Sleight of 'quite'
« previous post | next post »
John Gertner, "‘Elon Musk,’ by Ashlee Vance", NYT /17/2015:
He is now, quite arguably, the most successful and important entrepreneur in the world.
Matt Hutson writes:
“Arguably” is often used to temper an argument, so “quite arguably” should temper it even more. But here “quite” has the effect of strengthening the argument rather than strengthening the tempering of the argument. Seemingly paradoxically, “quite arguably” approaches the meaning of “inarguably.” In essence, by adding “quite,” we suddenly see a proposition’s being arguable in contrast to its being untenable, rather than in contrast to its being undeniable. A neat sleight of word!
But quite is tricky.
The OED gives the gloss
A. II. As an emphasizer: actually, really, truly, positively; definitely; very much, considerably; ‘implying that the case or circumstances are such as fully justify the use of the word or phrase thus qualified’.
and also the gloss
A. III. As a moderating adverb: to a certain or significant extent or degree; moderately, somewhat, rather; relatively, reasonably. This sense is often difficult to distinguish from sense A. II., out of which it developed; the shift in meaning being from ‘certainly having the specified character in (at least) some degree’ to ‘having the specified character in some degree (though not completely)’.
Examples of quite-the-moderator include:
1874 Thistleton's Illustr. Jolly Giant III. 12 Sept. 129/1 In other words, he was quite drunk when he entered, but still more drunk at the time alluded to.
1886 Science 30 Apr. 403/1 The lithographer has done his work quite, though hardly very, well.
And arguably is also tricky, since it's not really "used to temper an argument" in a neutral sense. Rather it suggests something like "others may disagree but this is what I think". That is, it tempers the proposition by granting that not everyone will agree — but it does so in a very different way from modifiers like allegedly or supposedly, which suggest that the author is among those who would take the contrary side.
So there are two ways for quite to make arguably into a stronger endorsement — it might be intensifying the "this is what I think" part, or moderating the "others may disagree part".
I suspect that the former route (intensifying "this is what I think") is what's happening, because we also see "very arguably" used as a stronger endorsement than arguably, e.g. (from the NYT):
Since Iran is dependent on imports for 40 percent of the gasoline for its cars and trucks, this is very arguably the most direct, effective means of convincing the regime in Tehran that it has to negotiate an end to its nuclear arms drive.
This approach very arguably could even be the most modern one on the ballet stage today.
And from other journalistic sources, where it seems to be favored by sportswriters:
The NL West is very arguably the best division in baseball.
He is very arguably the greatest shooter/passer in NBA history.
Although Collins has the bigger name, Randall is very arguably the better NFL prospect.
Ireland came into the contest as very arguably the best side in the northern hemisphere, but can they aim for another title?
Ivory Coast are coming into form at the right moment and very arguably have the deeper resources coming off the bench.
Jerry Friedman said,
May 17, 2015 @ 11:30 pm
I understand it as not only "This is what I think" but also "There's a (very) good argument for this".
Likewise "I have the impression that" weakens a statement, but "I have the strong impression that" is less weak.
Jeff W said,
May 17, 2015 @ 11:56 pm
That’s not what occurred to me. Rather, it’s something like this definition: “susceptible to being supported by convincing or persuasive argument.”
“Quite” acts as an emphasizer here so “quite arguably” means, essentially, “definitely being able to make a case for.”
Bloix said,
May 17, 2015 @ 11:58 pm
1) I truly hate the journalist's weasely "just might be the greatest hat-wearer", "is quite probably the best left-handed chess master," "is arguably the best living dingbat," etc.
2) I would think that the intent here is for quite to be an intensifier. Just about any damned thing is arguable. A lawyer would say "colorable" – that's one small step above "frivolous." "Quite arguably," I would think, is intended to mean, "arguable with strong arguments supported by facts."
3) It's the British usage in which "quite" is a modifier, and is an example of British understatement and indirection. "Good" means fair-to-middling; "quite good" means barely tolerable. "Smart" means stylish; "quite smart" means screamingly out of fashion.
4) The idea that Elon Musk is the greatest and most important entrepreneur in the world is not arguable or quite arguable, in anyone's English. He has, to date, had one genuine success – PayPal – which was not his idea, and which he acquired by accident. Telsa and SolarCity may work out, or not. Hyperloop appears to be genuinely idiotic, or perhaps offered in bad faith (it's the usual stupid or evil problem).
Gregory Kusnick said,
May 18, 2015 @ 12:16 am
Alternatively, this usage could arguably be nothing more than the faddish substitution of arguably for possibly in some well-worn stock phrases as a way of making them seem fresher.
pat barrett said,
May 18, 2015 @ 12:52 am
There was a story about a British major in Korea during combat radioing to his American supporters who asked about his situation. Somehow the word "quite" was in his reply, by which he meant "I'm about to be overrun" and to the Americans meant he was hanging on OK. He was overrun. It kills me I can't remember the story accurately with its nuance of usage. Can anyone help me?
AntC said,
May 18, 2015 @ 1:04 am
I hadn't heard/read very arguably before.
I usually think of quite arguably as meaning rhetorically "a few others may disagree but this is what I and a whole bunch of people think". IOW the same as very arguably.
As to the two senses of quite that myl refs: in my head I say them with different tone of voice. The sort of difference that myl claims is not attested acoustically.
D.O. said,
May 18, 2015 @ 1:34 am
The language is famously a recursive enterprise. So is commenting. Right now I am commenting on Prof. Liberman commenting on Mr. Gertner commenting on Ms. Vance's article. And we are not quite done yet!
Y said,
May 18, 2015 @ 1:40 am
"Arguably" before a (usually subjective) superlative weakens the argument in a different way than elsewhere. "Arguably the best basketball player ever" means something like "the best, or at one among very close contenders". "Arguably a good baseball player" means "let's say a good player, though possibly a bad one." Quite strengthens the equivocation before a non-superlative arguably; but quite arguably before a superlative doesn't work, assuming the 'established' sense of arguably.
I imagine that arguably has come to imply emphasis for some people, by its frequent association with superlatives.
Doreen said,
May 18, 2015 @ 2:21 am
Like AntC, I distinguish between the two senses of quite by means of stress. "QUITE good" is the moderating — and in my experience, more British — sense of not-very-good-actually, whereas "quite GOOD" is the emphasizing sense. I do the same with pretty as an adverb: something that's "pretty GOOD" is a lot better than something that's only "PRETTY good."
Jeff W said,
May 18, 2015 @ 2:47 am
@ pat barrett
Well, this story has a British brigadier reporting the situation to his American superior in the United Nations joint command during the Korean War “with classic and—as it turned out—lethal British understatement.”
While the 600 men of the “Glorious Gloucesters” managed to hold off 30,000 Chinese troops, killing 10,000 of them, according to the piece, “More than 500 of them were captured and spent years in Chinese camps. Fifty-nine were killed or missing. Only 39 escaped.”
Does the story have every detail you recounted? Well, almost every detail, arguably, but not quite.
Jason said,
May 18, 2015 @ 2:48 am
@Pat Barrett
The story rang a bell, you're thinking of this story:
"Sometimes, the language of understatement can lead to lethal misunderstanding. In 1951, 650 soldiers of the Gloucestershire Regiment were surrounded by an entire Chinese division on the Imjin River in Korea. Their commander, Brigadier Thomas Brodie, told the Americans that "things are pretty sticky", a statement that sounded reassuring to American ears but was as close to a scream for help as British understatement would allow. The British were left to fight on without reinforcement. Just 40 survived."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/things-are-getting-a-tad-sticky-how-the-great-british-understatement-is-dying-a-slow-death/story-e6frg6so-1226233548392
Frankly I'm a little sceptical that that's the whole story. But a well-attested example of military confusion over a hedge was Lee's instruction late on July 1, 1863 at the battle of Gettysburg, to Major General Ewell to attack and take Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge "if practicable", by which Lee seems to have meant "if at all possible", but which Ewell interpreted as meaning something like "if conditions seem favourable or propitious", and hence chose not to attack. By July 2 the Federals were well entrenched on those positions and when Lee flatly ordered an assault it failed badly.
John Walden said,
May 18, 2015 @ 2:57 am
British English supposedly distinguishes between "quite" in front of a gradable where it means "relatively" and "quite" before an ungradable where it means "completely".
So "quite nice" is the former and "quite excellent" is the latter. "Not quite dead" and "Have you quite finished?" are the second because either you're dead or finished or you aren't.
That's the theory. "I quite agree" means "I completely agree" but "I quite understand" probably needs a bit of intonation to make it quite clear. Mind you, "I want to be quite clear about this" means "completely clear". Quite probably.
iraguisan said,
May 18, 2015 @ 3:26 am
"Arguably" is a journalistic cliché, but it implies more than "possibly". It's a way to show you're bravely going on the record to affirm something that isn't susceptible of actual proof (how do you prove somebody is "the best player in …"), but which you're willing to stand by in a barroom debate. Ironically, it's shorthand for "I would argue that … (but by saying so I don't have to go into my arguments)".
Breffni said,
May 18, 2015 @ 5:31 am
Doreen: The problem with saying "quite GOOD" and "QUITE good" are distinct senses of "quite" (similarly for "pretty") is that you'd have to say the same about a lot of other adverbs too, including "a bit", "a little", "somewhat", "kind of", and so on, which can flip-flop in the same way.
Instead I'd say the "quite WARM" vs "QUITE warm" distinction (or "a bit DAMP / a BIT damp", etc.) is an ordinary use of focal accent, locating the temperature relative to expectations. In "it's quite WARM", the news is that it's warm at all: it's either a first comment on the temperature, or an assessment that it's warmer than expected. In "It's QUITE warm", the fact that it's warm in any degree is treated as agreed, and the news is in the word "quite", signalling a degree of warmness below expectations. But in both cases, "quite" is being used in the OED's sense A.III, "to a certain or significant extent or degree; moderately, somewhat, rather; relatively, reasonably".
James said,
May 18, 2015 @ 6:29 am
I think Gregory Kusnick is on the right track.
Not certified, but very possibly certifiable, for example; "very possibly" is (quite) common. But how can something be more possible than something else? I think the 'very' signals an intensification of the attitude of the speaker, rather than the attitude of the speaker being toward an intensified kind of modality (which doesn't seem to me to make any sense).
So might it be with "very arguably", and the same goes for "quite arguably" if 'quite' is an intensifier. That's how it sounds to me.
Very interesting example!
Brett said,
May 18, 2015 @ 9:54 am
My reaction was influenced by Bloix's point #4. It seems absurd to characterize Musk as "the most successful and important entrepreneur in the world." So the "quite" felt to me like the author we saying: "You probably think this isn't even plausibly arguable, but really, I think there is an argument to be made for it."
kevinm said,
May 18, 2015 @ 10:52 am
"Arguably" as used by journalists is generally a weasel word, designed to render the statement non-falsifiable. The implication (usually false) that you've thought about all the counterexamples and are being judicious. I think the writer threw in "quite" to indicate that he/she stood behind the statement a little more. Generally, it's probably better to start over and say what you mean, instead of qualifying your qualifiers.
As used by lawyers, "arguably" generally means that the statement or argument passes the straight-face test; one could ethically assert it in court, even if it wouldn't ultimately prevail.
Jan said,
May 18, 2015 @ 11:05 am
And just to add to the confusion The Gloucestershire Regiment was always known as The Glorious Glosters
Ralph Hickok said,
May 18, 2015 @ 12:14 pm
"Arguably" is unarguably a word whose use I dislike intensely. It does seem to me to be more common on sports pages than anywhere else.
maidhc said,
May 18, 2015 @ 11:51 pm
I had a discussion about "quite" with a British friend a while ago. He said that "quite good" was not as good as "good". It was similar to "somewhat".
Whereas in American usage "quite good" is better than "good". Or often it has the meaning "I wasn't expecting it to be very good, but it's much better than I expected".
Elon Musk is more successful than Bill Gates, who has been on and off the richest person in the world? I don't think that's arguable.
Lane said,
May 19, 2015 @ 8:54 am
I learned from an Irish friend last night that "quite good" can also be used in the "not quite as good as 'good'" sense by the Irish. So we might not have a case of "classic English understatement" so much as a mere different development of "quite" on opposite sides of the Atlantic. (Unless someone wants to argue that the Irish are also famously understated.)
Rodger C said,
May 19, 2015 @ 11:31 am
Not yet discussed here: The tendency of some British writers (I think particularly of George Steiner) to use "arguable" to mean "disputable." Or is this an L2 feature on Steiner's part?
iraguisan said,
May 19, 2015 @ 12:13 pm
Maybe the trees got lost in the forest, but I thought the point of this post was to highlight a paired use of two words which each have diametrically opposed definitions.
As Collins puts it, "arguable" means:
1. capable of being disputed; doubtful
2. capable of being supported by argument; plausible
Is "arguably" with the first meaning a British specialty?
Rodger C said,
May 20, 2015 @ 11:28 am
@iraguisan: Thanks, I had indeed quite (!) lost track of that. As for me, I've never seen or heard "arguable" used to mean "disputable" by an American.