Nearly and almost
[This is a guest posting by Jerry Sadock, following up on Mark
Liberman's
two
postings
about "nearly no".]
These two items are almost synonymous, but not necessarily nearly
synonymous. They may well be truth conditionally equivalent, "almost P"
and "nearly P" both entailing "not P" (Atlas, Horn, but pace Sadock)
and "close to P". Thus "Eric knows almost 500 languages" and "Eric
knows nearly 500 languages" would both be false either if Eric knows
501 languages or if Eric knows no more than 400. But there is some kind
of difference between them as revealed by the differential goodness of
Almost no one was there and
Nearly no one was there.
The difference would then have to be a difference in nuance, or
connotation, or (more technically) conventional implicature. That
difference, it seems to me, has to do with expectations:
Nearly n connotes that n exceeds
(hence is better than) what was expected or hoped for, while
almost n does not conventionally
connote any particular desire, hope or expectation, but easily supports
a conversational implicature to the same effect as the
conventional implicature associated with
nearly. So, for example, if I say I
have nearly $10 in my wallet I suggest that that's a lot and since it
isn't, the sentence is strange in most contexts. Compare
Molly has nearly $10 in her piggy bank,
a lot for a three year old, perhaps. But if I say I have almost $10 in
my wallet, while not a lot for a man of my means, it would be a fine
thing to say if we each wanted a tall iced latte and you asked me how
much I had on me. As another example,
almost
tolerable is much more natural than
nearly tolerable since the latter
suggests that being merely tolerable is better than we could have hoped
for. In the right context, however, it's OK. I could describe the
noonday temperature in Tucson in July as "nearly tolerable" if it was
101º since I expected it to be absolutely intolerable, 113º
say, and something approaching tolerable is better than that.
If this is so there is a reason for the distinction in out-of-context
acceptability between examples like
Almost
no one was there and
Nearly
no one was there. The first can be a hedged estimate, pure and
simple, and hence it's OK. The second suggests that zero attendance
exceeds our expectations, which in most contexts is odd. What did we
expect, that a negative number of people would be there? But cobble up
a context in which zero does exceed expectations, and it becomes OK.
This would ordinarily involve scale reversal, because negative
quantities exist only in the realm of mathematics. Let's say I've
organized a boycott on Humvees. I hope and expect that my campaign will
be successful and only a small number will be sold. My expectations
would then be exceeded if none are sold and then
Nearly no Humvees were sold last month
seems fine in that context.
Some of the examples of
nearly no on
the web clearly show such reverse expectation or hope, like this one:
Nearly none of the known near-earth
objects have any chance of hitting the earth, and there are just two or
three such objects that researchers can't dismiss yet, said Marsden. (
link)
One would hope that one of these babies won't slam into our planet and
send us the way of the dinosaurs. But there are a lot of these puppies
out there, so the best we could hope for is that only a few stand a
chance of closing our chapter for good. None would be a big relief --
the most we hoped for, so to speak. The last clause in the quotation,
there are just two or three such objects
that researchers can't dismiss yet, is revealing. It shows that
there's an active effort to get the number down, hence the scale
reversal.
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at June 24, 2007 02:02 PM