I have stumbled upon a (for me) fascinatingly obscure semantic debate. Having used 'no absolute right' in a hypothetical sentence, I read it over by mistake as 'absolutely no right.' I had heard both variations used but was not certain of the difference.
You have no absolute right to a reply just because you posted a Q on ELU! (I interpret: We are not bound to give you an answer)
You have absolutely no right to a reply just because you posted a Q on ELU! (I interpret: We will decide at our sole discretion whether or not to give you an answer)
I could locate no sources online that seem to have addressed this difference, but found this amazing legal transcript regarding the right of civil servants to a pension, where the crux of the incredibly long and detailed argument was whether or not 'no absolute right' in the wording of the particular rule should be interpreted as 'absolutely no right'
Argument for the civil servants (petitioners): Just because the rule is worded as 'the civil servant has no absolute right to a pension', we cannot infer that he has 'absolutely no right,' as the State contends. (paraphrase)
Counter-argument by counsel for the State: Since the civil servant has 'no absolute right' to a pension, he has 'absolutely no right' to take legal recourse to secure the same, because the rule implicitly leaves the decision of granting a pension to the sole discretion of the State. (paraphrase)
In short it is no small matter. So can somebody tell me what is the fine difference?