Talk:in all conscience
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by DCDuring in topic RFV discussion: February 2020
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense "certainly". certainly in what sense? Canonicalization (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- cited Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- It could be just me, but I don't get this. I don't get why or in what sense it means "certainly". Does everyone else understand it? Mihia (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the quotes given, it seems more like "admittedly", probably short for "in all conscience, [I/one] must admit". In the first quote the author had just spent several pages ridiculing the arguments of "the last mentioned author", so when he says "If they do not see in what posture they are; let them look into the last mentioned Author, where they will find enough in all conscience to open the Eyes of any People in the World". The implication is that the arguments are so blatantly bad that anyone must, in all conscience, admit that the author is correct in condemning them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- To me, those quotes, or some of them at any rate, seem to be using it in the sense "to be fair" or "in all fairness", which seems more or less the same as present sense 2. Mihia (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Mihia: I don't understand it either. Please don't close this RFV prematurely. Canonicalization (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the quotes given, it seems more like "admittedly", probably short for "in all conscience, [I/one] must admit". In the first quote the author had just spent several pages ridiculing the arguments of "the last mentioned author", so when he says "If they do not see in what posture they are; let them look into the last mentioned Author, where they will find enough in all conscience to open the Eyes of any People in the World". The implication is that the arguments are so blatantly bad that anyone must, in all conscience, admit that the author is correct in condemning them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- It could be just me, but I don't get this. I don't get why or in what sense it means "certainly". Does everyone else understand it? Mihia (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Relatedly, Google NGrams shows that since 1965 in good conscience has been roughly twice as common as in all conscience. Before 1940 in all conscience was roughly five time more common than in good conscience. Given the number of reprint and later editions of works originally from earlier periods, the modern numbers probably understate the amount by which 'goo' exceeds 'all'. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- RFV-reopened. I also don't see how the cites for the first definition support "certainly" as definition. They certainly don't seem to do so unambiguously. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-resolved. I have changed the definition to "admittedly" Kiwima (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced that there are two clearly distinguishable senses here. However, if others are happy with the entry as it presently stands then fine. Mihia (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think we can find uses that fit one or the other of the senses, but not both. There are, I think, many for which either definition could fit. At least some of our citations seem to fit one or the other definition much better than the other. I get a headache trying to determine the fit of each citation. What does OED say? DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced that there are two clearly distinguishable senses here. However, if others are happy with the entry as it presently stands then fine. Mihia (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't tell what meaning many of those citations are trying to impart. FWIW, Cambridge defines this phrase as "without feeling guilty" and MacMillan as "used for talking about what you believe to be fair or right". Century defines it as "most certainly; in all reason and fairness" and relatedly defines "in conscience" as "(a) in justice; in history, in truth; in reason; (b) most certainly; assuredly." Harold Charles Gardiner's 1972 In All Conscience: Reflections on Books and Culture, page 8, says "The dictionary says of the phrase 'in all conscience': 1. 'in reason or fairness'; 2. 'certainly.' I use the phrase as the title in the first sense: I trust that my comment will be found to be fair and honest." Our first definition is inadequately terse but I don't know how to revise it; perhaps Century and our original definition were better; I don't know. Century's citation is is Swift's "half a dozen fools are, in all conscience, as many as you should require", which frankly works with the second half of our def 2 just as well as (if not better than) with our former or current def 1. Perhaps there is only one sense, or perhaps the two senses are not cleanly distinguished. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was just looking at Google NGram and at Century about these.
- In conscience has been more common than in all conscience, greatly so before 1940. In conscience has been about as common as in good conscience since 1970.
- I think the historical (pre-1850?) meaning of all of these is close to NISoP: something like "with a clear conscience", but also "compelled by conscience", so perhaps "in accordance with conscience". I think conscience was the same as good conscience, ie, unmarked, in, say, the 19th century. I feel the need to confirm that speakers in 1750-1850, when in conscience was much more frequently used than now, meant what we mean by the expression and, indeed, meant what we mean by conscience.
- In conscience was often used as an ordinary prepositional phrase, but has evolved to be a sentence adverb.
- Already by the time of Century 1911 usage had apparently become more idiomatic, but also somewhat polysemic.
- These are only tentative conclusions, hypotheses, except for 1. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that some uses of these words seem to mean something SOP or close to SOP. I think the Swift citation from Century and the Markham citations come closest to meaning sense 1 / something distinct from sense 2, yet even there, sense 2 would work, as it already itself combines two conceptually distinguishable clauses, "without feeling guilty", "by all that is right and fair", so I'm sympathetic to Mihia's argument that it's not clear there are two distinct senses. (I am tempted to go a step beyond my earlier comment that in some of the other citations it's hard to tell what sense is meant, and say that in some of them it seems almost vacuous.)
The Pocket OED defines it as "by any reasonable standard" and then has a duplicate(?) entry directly below that defining it as "in all fairness, reasonably"; the first of those seems like a great definition for all the citations currently under sense 1 ... but also all the citations under sense 2. Say, what if we made that a top-level sense, perhaps with another clause added so as to cover all the uses, and then we made the existing senses subsenses? Then uses which could be either subsense could be assigned to the top-level sense. The Concise OED defines it as "in fairness". - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)- "By any reasonable standard" is a good definition IMO. If we can use this without copyright concerns, I would support making something like "By any reasonable standard; according to what is right and fair" the top (or only) definition. Mihia (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've somewhat boldly combined the senses, and also worked "conscionable" into the def, which helps take care of the "without feeling guilty" overtones this sometimes, but not contrastively/distinctly AFAICT, has. (I also notice there's almost an arc to the sense imparted by the citations: early uses being rather literal/SOP-ish, starting to seem a bit more idiomatic, then going back towards being literal references to conscience. I suspect the reality is that literal uses were always present, even in the "middle period".) See what you all think of how the entry is now. Our previous definientia(!) were distinct, but I don't think the various uses of the phrase itself actually separate in that way—which may be why so many dictionaries have only one sense, sometimes with two definiential clauses. (Of course, clearer contrary evidence could support the idea of one sense with subsenses.) - -sche (discuss)
- Thanks, in my opinion the entry now reflects the usual modern sense, at least, more clearly than the previous "certainly" and "admittedly" wording. Mihia (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Historically, at least in a legal context (though it is difficult to separate legal from religious context during the religious struggles in the UK), in conscience was often contrasted with in law.
- One dictionary says that in all conscience is simply a stronger form of in conscience. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've somewhat boldly combined the senses, and also worked "conscionable" into the def, which helps take care of the "without feeling guilty" overtones this sometimes, but not contrastively/distinctly AFAICT, has. (I also notice there's almost an arc to the sense imparted by the citations: early uses being rather literal/SOP-ish, starting to seem a bit more idiomatic, then going back towards being literal references to conscience. I suspect the reality is that literal uses were always present, even in the "middle period".) See what you all think of how the entry is now. Our previous definientia(!) were distinct, but I don't think the various uses of the phrase itself actually separate in that way—which may be why so many dictionaries have only one sense, sometimes with two definiential clauses. (Of course, clearer contrary evidence could support the idea of one sense with subsenses.) - -sche (discuss)
- "By any reasonable standard" is a good definition IMO. If we can use this without copyright concerns, I would support making something like "By any reasonable standard; according to what is right and fair" the top (or only) definition. Mihia (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that some uses of these words seem to mean something SOP or close to SOP. I think the Swift citation from Century and the Markham citations come closest to meaning sense 1 / something distinct from sense 2, yet even there, sense 2 would work, as it already itself combines two conceptually distinguishable clauses, "without feeling guilty", "by all that is right and fair", so I'm sympathetic to Mihia's argument that it's not clear there are two distinct senses. (I am tempted to go a step beyond my earlier comment that in some of the other citations it's hard to tell what sense is meant, and say that in some of them it seems almost vacuous.)
- I was just looking at Google NGram and at Century about these.
- I can't tell what meaning many of those citations are trying to impart. FWIW, Cambridge defines this phrase as "without feeling guilty" and MacMillan as "used for talking about what you believe to be fair or right". Century defines it as "most certainly; in all reason and fairness" and relatedly defines "in conscience" as "(a) in justice; in history, in truth; in reason; (b) most certainly; assuredly." Harold Charles Gardiner's 1972 In All Conscience: Reflections on Books and Culture, page 8, says "The dictionary says of the phrase 'in all conscience': 1. 'in reason or fairness'; 2. 'certainly.' I use the phrase as the title in the first sense: I trust that my comment will be found to be fair and honest." Our first definition is inadequately terse but I don't know how to revise it; perhaps Century and our original definition were better; I don't know. Century's citation is is Swift's "half a dozen fools are, in all conscience, as many as you should require", which frankly works with the second half of our def 2 just as well as (if not better than) with our former or current def 1. Perhaps there is only one sense, or perhaps the two senses are not cleanly distinguished. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)