Language desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Hyphen

Is it "List of most visited museums in..." or "List of most-visited museums in..."?

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most style guides (U.S. ones, at least) would favor the hyphen. When an adverb ending in -ly precedes an adjective or participle ("rarely visited museums"), no hyphen is used, but combinations with adverbs not ending in -ly are usually hyphenated to prevent misreading. See #3 in MOS:HYPHEN for Wikipedia guidance. Deor (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (UK logic too), use of the hyphen avoids the possible ambiguity. The list presumably contains the museums that are most frequently visited, not most of the museums that are visited sometimes. Dbfirs 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-posted at-Village-Pump here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 53#Disambiguating hypens needed

Thanks all for the-input. I'm really getting-the-hang of hyphen-usage now. I think I've-nailed it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double negatives

From the article Chronovisor:

the existence (much less the functionality) of the chronovisor has never been confirmed

I think there's a double negative here – if not grammatically, at least logically – because the verb negated with never applies for both subjects. If written out in full, the sentence would read:

the existence of the chronovisor has never been confirmed, much less has the functionality of the chronovisor never been confirmed

I think the bolded parts cancel each other logically. Even in my language, which allows double (and triple, quadruple, etc) grammatical negatives, such a statement would seem self-contradictory.

What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When taken literally, it seems to be an example of exaggeration, not a double negative, by saying that confirmation of the functionality has occurred "less than never". But "much less" has come to mean "or"/"nor", in common use, so I would read it that way. I would rewrite it as "Neither the existence nor functionality has ever been confirmed". StuRat (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an incorrect use of "much less" - but not a double negative. The essence of a double negative is that the two negatives effectively cancel each other out: it is perfectly legitimate to use two negatives when the second one serves to reinforce the first one. However, there is no point trying to indicate that the functionality of something is even more questionable than its existence if you cannot find any proof of existence. If it doesn't exist, then of course it doesn't function. Wymspen (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a perfectly ordinary use of the idiom "much less" to me. You might want to check out Wiktionary's entries on "much less" and similar phrases: much less, not to mention, to say nothing of, let alone. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like poor sentence construction to me. In fact it's so bad it's hard to understand. I think it means this (which would be a better construction): "the existence, let alone the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to short-circuit this discussion, I've gone ahead and changed "much less" to "let alone" in the article, as a less awkward construction. Deor (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is very often the right thing to do, ~~much less~~ even in otherwise better-formed sentences. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP's analysis showing that it's an illogical double negative. Akid guy's alternative is good, as is "the existence, or even the functionality, of the chronovisor has never been confirmed." Loraof (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or even doesn't work there, because existence is logically prior to functionality. —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what someone was trying, and failing, to say is: "Not even the existence of the chronovisor has ever been confirmed, let alone its functionality". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence seemed perfectly clear to this native, but then there ain't nothing wrong with double negatives. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no double negative in the original sentence. "Much less" is not a negative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I couldn't be bothered to explain that to the sort of idiots who think that there is anything wrong with double negatives in English. DuncanHill (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a double negative, except when it's mistakenly being used in place of a single negative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't never nothing wrong with no double negatives. I defy any native ever to misunderstand that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No hay salvavidas trabajando

The edifice in question

Anyone who has spent any time on the beaches of Southern California will be familiar with the little blue lifeguard boxes that dot the shoreline. There may be some variation, but the ones in Venice at least all seem to be stenciled with a warning, in English and Spanish, that there is no lifeguard on duty (now that I think about it, I'm not sure what they do with it when there is a lifeguard on duty).

Anyway, the Spanish version says NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO.

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but I think that's just a flat grammatical error, isn't it? You can't use the gerund that way, at least not in Italian, which is usually pretty close to Spanish in these things.

Italian does have a just-barely-productive present participle, which Spanish does not, so I suppose in Italian you could just barely say non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavoranti, if you didn't mind people looking at you funny. But you absolutely can't say *non ci sono guardaspiaggia lavorando. That would mean something like "when you're working, there are no lifeguards", if it were grammatical at all, which it really isn't. Instead, you should say non ci sono guardaspiaggia al lavoro.

So I think the Spanish version should be NO HAY SALVAVIDAS AL TRABAJO. Or not? --Trovatore (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the grammar, but the sign seems to be on a wooden shutter that would be taken down (or hinged forward) when the hut is in use. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Spanish, particularly journalistic, legalistic, bureaucratic and administrative Spanish, does occasionally use the gerund as an adjective, although this use is incorrect, strictly speaking (except in rare cases where it has been lexicalized, such as "aqua hirviendo", "clave ardiendo", or "rubio tirando a amarillo"). See es:Gerundio#Gerundio_como_adjetivo for example, and Aproximación al estudio del gerundio en español e italiano: la expresión oral by Hugo E. Lombardini and Enriqueta Pérez Vázquez, who state that this (non-normative) form of adjectival gerund is used in spoken Spanish too, but not in spoken Italian. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No estan salvavidas de guardia. "There aren't (any) lifeguards on duty." ("Estar de guardia" means on duty; that the word for "duty" is guardia is just a coincidence here.)

The best you could do with trabajar would be "No trabajan salvavidas" which would mean there might be some present, but if so, they aren't going to rescue anyone. Or "Las salvavidas no trabajan" which Literally means "The lifeguards don't work", which is a quite odd thing to say as well. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider NO HAY SALVAVIDAS TRABAJANDO to be Spanglish. Some Spanish-speakers who are born and raised in the U.S. probably do say this, but it looks bad to me. Besides wikt:salvavidas, you can also use wikt:guardavidas or wikt:socorrista, but the usual way to write this phrase would be: no hay salvavidas de turno, or no hay ningún salvavidas. —Stephen (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gave my informant the original which was on the beach sign and was met with laughter. I didn't give my example and was told Los salvavidas no estan de guardia was a better alternative. I would interpret no hay ningún salvavidas to mean this beach has no lifeguards at all, not that they are off duty (not working) at this hour. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no hay ningún salvavidas is singular, which you can tell from the word ningún. So a literal translation would be there is no lifeguard, which would be accurate. When a lifeguard comes on duty, he takes the sign down. —Stephen (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if the sign were plural ("there are no lifeguards") that somehow intimates to a would - be bather that they should not bother waiting around for one to show up because the beach is not serviced, and if singular it doesn't? 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "no lifeguards" does sound like a permanent situation, whereas "no lifeguard" could be temporary or permanent. For this phrase, English benefits from saying "on duty", and almost seems to require it, whereas Spanish really does not need it. It's okay to add "de turno" to the Spanish, but I think it suggests English influence. —Stephen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a certified interpreter. But as I myself apprehend it, while the gerund in English constitutes a homograph of the infinitive, the two remain completely distinct in the other Latin-based tongues (modern Greek and the various, Romance Languages).

Namely, in Spanish one would use the present participle when saying "Le vi corriendo por la calle `I saw him running down the street`."

But he would use the gerund when saying "¡Su correr por la casa me enoja! `His running in the house annoys me!`."

(Please note the use of the genitive pronoun.) Pine (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's completely incorrect. In English, the gerund has the same form as the present participle (the -ing form). "Living" used as a noun (e.g. "living is easy") is the gerund; in "the living God", you're using it as the present participle. For the present progressive tense, "I am living", it's sort of hard to tell; to me this seems more like a participial use, but I think it's more common to call it a gerund.

Your corriendo is in fact a gerund, not a present participle. The present participle, if it existed, would be corriente, I think, but the present participle is no longer productive in Spanish; it's limited to a few fixed forms. It is productive in Italian, but just barely (it's not used very much outside of fixed forms).

Your correr is not a gerund at all. It's a nominalized infinitive. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who responded! Alan, good find on the photo.

Sluzzelin, that's interesting; that's the only piece of evidence contrary to the narrative that whoever made the stencil just made a silly Anglophone error. It actually does seem possible that, if there's a disapproved style that's favored by bureaucrats, well, bureaucrats just might use it in translation as well :-).

Medeis, too much good stuff there to address briefly. I wish my intuitions in Italian were still trustworthy enough to figure out what you would really say. I think al lavoro works but I could be wrong. I toyed with in carica, but that sounds like they have sufficient electric charge, or all'incarico or d'incarico, but those sound like you elect lifeguards and they're currently in office.

Stephen, thanks for pointing out that salvavidas is (also) singular. I was thinking of it as necessarily plural, another Anglophone-inspired error. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were employed by the Coastguard, I would put up a sign on the lines of Esta praia não é vigiado por salva - vidas if that was indeed the case. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper an=swer is Nade a su propio riesgo. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following two sentences grammatical?

I don't know whether he likes baseball, nor do I know whether he likes basketball (i.e. I don't know whether he likes baseball. I don't know whether he likes basketball either).
I know he doesn't like baseball, nor - I know - does he like basketball (i.e. I know he doesn't like baseball. I know he doesn't like basketball either).

I guess #1 is grammatical. If #2 is ungrammatical, then how can I rephrase it - using " nor " - and without giving up the second " I know " (just as #1 doesn't have to give up the second " I know ")?

141.226.218.104 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "nor" without introducing a double negative. The construction you want is "I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball". 78.145.17.85 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your proposal " I know he doesn't like baseball or basketball ": It does not use " nor ", so it's not what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out your comment about the double negative. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that nor is used when you have two negative things - so in the first sentence there are two things that you don't know. In the second sentence you are joining two positives - two things that you do know (even though what you know appears negative): the conjunction has to be "and".

I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he doesn't like basketball either.
I know he doesn't like baseball, and I know he also doesn't like basketball.
I know he doesn't like either baseball or basketball. Wymspen (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals do not contain " nor ", so they can't be what I'm looking for.

I can't figure out why my first sentence can use " nor ", while my second sentence cannot. Please notice, that just as my first sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things I don't know, so my second sentence tells something about two negative things - i.e. two things he doesn't like, so the distinction you make between both sentences in terms of the two negative things - seems to be very artificial - because it refers to the incidental content of each sentence whereas my question is about grammar rather than about content. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "I know he likes neither baseball nor basketball"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't want to give up the second " I know " in the second sentence, just as I don't have to give up the second " I know " in the first sentence. 141.226.218.104 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using any verb (e.g. "I know") - twice - with "nor", is only possible in sentences where that verb is negated twice. Therefore, you cannot use the verb "I know" twice - in the second sentence, because the "I know" is not negated in the second sentence. HOTmag (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "nor" is rather formal, and discussing which sports somebody likes is rather informal, so the two really don't go together. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfoirtunately, what you want is not grammatically possible. Your second sentence has two positives - "I know ...." and "I know ...." and you cannot put a "nor" between two positives. The fact that what you know is something negative makes no difference: knowing that someone doesn't like something remains a positive statement. The main verb is positive. Wymspen (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. "He doesn't like baseball, nor does he like basketball" would be fine, but the sentence isn't primarily - grammatically speaking - about what HE does or does not like, it's about what YOU DO know. If it were about what you do NOT know, then there'd be a case for using "nor". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the second sentence clunky but valid. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Degree of Formality When Addressing an Organization

I got an email from a company that starts off with:

Congratulations, Pizza!

And ends with:

Best,
The Foobar Recruiting Team

Now I'm writing a reply back to them. Normally in professional communications I use "To whom it may concern" when I don't know the recipient's name and gender, but in this case it feels slightly too uptight and formal. Would it be acceptable to use the salutation "Dear Foobar Recruiting Team" in this case? Or would that be seen as unprofessional? Pizza Margherita (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that degree of formality ("To whom it may concern") is seen as stuffy and old-fashioned now, while "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. Something like "Valued customer" or just your name would be more common now. Or you can skip the salutation entirely, since the email address already makes it clear who it's addressed to. In a mass email, this might make sense, if no one greeting applies to everyone it was sent to. Better than "Customers, suppliers, and employees," in my opinion. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick input! Much appreciated. Pizza Margherita (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read that "Dear" should only be used with loved ones. "Dear" is the default opening of a letter, and affection could be expressed by starting off "My dear ..." etc. (though not in this example, obviously). 78.145.17.85 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At one point this was true, but I would find a stranger addressing me as "Dear" to be inappropriate, as would many. It's about like at a diner where the waitress calls everyone "Hon". StuRat (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. --Viennese Waltz 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Dear So-and-so . . . " is still standard in formal and business correspondence, unless and until the two co-respondents are sufficiently familiar with each other to substitute something more casual. Starting with "Mr So-and-so . . ." or "Sir . . ." would imply a degree of annoyance or coldness (which might be appropriate in some circumstances, such as a dispute). However, letters to newspapers or journals intended for publication do conventionally start "Sir . . ."{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the London insurance market, the general form when writing to a company was "Dear Sirs..." followed at the end by "yours faithfully". If you knew who you were writing to, the letter would be headed "For the attention of Mr Joseph Bloggs" but still commenced with "Dear Sirs". I don't know if this formality has fallen by the wayside in the decade or so since my departure, especially now that there are a lot more female "Sirs". Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The warmth of a letter used to be expressed by the subscription. If you started off "Dear Sir" you would end "Yours faithfully". In days gone by you might sign off with "I remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant". You could add kisses in personal correspondence but of course on the internet you have a whole toolkit of emojis. A solicitor will end a letter to his client "Yours sincerely". When writing to the other side he will finish "Yours faithfully" (the very thing which he is not). Continentals are more deferential. The French monsieur means "my lord". A Portuguese business letter would end

De V. Ex^ia(s) atentamente

and may still do so. The contraction is of Vossa Excelência, lit. "Your Excellency". In the form você it is in conversational use in Brazil. Government letters ended (and may still end) with the formula

A bem da nação (the good of the nation).

It is possible this dates back to the establishment of the Republic in 1917(?)

"Dear Sir or Madam" solves the problem when you do not know the sex of the person you are writing to, and "Dear Miss ..." if you don’t know the marital status. "Ms" strikes me as a sloppy construction, and "Mx" is even worse. 92.24.108.109 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule used to be that if it was addressed to a named person, it would start "Dear [name including titles as appropriate]" and end "Yours sincerely"; but if it was "Dear Sir/s" etc, it would end "Yours faithfully". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's still the case with formal business writing in the UK. If addressed to a named individual it is "Dear Mr A/Mrs B" and "Yours sincerely", if addressed to a company or an organisation it is "Dear Sirs" and "Yours faithfully".

By contrast, "to whom it may concern" would only be used when you don't know who (person or organisation) would be reading the letter - it wouldn't be appropriate if the letter is addressed to a particular company. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"To whom it may concern" is a legal formula on a notice addressed to the world at large. Letters are addressed to a specific recipient at a specific address. 86.168.124.54 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "could" still mean "could"?

I ask this because in the media I'm seeing fewer and fewer uses of it by itself, and more and more instances of "could possibly", "could perhaps", "could potentially", "could theoretically" and similar.

Hasn't "could" always included the sense of these other words? Or is there occurring some fundamental change in its meaning? Or is this just journalistic over-dramatisation/padding? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modifier "theoretically" seems to imply "not practically", as in "due to quantum fluctuations the Earth could theoretically wink out of existence". So it really means "couldn't". StuRat (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three adverbs are intended to cast more doubt than could possibly be conveyed by "could"' alone. Loraof (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)All those variations seem to imply significantly less than 50/50 odds. If you say "could" by itself, to me it sounds more like 50/50. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ... you could win the lottery, but the odds are certainly not "more like 50/50". 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly win the lottery? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By purchasing the winning ticket? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask them to sell you a winning ticket, but they refuse to guarantee it, so I don't bother to buy them. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, lotteries being what they are the way to win (or at least not lose) is not to participate. Their advertising is fairly unimaginative - the pools companies say "you've got to be in it to win it" and the National Lottery's slogan is "Play makes it possible". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:1A5:5029:129D:58 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those statements are literally true. If you don't have a ticket, you cannot possibly win anything. If you do have a ticket, you now have a possibility of winning - a very low possibility, but any positive number, no matter how low, is infinitely better than zero. Being in the game is infinitely better than not being in the game, from the point of view of winning money. And I'm glad you modified your opening statement, because without that amendment, it wasn't about winning at all. Winning money and not losing money on risky gambles are completely different things. The former absolutely requires a monetary investment; the latter, for certainty, absolutely requires that NO monetary investment be made. You can't get anything more different than those two things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where his dog, Dogbert, was selling "Half priced, day-old lottery tickets". The customer complained that there was no chance of winning, since presumably any winning tickets would not be sold. Dogbert replied that they are still a better deal, since at 50 cents each, you only lose 50 cents per purchase, while a $1 new lottery ticket only pays off 10 cents, on average, so you lose 90 cents there. The customer then says "Wow, if they're such a great deal, give me two !". StuRat (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

When an advertiser says you "could" win something, they are being extremely optimistic. If they tell you there's a zillion-to-one chance against winning, they won't sell many tickets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Could possibly," "could perhaps," "could theoretically," "might probably," "might likely," and others all strike my as redundancies. Viz., while the writer clearly intends to emphasize the modal verb with an adverb, he actually ends up doing the exact opposite: he makes the reader's eyes glaze over. :)

In my personal writing style, I strictly avoid adverbs that share a similar meaning the modal verbs that they modify.

ee.gg., I'll say "As bad as it could ever get." "I cannot in any way agree with this," or "Could this somehow get any weirder?" Pine (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if you say "this could probably be dealt with in another forum" you're saying that it is more likely that someone else could deal with it than if you had said "this could possibly be dealt with in another forum". 2A02:C7D:51A4:6D00:80C8:5D47:A323:DCDC (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most languages, English still preserves the distinction between "can" and "may." Thus, I'd say "This might be better addressed in another forum" for the former intended meaning, and "this could be answered more properly in another forum" for the latter.

(I apologize for rewriting your examples, but I really don't like putting "with" at the end of a clause.)

:)

Pine (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This general subject reminds me of this observation from the story of Tweedledum and Tweedledee: "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of "might" and "could" occurs at about 12:15 of this clip:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As IP 2A02 implies above, 'could' is a little ambiguous when the subject is thought more likely than not likely. "A solution could possibly be found on another forum" versus "A solution could probably be found on another forum". Therefore, I don't think the 'possibly' (or the 'probably') are redundant. They simply more accurately describe the likelihood of the 'could' and are adjuncts to it. Akld guy (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different wording can give different assumptions both based on the reader and the context. I sometimes use the redundant "may or may not" when I have no idea of the likelihood. I guess readers are less likely to make assumptions about likelihood from that formulation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 August 31

Contents