Another "nearly" from the wrong side

[Laurence Horn]

On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Dan Goncharoff wrote:

> I would argue the word 'nearly' doesn't suggest "a scalar position below or
> before X(ing, but the context does.

I suspect, based on some informal empirical surveys I've done in connection with working on approximatives, that there's too much variation on this to make the case that what "nearly" means for you is what it means (for everyone).   Let's stick with numbers: the problem is that there's an asymmetry based on the fact that numbers form a scale.  If I say I'm 21, I can be speaking the truth in many contexts even if I'm (well) over 21, but not if I'm under 21 (even though sometimes we might let it go as an approximation if I'm 19 or 20, while still conceding that it's strictly false).    So it's not obviously the case that you're either 21 or you aren't.  If I say she's not 18, this can be used depending on the context to convey that she isn't exactly 18 or that she's 17 or less. (It can't convey that she's 19 or more.)  Since "nearly X" can be understood as entailing 'not X' as well as 'close to X', it can be used in these two different ways:  'not exactly X' and 'less than but!
  close to X'.  If it only had the first meaning all the time, we'd predict that "She's nearly 21" would sound as natural for 22 or 23 year olds as it does for 19 or 20 year olds, and for most speakers (not just Joel and me) it simply doesn't.

LH

P.S.  And this isn't a matter of 21 conveying adulthood.  Other numbers will do as well, so if I said I'm nearly 70 most people would probably guess (correctly) that I'm in my late 60s, but probably not, ceteris paribus, that I'm 71 or 72.

> There is no wrong side of new -- it's
> new or it's not. Similarly, there is no wrong side of 21 -- you're either
> 21 and over, or you're not. You've either started or you haven't.
>
> In a context with two true sides, like the original example of 'nearly
> half', I am suggesting that 'nearly' means 'not exactly', and that can be
> above or below.
>
> DanG
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>> Subject:      Re: Another "nearly" from the wrong side
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
>>
>>> Does "nearly" have a wrong side? Why can't near-ness be a slightly higher
>>> amount? Now if the article had used "almost", I would share your concern.
>>>
>>> DanG
>>
>> For a lot of speakers, "nearly X" shares this scalar property with "almost
>> X" and "not quite X", all of them suggesting a scalar position below or
>> before X(ing), whether X is a number, an amount, or a time point/interval.
>> But it can be overridden in context with varying degrees of success.  So
>> while "almost/nearly started" usually means not yet begun, we can get
>> examples like "almost a child" or "almost a virgin" in "wrong-side"
>> contexts like
>>
>> Anyway, she was only 16. Technically she might be an adult but really she
>> was only a child. You couldn’t make people who were almost children be
>> responsible for dead bodies, could you?
>> —Kate Atkinson, _When Will There Be Good News?_
>>
>> or the David Cassidy movie "Almost a Virgin".    For me "nearly" works in
>> such cases too, but YMMV.  I do notice a lot of sites for "nearly
>> newlyweds", and in particular for the "Nearly Newlywed Wedding Dress
>> Boutique" that sells "nearly new" dresses, which would be another example
>> (=/= not yet new).  To be sure, though, someone who is "nearly/almost 21"
>> is nearly/almost short of 21, rather than long of it.
>>
>> LH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>>>> Subject:      Another "nearly" from the wrong side
>>>>
>>>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> "Ackerman disclosed that he sold 39.1 million shares to the bank for
>>>> $12.60 per share ... That's nearly half of the average $25 a share
>>>> that he paid when he first invested in Penney in 2010."
>>>>
>>>> For me, "nearly half" would be $12.40 a share.  Although I suppose
>>>> that if one is watching one's investment on its way down, $12.60 is
>>>> nearly $12.50.
>>>>
>>>> "Ackerman takes a $400m bath on J.C. Penney".  Anne d'Innocenzio,
>>>> Associated Press.  August 29.
>>>>
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org