk
> >> nonetheless".
>
> It seems to me that neither of these views is right. If you describe
> something as "plausible", you're saying that *it contains nothing that
> marks it as obviously false*, but you cannot confirm that it's true.
> That is, either you know it's false, or you don't know either way.
I don't see how anything can strictly be plausible if you know for a
fact that it is false. However, as I read the passage above, the writer
is going through a kind of thought sequence:
You might think the voters voted that way because of X: it is the
obvious, reasonable (plausible) explanation. However, it is not true
because of some facts you didn't know which I am about to tell you.
So it was plausible at the outset, but does not remain so once we know
all the facts.
>
> So this writer is saying that the remark about Blair is not
*obviously*
> false, but *is* false -- which is exactly why it was worth writing
about.
Yes, but that meaning is conveyed by 'plausible but bunk', rather than
just 'plausible' alone.
> > But the writer does not have the same standard I do. Yes, he appears
to
> > believe that "plausible" means some tiny degree of truthful
appearance,
> > whereas to me, to call something "plausible" is a much stronger
> > recommendation.
>
> And I say the correct meaning is in between, as I explained above.
If so, it is a relatively recent shift in meaning of the word. Perhaps
it has shifted in some dialects and not others.
>
> > I wouldn't say, "That story is believable but it's total nonsense."
Nor,
> > "that theory is possibly true but completely impossible." Too, too
> > contradictory. I don't call something "believable" if *I* don't
believe
> > it. ...
>
> But you can say that "it seems believable, but on investigatio it
> turns out to be total nonsense". That's what we're talking about
here.
That is essentially what the whole passage is saying, but it isn't the
meaning of the word 'plausible' by itself.
--
Regards
John
Mark Brader
| to turn defensive: "Well it's all Blair's fault. If he hadn't
| tried his control freakery on London it never would have happened."
| It's a plausible excuse but bunk nonetheless. They'd have voted
| Ken come what may. ...
Mark Brader:
>> ... If you describe
>> something as "plausible", you're saying that *it contains nothing that
>> marks it as obviously false*, but you cannot confirm that it's true.
>> That is, either you know it's false, or you don't know either way.
John Holmes:
> I don't see how anything can strictly be plausible if you know for a
> fact that it is false.
Your factual knowledge could be from a different source.
> However, as I read the passage above, the writer
> is going through a kind of thought sequence:
>
> You might think the voters voted that way because of X: it is the
> obvious, reasonable (plausible) explanation. However, it is not true
> because of some facts you didn't know which I am about to tell you.
Agreed.
> So it was plausible at the outset, but does not remain so once we know
> all the facts.
If that was true, it would not be possible to say that it was "plausible...
but bunk". You would have to say that it *used* to be plausible, or
something.
> > So this writer is saying that the remark about Blair is not
> > *obviously* false, but *is* false -- which is exactly why it
> > was worth writing about.
> Yes, but that meaning is conveyed by 'plausible but bunk', rather than
> just 'plausible' alone.
Certainly.
--
Mark Brader | "[Your orders are] to figure out what I would have ordered
m...@vex.net | you to do, if I really understood the situation ... [and]
Toronto | to follow those orders I hypothetically would have given."
-- Shan (John Barnes, "Earth Made of Glass")