[SGVLUG] OT our wonderful English language...
Emerson, Tom
Tom.Emerson at wbconsultant.com
Fri Feb 17 10:21:40 PST 2006
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Dustin Laurence
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:57:35AM -0800, Emerson, Tom wrote:
> >
> > "... They conducted a nearly comprehensive survey of Greenland
> > glacial ice discharge rates ..."
> >
> > ... They conducted an almost comprehensive study ...
> >
> > Hmmm... sounds like they "almost" have enough data to base a
> > hypothesis upon...
>
> This is the journal _Science_, so ... it means they're writing in academic
> language, which is required to be more weasely-worded than most things.
Aye, there's the rub :) They're FORCED to use an "oxy-moron" ;)
I suppose when "unqualified", the words "comprehensive study" could mean anything from "barely" to "completely", though most folks [lay people] would tend to think it more towards the "complete" end of the spectrum. However you point out that this is the Journal _Science_, where the readers would be unsatisfied with an unqualified claim, thus the writer has to choose some word to describe the level of completeness. But what word to pick to describe the level of completeness? Of course, few in the target audience would actually believe "completely", and in fact might attack the study out-of-hand if it did claim to be a complete study, so it has to be brought back a notch.
> They are warning other researchers that there are minor points where the
> study could be improved and they know it, however, they are confident
> that the essential results will stand and that the results
> are important enough to publish now (I and more importantly _Science_
> agree on that).
which is how I described what I think of when I hear of a "very comprehensive study" -- one in which further refinement of the techniques would not significantly change the results. Of course, that too can be misconstrued -- is it so "very" comprehensive that to question the results would be deemed an insult? Perhaps both words are needed, making it a "very nearly comprehensive study", which, of course, is almost meaningless :)
More information about the SGVLUG
mailing list