Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: What you you think?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:51:17 +0100
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <slrne9tj8l.prp.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <Oc3ng.55921$Lm5.23150@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net GEfsRyD/lUCmPOQ1uJ9zHgx6a3HTRsvmAnxYQ9qHOFxYTREcQ=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1255
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:29:34 GMT, Dan
<DELETEMEdan_slaughter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Is "extremely capable" a conflict of terms? I think it is. Capable means,
> at least to me, fully able. I don't think one can be more than full. What
> about "exceedingly able?"
I think that 'extremely' and 'exceedingly' used like that are less than
'fully', not more. The scale goes something like:
capable
very capable
extremely capable
fully capable
It basically describes how capable the person is at doing whatever it
is, a person who is just capable has the ability but may not be able to
do it perfectly all the time, or possibly not at all at the moment. I
am capable of speaking Welsh, I just don't know enough words to do it
fluently, whereas someone who is fully capable of speaking Welsh could
do so at any time.
The Concise OED says of 'capable': competant, able or gifted. There's
no mention of being fully able (to do the thing perfectly), so it seems
that ther is room for improvement. For instance, a capable driver is
not necessarily as good as an expert driver (I would describe myself as
a capable or competant driver, not an expert one).
Chris C
|
|