Timeline for Concise way of expressing "Without further specification"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 17:35 | answer | added | Nuclear Hoagie | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 17:20 | answer | added | user387838 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 16:04 | comment | added | Greybeard | @Pippip I don't think superficially necessarily works in the first example Ah... but the OED and I do... Superficial: 1.c. Of an action or condition: occurring at or existing on the surface. 4.a. Not thorough, detailed, or complete; cursory. (a) Of a perception, judgement, etc. 1845 J. R. McCulloch Treat. Taxation i. iv. 115 On a superficial view, nothing seems fairer,..and yet few things would, in reality, be more unfair and mischievous. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 14:13 | comment | added | pip | This is a very good suggestion. I think I will keep the question open (i.e. not accept), in case someone has something more 'powerful' (what if you had a whole list of properties that were known? You would have to list them e.g. price, colour and weight-wise. You can't say 'allknowninformation-wise'). But I may be asking for too much. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 12:59 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | Okay. I think you need the suffix, "-wise". Weight-wise, A and B are equivalent. However colour-wise they differ considerably. Also, "price-wise" etc. If that is what you are looking for I'll justify it in an answer. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 12:40 | comment | added | pip | @Greybeard Forgive me, I am not quite sure what you point is? Or were you just making an observation? I don't think superficially necessarily works in the first example (see the apple example - what's superficial about knowing the weights of the apples but not their colour?). | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 12:39 | comment | added | pip | @chaslyfromUK I have added a simple example, if that helps clarify what I mean (if you are looking for a more realistic example, I think we should take the discussion to chat). I was hoping for generality, as in specific cases you can typically re-word the entire sentence to convey the required meaning. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 12:36 | history | edited | pip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added example of what A and B might be
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 9:28 | comment | added | Greybeard | Your examples are different: The first can be expressed as "Superficially, items A and B are indistinguishable." However, to retain the meaning, A and B appear to be/are believed to be/are thought of as/present as equally good choices. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 8:51 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | Maybe it would help if you gave some clue as to what A and B are. It's difficult to answer on such an abstract basis. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 8:38 | comment | added | pip | Interesting, I haven't seen that outside of law. As I understand it means 'on first observation', whereas my statements are not limited in this way (we could know quite a lot about A and B, only at the level we chose to inspect them at or the with tools we have to measure them do they appear the same). | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 8:09 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | How about prima facie ? | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 8:06 | comment | added | pip | Yes, I was hoping for something not suggestive of visual phenomena, such as overtly and apparently, or with connotations of deception ("seemingly" also conveys a degree of uncertainty?). But perhaps it is necessary to be bold and trust that the reader will appreciate from the context that you are not being restrictive to sight or uncertainty. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 7:58 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | Hmm... seemingly, overtly, apparently, intuitively? Am I in the right ballpark? | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 7:55 | history | edited | pip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 7:54 | history | edited | pip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added comment on a priori and an additional example
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 6:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 22, 2020 at 6:52 | |||||
| Jun 22, 2020 at 6:44 | history | asked | pip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |