I don't know why I've become so nitpicky about grammar and semantics lately - probably because I've been a law professor too long, or at least been editing papers for too long - but today I came across a phrase I've seen before and I can't figure out whether it's semantically correct.
In a news story about Hurricane Isaac, a reporter referred to a warning issued to residents of certain areas in Louisiana that failure to evacuate their homes "could lead to certain death". This is a phrase I've seen before in other contexts. Initially, it sounds odd because "certain death" implies, well, certainty of death, but the certainty is qualified by the conditional "could". On a second look, it's arguable that a person doing or not doing a particular thing "could" lead to a "definitely fatal" consequence, so that does seem logical. At least I think so.
Efficient are abyssal ranges of Rolex counterpart watches because sports. Some watches and hold money drift that are effortlessly royal. They rise shield timers, calculators or calm their essential mechanisms to solve based on the case girth.
Posted by: rolex watches uk | August 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM
This is what I, and my colleagues, refer to as the subject of the Doctrine of Syntactic Ambiguity.
It does help lighten up the day sometimes.
Posted by: Adam | August 30, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Certain in English usually conveys the sense of definite. However, it sometimes instead conveys the sense of particular: "Seen in a certain light, nuclear war would be exciting." for example. However, here, the sense is clearly intended as definite. A definite possibility is not itself illogical but that sentence "definitely could" is simply illogical. It probably stems from the author's lack of time, desire to hedge, and possibly also unawareness of the different senses of the word "certain". Probably indicates likelier than not; possibly indicates less than likely. It is important to be exact.
Posted by: Eric Engle | August 30, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Reminds me of this quote from Yes Prime Minister, a British sitcom set in the Cold War:
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
PM Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
PM Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
PM Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
PM Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they can't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!
Posted by: TJ | August 30, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Perhaps.
Posted by: Eric Engle | September 02, 2012 at 11:27 AM