Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 October 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 13

What do you say to someone as a polite greeting at 4:00 AM in the morning, before the sunrise, and the person hasn't had a night's sleep?

What do you say to someone as a polite greeting at 4:00 AM in the morning, before the sunrise, and the person hasn't had a night's sleep because s/he is working on night shift or staying up all night for some reason? Is it "Good morning" or "Good evening" or "Good night"? Do these phrases depend on the time of day or the lightness/darkness of the environment? Please narrow the scope of your answer to American English. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about, "Hi, how are you?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, because it is morning for you, and you are greeting them. They might equally well say good evening back or good morning back. "Good night" is not a greeting, but a leave-taking. (If you say it to someone entering while you are not literally that very moment on the way out the door it will be taken as an insult.) If it's dark when they leave say good night, which is what you should expect them to say to you, even if you've already exchanged good mornings. Never ask "How are you?" It puts a burden on them to answer insincerely, unless you run a cash register, and don't know the customer, in which case it's pro forma. No one who's been working all night wants to be asked "how are you." If you know the person by name, a "hi" a, brief smile, and a nod'll be fine. Don't say "good night" once it's bright out, it will sound sarcastic. Stick with "See you later" at that point. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I once knew someone who said "Good evening" regardless of the time. —Tamfang (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I too! Was his name Mr. Delaney? He also said it just like Lurch from The Addams Family. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

His name was Colburn iirc. His voice was distinctively creaky. —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Delaney died of a respiratory infection caught for no good reason in a local hospital in his early 60's in the early 1990's. I wish I knew if he was imitating a TV or Radio show. He was a little older than my parents, who have no memory of any such catchphrase. Lurch, of course, said, "You rang?" μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock Presents always started with AH intoning "Good evening" lugubriously. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You could try "Yo, Ding Dong, man. Ding Dong. Ding Dong, yo." Then offer them part of a complete breakfast. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a brief, non-American yet entirely relevant four minute course in how not to greet people. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone who works nights, we don't say Good night unless it is to someone who is leaving when we come in or to someone when we are leaving in the morning. And in the latter case, it is assumed by all parties to be a joke (though a very old and not so funny one). We say good night to the incoming shift, even though it is morning by time and relative brightness, because we are the ones who are going to bed when we get home and it is our "night". And simply saying "hey" or "hi" is acceptable at all times.

This reminds me of a similar thread that was had here a week or two ago about when the weekend starts. For some workers, the weekend isn't always Saturday and Sunday. Mine, for instance, starts on Wednesday mornings. So someone might tell me to have a good weekend even though it is Wednesday. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Given Dismas has agreed with me on every point we've both commented on, I think this can be marked resolved. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I say "good morning" from 0:00-11:59 so long as I am aware of the time, "good midday" or "good noon" if it is 12:00 and I am aware of that fact, "good day" or "good afternoon" from 12:01-17:59, and "good evening" from 18:00 on. There is only one exception to this that I can think of: a case where I wouldn't be seeing someone for the rest of the day and it was sometime after 21:00, in which case I would say "Good night". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a single English word in common use (not a coinage) that means female gangster or mobster?

Something along the lines of mobstress, or gangstress, but not such an obvious intentional neologism--something in established widespread use? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about Gun moll? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I immediately thought of gun moll, but that's two words, and it implies she's a gangster's girlfriend who'll use a gun in a pinch. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's something for a gangster. Female gangsters have them, too. The way I hear it in English, there is no special term, aside from "female gangster". Griselda Blanco was (and Enedina Arellano Félix is) called La Madrina (The Godmother) and the flipside of Don is Donna. The US government has officially designated Félix a "kingpin". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Queenpin" ? StuRat (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"The only thing in this world that gives orders is balls." Not to be confused with ball culture or Big Balls, and "queenpin" might do that more than a literal lack of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Queenpin's the idea I want, but it's a coinage not in common usage. Madame would work if it weren't restricted to mean head of a brothel. There's Mary Astor's role as a saloon owner in Desert Fury, but she has no "title". μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ma Barker was sometimes known as "Godmother of crime"; but in general, female gangsters are simply "female gangsters" in common parlance, as far as I can find (e.g.: "The Baddest Female Gangsters of All Time")  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What, you're not a fan of compositional semantics? "Queenpin" would probably work just fine, if "kingpin" originally meant a crime boss. But it didn't, it meant a mechanical part, as described by Fifth_wheel_coupling and Kingpin_(automotive_part). So while compositional semantics usually works for compound words, it doesn't often respect metaphor. Anyway, consider that "gangster" is gender neutral - my NOAD says "gang member, racketeer, robber, ruffian, thug, tough, villain, lawbreaker, criminal." Also consider that mafioso/mafiosa are already gendered in Italian [1], so doesn't "mafiosa" mean a female member of the mafia? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll suggest mafiosa, the problem I expect is it is too ethnic specific. Kind of like calling Trisha Takanawa a japanese Latina newsperson. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "mafia" has been adopted by (or applied to) all sorts of ethnic (and non-ethnic) gangs. Black Mafia, Mexican Mafia, Russian Mafia, Chaldean Mafia, etc. See more American ones in the long list in Appendix A of the FBI's gang assessment. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And The New Age Outlaws later became The James Gang and Voodoo Kin Mafia. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here because gun moll, which I explained to the OP, is not an exact match, and female mobster/gang member, also offered, are phrases, not a single term. I offered the OP gangstress and mobstress, suggesting that might get you punched in the face, to which the response was, "You mean shot?" I personally like Queenpin, which would also be a great name for a supervillian, kind of a Dame Edna as QEII with a poison broach. But the single-term widespread non-neologism criteria are not mine, so I can't rescind them. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "gangstrix", analogous to executrix or dominatrix? <forfeit alarm sounds, like on QI> Incorrect, neologism! I lose 50 points. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bandette is the title of a book series by Colleen Coover about a female criminal. 93.95.251.190 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Martin.

• The best I have so far is that queenpin is "cute" and apparently wins the consolation prize. The -ix and -ess neologisms were already thought of and discarded or the question would not have been asked. Mafiosa works, but is too ethnocentric, as noted. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if you want to be literal, "gangster" is already feminine, as "-ster" is a feminine suffix historically (though, "seamster" became synonymous with "seamer" at some point in our language's history, and ever since then "-ster" hasn't really signified gender). Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean in Chinese, and how do I pronounce it?

I am doing some translation work at the Chinese Wikipedia and I need some help with translations:

• 1. What does 秋意浓 translate to in English?
• 2. What does 阳整涉爆 translate to in English?
• 3. How do I pronounce 点墨龘凸陷齉!?

Thank you for your help . --DrinkDrinkLetTheSunShine (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific terms for males instead of generic terms

Inspired by the above question about female gangsters, I decided to ask this question. I've often wondered how just about every language I understand has a way to mark a profession or other quality as especially female, but never as especially male. English has the suffix "-ess", my native Finnish has the suffix "-tar", Swedish has the suffix "-inna" and German has the suffix "-in". All these are female-only. I have noted that German makes it a point to always include both the normal form and the "-in" form for sexual equality, such as "Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser", but still I think that the normal form is for both sexes. (I'm not a native German speaker, so correct me if I'm wrong). Is there any way in any language to mark a profession or other quality as especially male? I don't mean professions or other qualities that just happen to be exclusively male in the real world, this is purely a linguistic question. JIP | Talk 19:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought about the suffix "er" following a noun (rather than a verb), e.g. "widower". Additionally, the suffix "groom", in "bridegroom". Although I suspect there is no other example for the suffix "groom", I still think there are some other examples for the suffix "er" (following a noun), but I can't currently recall. HOOTmag (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Some professions were once exclusively and are still predominantly female: nurse, secretary, florist, child care worker, some others. Males can do all these jobs and no special male term is needed, except "male nurse" sometimes bobs up, even when the subject is obviously male, e.g. "My son has his heart set on becoming a male nurse". (If he had his heart set on becoming a female nurse, that would require rather more than just nursing training, but these days, anything's possible.) "Male secretary" is also known. I grant that these are just disambiguators rather than what you're asking for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

At one time, secretaries were mostly male. For whatever reason within the vagueries of English, as various types of secretaries became more commonly female, there was no lasting attempt (if any at all) to invent a different word for a female secretary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember Jim Hacker in the first episode of Yes Minister joking about the Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs (i.e. the head, the chief, the boss, the CEO) having to do the typing and make the tea (a job traditionally done by a secretary at the extreme opposite end of the pecking order). Large-S Secretaries were male, small-s secretaries were female. It was all so simple then ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior to the 20th century, secretaries of any stripe were mostly male. As the work became more menial and more women got that work, the concept of a "secretary" changed, though the notion of a male secretary was still common in the 1950s. You probably never saw the 1950s TV series The Millionaire, which always began, "My name is Michael Anthony. For years I was the secretary of the late, fabulously wealthy, John Beresford Tipton..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Volapük has a prefix hi- that marks a noun as specifically male (e.g. reg "monarch of any gender", hireg "king") alongside ji- to mark a noun as specifically female (jireg "queen"), but maybe you meant only natural languages. I can't think of any that are truly productive; German has -erich that's used with some bird names (Enterich "drake", Gänserich "gander") but otherwise it's only used jocularly (Schlangerich "male snake") and I've never heard it used with a profession. The Irish word for "nurse", banaltra, has the prefix ban- that means "female", so the way to say "male nurse" is banaltra fir, i.e. "(female) nurse of a man", but that doesn't really fit the bill since it's not an affix; it's no different from using the adjective "male" in English. A few German words add -r to the feminine form to make the masculine (Witwer "widower", Hexer "male witch, warlock"), but that isn't productive at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The best affix (or rather prefix) I can think of - right now - is "he", as in "he-goat", "he-cat", and the like. HOOTmag (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

He-Man leaves no doubt. Though Teela and The Sorceress are also called Masters of the Universe, not Mistresses. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

When you don't respect WP:INDENT rules this way (by using no indents), it makes it impossible for me to use the convention to reply directly to the OP. It looks like I'm replying to you below, but I'm not :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I generally follow the indent rules, and I can't explain why I forgot them this time. Anyways, I've just fixed that. HOOTmag (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You might like to read about agent nouns and nominalization. I'm not sure, but I think in Latin -or forms would carry a strong connotation (or perhaps denotation) of a male person. English doesn't track grammatical gender as much, but you do see some people maintain e.g. "Aviator" as male and "Aviatrix" as female. Similarly editor/editrix, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, in case you didn't know, in many/most cultures, male is the default assumption, for anything, and this is part of why you don't have a ready list of male-specifying morphemes. I can't think of the right WP articles, but these links cover the idea pretty well [2] [3] [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You linked to a blog post with some American English examples, a TV Tropes page, and a segment from the Colbert Report. Is there any real evidence that "in many/most cultures, male is the default assumption"? Someone must have gathered data on this. (Also, even in the, er, default culture, female is the default assumption for many professions.) -- BenRG (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@BenRG:, you're right, my citations are not that great. I should also withdraw "most". I am not well versed in the scientific study of language, sociology and gender norms, but here's some academic sources that touch upon some of the linguistic and cultural issues I was getting at [5] [6] [7] [8]. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese has dan- and jo- prefixes that are used for various professions. The Oscars for best actor and actress are translated using dan'yū and joyū. On the other hand, while joi for a female doctor exists, dan'i doesn't seem to be a word; you would have to say something like dansei no isha. And joō is queen, but king is just ō. Male and female nurses are kangoshi and kangofu, using final characters that basically mean "gentleman" and "lady". A nurse of unspecified sex is also pronounced kangoshi, but written with a different character that happens to have the same pronunciation (there are a lot of characters pronounced shi).

Japanese also has no gendered pronouns (or grammatical gender at all) so you never have the issue of using "he" for an unknown person. -- BenRG (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

'Kare' and 'kanojo' mean 'he' and 'she' respectively. Japanese also has 'kare-tachi' (they, male) and 'kanojo-tachi' (they, female) and variations thereof (karera, kanojora). Plus, 'ore' and 'boku' both mean 'I' (for males), while 'atashi' for 'I' is female (same in the plural when the ending is added). Plus, 'anata' ('you') can have two ways of writing it in kanji, one signifying male, and the other female. I therefore disagree entirely with the above comment, as Japanese has more gendered pronouns than English, not none. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Kare and kanojo were introduced to Japanese in the 18th-19th centuries as translations of gendered pronouns from Western languages ([9]). They're not very common in Japanese writing or speech, and certainly don't have a grammatical role like that of "he" and "she". I think they most commonly appear in their slang senses of "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". Ore, atashi and so on are not pronouns. They in no way resemble pronouns. No one would call them pronouns if there didn't happen to exist a bunch of widely spoken languages, totally unrelated to Japanese, in which there are pronouns that serve a similar role and that are likely to appear in translations of Japanese phrases using those nouns. Be that as it may, my main point was that it's easy and natural in Japanese to talk about an unspecified person without revealing their sex, while it requires effort in English. (Singular "they" makes it easier, but many people still consider it to be ungrammatical, or at least inappropriate for formal writing.) -- BenRG (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese generally does not use pronouns at all, preferring to use the person's name. If the person's name is not known, then the pronoun is also often dropped, as the context will be known by the speakers. However, 'kare' and 'kanojo' are widely used as pronouns (incidentally, 'kare' is not usually used for 'boyfriend' - 'kareshi' is preferred. 'Kanojo' is, however, used for 'girlfriend', but also means 'she'. You can refer to a random girl in the convenience store doing tachi-yomi as 'kanojo', even though she bears no relation to you whatsoever). 'Ore' and 'atashi' resemble pronouns inasmuch as that is how they are used. Can't get much closer than that, really. The only difference is that 'ore', 'boku', and 'atashi' can also be used to mean 'you' (when speaking to small children - to teach them how to refer to themselves. They are pronouns! :)KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 03:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto has vir (the root meaning "male adult human") in use as an affix meaning "male", but there are some ambiguities. Details are in the section Esperanto vocabulary#Gender under "The current situation".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wavelength -- It's notable that some constructed auxiliary languages which soon followed Esperanto (such as the early twentieth-century Ido) fixed the "sexist" problems seen in Esperanto, pretty much eliminating default-male assumptions, while Esperanto itself has continued to struggle with these issues, without any definitive result in most cases... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked about specific male names for professions. How about "Fisherman"? This is slowly disappearing in favour of the verbally confusing "fisher", but is still universally understood. I'm sure there are many other such terms, with "man" on the end, but right now all I can think of is "Nightman", which we sadly don't seem to have an article on. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Policeman, mailman, Batman, hitman, fireman, snowman, repairman, repoman. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to say 'snowman' is a 'profession', then how about Nikuman? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard the children say those could laugh and play, just the same as you and me. Nor Kikkoman. If that's still too fictional, see professional snowman Jeff Monson. I guess it's for his lack of neck. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a modal adverb which indicates a probability of at least 50%?

1. The modal adverb "certainly/surely" indicates a probability of 100%.
2. The modal adverb "probably/likely" indicates a probability of more than 50%.
3. The modal adverb "perhaps/possibly" negates the modal adverb "certainly not", thus indicating a probability of more than 0%.
4. I'm looking for a modal adverb which negates the modal adverb "probably not", thus indicating a probability of at least 50%.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "possibly"? JIP | Talk 19:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that "possibly" does not indicate a probability of at least 50%.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. "Possibly" (which I've just added to my previous list) is more like "perhaps". HOOTmag (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're looking for a word that means almost the same thing as "probably", but takes that infinitesimal step downward to include 50.00000...%. The best I can do is "not unlikely", and that's two words. It seems that numbers are more precise than words, and the answer to your title question is: no. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why folks typically say, "There's a 50-50 chance..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(Answer to the JIP but there was an edit conflict) To me "perhaps" and "possibly" are exactly the same. And no reasonable person would say that "It will perhaps rain tomorrow" covers the case of "It will rain tomorrow with a probability of 0.000000000000001%" which is what the OP seems to do. This is what you get if you try to match strict logic and the lexicon. Similarly if "probably" covers the case of 50.000000000000001% but not of 50%, then since the hypothetical word the OP is looking for would also cover the case of 50%, it would be different from "probably" for only 0.0000000000000001% (and actually not even that since we're talking of the infinitesimal difference between "more than 50%" and "at least 50%"). Contact Basemetal here 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

plausible? presumptive? conceivable? HOOTmag (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a reason we use controlled vocabulary in probability and statistics. Sure, you might interpret "plausible" to mean "50% chance or greater", but you can't guarantee that everyone else will. Actually, modal adverbs are much more flexible than percents or probabilities. Just ask a frequentist and a Bayesian what the odds are for drawing a red ball from an urn, of which all we know is that it has at least one red ball and at least one red ball. We could say in English that it is plausible,possible,conceivable to draw a red ball, without getting into the philosophical debates that arise from assigning prior probabilities to things. Finally, the English expression I hear people use for an estimated probability near 0.5 is "(roughly) even odds." SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've been asking about a probability of at least 50%, rather than about a fifty-fifty chance, so I can't see how your example about the red ball may be helpful here. HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For at least 50% I'd say "even odds, or better." The bit about the urns was to point out that even very serious rigorous mathematicians disagree about how to best model probabilities in the scenario described, and hence it is actually preferable to have some ambiguity in our modal adverbs. BTW, for the record, the Bayesian would say the chance of drawing a red ball is 50%, while the frequentist would say "Greater than zero". Which one is "right" or most useful depends on what further questions are being asked. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you might could be interested in reading up on modal stacking [10]. I've never been able to keep track of all the connotations, but for instance a chain might can go like this: could < might <might could< might can < can < will, with 'could' indicating the 1-10% range, and 'will' indicating 100%. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As for the modal stacking, are you sure the word "can" only indicates probabilities greater than 50%? HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I apologize if it wasn't clear, but I made that example up, based off some fuzzy memories of conversations with native speakers of South American English. Still, I'd think it odd if someone said "I can go to the store tomorrow", yet the speaker estimated the likelihood at ~10%. You're asking about natural language, but seemingly desire a level of precision that we just don't have. For example, your statement 2 is not uncontentious. If there are four outcomes, A:40%, B: 20%, C:20%, D:20%, I would have no problem casually saying e.g. "A will likely occur", or "A will probably happen." If I needed to be more careful for a research project, I would specify. If you are looking for ways to more carefully express probabilities, you might also be interested in the modal operators, specifically the bits that touch on Doxastic_logic and Epistemic modal logic, because when we make utterances like "He'll probably forget to get milk at the store", we aren't making any categorical statements on frequency of occurrences, but rather making statements about our beliefs or knowledge. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your example about the outcomes A,B,C,D: I suspect we could say about none of them that "it will probably happen". If you disagree, then how about the outcomes: A₁ : 1%, A₂ : 1%, ..., A₉₈ : 1%, A₉₉ : 2%, ? Would you still insist that A₉₉ "will probably happen"? where is your limit? If 2% is beyond it, so why is 40% still within the borders? To me, the limit is clear-cut: 50%, so that any probability greater than this limit justifies the expression "probably/likely". HOOTmag (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's fuzzy and vague. Most natural language is, especially the modal adverbs. I just wanted to give an example where I would feel comfortable using "probably" for something with less than 50% chance. I'd feel foolish for not using "probably" for A, if it were A:40% and 60 others at 1%.

In your example, I would not say A_99 would "probably" occur, but of course I could say that it is twice as likely as any other outcome. If I were betting on an outcome, I'd bet on A_99. I could also say e.g. A_32 will "probably not happen", but then I could say the same for any of the outcomes, because (1-P(A_i occurs))>0.97. But then I have the weird situation of saying that "A_i will probably not happen" for every i! But surely something has to happen... This is all very fun to ponder over, but I still think your original search is fruitless, and your examples are a bit too demanding of natural language. Even "surely" doesn't always mean "100%" - it often just indicates a hope or belief. "I study hard, I will surely pass the test!" SemanticMantis (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You write: "But then I have the weird situation of saying that 'A_i will probably not happen' for every i! But surely something has to happen...".

No weird situation. The true sentence: "I estimate there is a man in USA who will certainly/probably die tomorrow", does not entail the wrong sentence: "There is a man in USA for whom I estimate he will certainly/probably die tomorrow". Similarly, the true sentence: "I estimate there is one outcome (out of the 99) which will certainly/probably occur", does not entail the wrong sentence: "There is an outcome (out of the 99) for which I estimate it will certainly/probably occur". HOOTmag (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about "as likely as not". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been asking about a probability of at least 50%, rather than about a fifty-fifty chance. HOOTmag (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"More likely than not." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is strictly more than 50%, i.e. at least 50.000000000 ......0000001%. There is no adverb that covers the case where exactly 50% is included.

It's easy using mathematical symbols: ≥ 50%, but maths can do all sorts of crap with symbols that no language on Earth could ever hope to explain using words only. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"At least as likely as not." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds right and makes fine grammatical sense, but if you think about it for 3 or 4 hours, you'll realise it doesn't make logical sense. It belongs in the Animal Farm school of logic, where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In Finnish, Savonians are famous for saying Suattaapi tuo olla, vuan suattaapi olla olemattannii, meaning "It might be so, but it also might not be so". JIP | Talk 07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To the OP: Either your or my logic is broken, because the negation of "more than 50%" is "at most 50%", and the negation of "exactly 100%" is "less than 100%" according to mine. In mathematical terms, these would be: [0%, 100%] \ ]50%, 100%] = [0%, 50%] and [0%, 100%] \ [100%, 100%] = [0%, 100%[.

Of course, I don't see people actually using these words in the senses you give. Notably, people use "surely" and "certainly" without implying precisely 100% probability ("Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"), and "people" here most prominently includes scientists writing papers, who at least in principle are hardly ever (if at all) 100% sure about anything, unlike mathematicians (possibly). As others have pointed out already, the job you're trying to achieve is better done by mathematical notation, or more precise language spelling it out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Re your first comment: Who talked about the negation of "more than 50%", or about the negation of "exactly 100"? I was talking about the negation of "certainly not" - that is the negation of "exactly 0%" - that is "more that 0%", and also about the negation of "probably not" - that is the negation of "less than 50%" - that is "at least 50%" !!! Hope this helps.

Re your second comment: let's put aside "surely". How about "certainly"? HOOTmag (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, too many negations here. No, "certainly" clearly does not mean 100% either, else "absolutely certainly" would be redundant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"At least as likely as not" means 50 percent or more likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

More likely than not. --2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:4 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

See rebuttal above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)