# Is "almost exactly" an oxymoron? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 18, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604 "2012-07-18T08:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cjepson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@cjepson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cjepson)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/21 "2012-07-18T14:14:46Z")
> [@Saffer](#): > > Colleague number one has this response: What is the difference between “slightly” and “almost”? Anyone who genuinely doesn’t know the difference between “slightly” and “almost” has no business taking part in an argument about semantics. Tell them to come back when they’re ready to play. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/22 "2012-07-18T14:21:42Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > At that point you turn to Shakespeare, who probably used the debated word or phrase many times, freely and artfully. But whereas the usage became obsolete in Britain, it was kept alive in America. It’s still current in British English too. At least, it sounds perfectly normal to me. I think the person was just joking about Americans not speaking the language properly in general. ---
**Author:** ![dauerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c2a13f/32.png) [@dauerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dauerbach)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/23 "2012-07-18T14:22:45Z")
One professor was furious for the laughter he received when he stated “The physical exam on the patient was normal except for coma.” It only took a second for him to convince most of this that this was a perfectly accurate description. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/24 "2012-07-18T14:56:14Z")
> [@Saffer](#): > > 😃 > This made me laugh. I have seen a thread or 2 where the online consensus disagrees with the OP, yet failed to convince the OP. In this case I did say to my colleagues that I would be more than happy to say that I am wrong, if the concensus goes that way. > Also, one of them has been convinced by this thread and has reversed his original position. Damn. I’m pleased and disappointed at the same time. > [@](#): > > The other is still convinced he is correct and has claimed that “all those americans can’t speak proper english anyway!”. :smack: You could perhaps let this person know that the SDMB is not exclusively American. I’m British, and find the term ‘almost exactly’ perfectly meaningful. If your colleages still aren’t convinced by my appeal-to-nationality, how about this: “Almost 70,000 people attended the Olympic Torch Relay event in Portsmouth” 70,000 is an exact number. If ‘almost exactly’ is problematic, so should be ‘almost 70,000’. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/25 "2012-07-18T15:31:07Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > “Almost 70,000 people attended the Olympic Torch Relay event in Portsmouth” > > 70,000 is an exact number. If ‘almost exactly’ is problematic, so should be ‘almost 70,000’. I don’t have a problem with “almost exactly,” but I think this argument is problematic. 70,000 may be an exact number, but it doesn’t look like one. In casual use, it looks like a number with one significant digit. What do you think of this example instead: “Almost 70,135 people attended the Olympic Torch Relay event in Portsmouth.” Still ok with it? ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/26 "2012-07-18T15:32:30Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Yes, so why don’t you first ask them if they know the difference between a _contradiction_ and an _oxymoron_, **Saffer**? Then point out to them them that it’s not a grammatical issue. Before you even engage with them, make sure they know what they’re talking about. This. I have a bit of a pet peeve with the overuse of the term “oxymoron.” Most people don’t really know what it means (i.e. combining two contradictory terms with their normal meanings for asthetic reasons). “Jumbo shrimp” is not an oxymoron. It might be a contradiction in terms, but it’s not an oxymoron. “Sweet sorrow” is an oxymoron. Some politician’s platform is not an oxymoron just because it has conflicting ideas. “Burning coldness” is an oxymoron, unless you’re talking about your dermatologist’s wart-freezing thingy. Then it’s just an accurate descriptor. It’s only an oxymoron if you’re talking about the emotion in Hamlet’s soul or something. In the OP’s situation, there is no way “almost exact” could accurately be described as an oxymoron. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/27 "2012-07-18T15:39:23Z")
More to the point of the OP (now that I’ve got the oxymoron rant out): How do the coworkers think the idea should be conveyed? With just the word “almost”? That doesn’t mean the same thing. “Almost a million” means about 900k to 999,999 but not more. “Almost exactly a million” means (depending on context) let’s say 999k to 101k. They’re totally different meanings. I can’t think of any other way to convey the meaning of “almost exactly” that would pass the OP’s coworkers’ objections. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/28 "2012-07-18T15:43:55Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > I don’t have a problem with “almost exactly,” but I think this argument is problematic. 70,000 may be an exact number, but it doesn’t look like one. In casual use, it looks like a number with one significant digit. What do you think of this example instead: > > “Almost 70,135 people attended the Olympic Torch Relay event in Portsmouth.” > > Still ok with it? Yes I am. It’s silly, but still sort of meaningful. If I ever encountered such a usage in the wild, I would probably assume 70,135 was some significant figure (like the precise number of tickets sold, or someone’s prediction of turnout) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/29 "2012-07-18T19:25:44Z")
> [@Randy\_Seltzer](#): > > More to the point of the OP (now that I’ve got the oxymoron rant out): > > How do the coworkers think the idea should be conveyed? With just the word “almost”? That doesn’t mean the same thing. “Almost a million” means about 900k to 999,999 but not more. “Almost exactly a million” means (depending on context) let’s say 999k to 101k. They’re totally different meanings. > > I can’t think of any other way to convey the meaning of “almost exactly” that would pass the OP’s coworkers’ objections. Well, to be nitpicky, almost doesn’t connote strictly less than, it merely assumes it approaches the value in whatever the most intuitive manner is. If you’re cooling a room and it’s 81 degrees, “almost 80” is accurate whereas if it were 79 degrees saying that would be a bit odd. If you had a random number generator, “almost 100” would make sense regardless of whether you got 99 or 101. There’s also some stuff about thresholds (if you’re rolling against the number 15 in D&D, saying “almost 15” doesn’t make sense if you go over, even if it’s random by means of dice), but generally I think it holds. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/30 "2012-07-18T19:55:04Z")
RAVA: Maybe you think we’re in cahoots. ELAINE: No, no. But it is quite a coincidence. RAVA: Yes, that’s all: a coincidence! ELAINE: A big coincidence. RAVA: Not a big coincidence. A coincidence! ELAINE: No, that’s a big coincidence. RAVA: That’s what a coincidence is! There are no small coincidences and big coincidences! ELAINE: No, there are degrees of coincidences. RAVA: No, there are only coincidences! Ask anyone! (Enraged, she poses the question to everyone in the elevator.) RAVA: Are there big coincidences and small coincidences, or just coincidences? Well?! Well?! (Everyone just shrugs and murmurs. The doors open.) ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/31 "2012-07-18T20:26:01Z")
I think what your coworkers are arguing is that “exactly” is considered an absolute adverb, similar to absolute adjectives like “unique”. In traditional grammar, these cannot be modified because they represent an absolute concept (see #8 in this [list](http://www.prdaily.com/writingandediting/Articles/11715.aspx)). In practice, there are situations when it is OK to modify them. From the Oxford Dictionary [definition of unique](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unique?q=unique): > [@](#): > > In practice the situation in the language is more complex than this. Words like unique have a core sense but they often also have a secondary, less precise sense: in this case, the meaning ‘very remarkable or unusual’, as in a really unique opportunity. In its secondary sense, unique does not relate to an absolute concept, and so the use of submodifying adverbs is grammatically acceptable. But I’m not enough of a grammar guy to know if “exactly” is even considered absolute in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/32 "2012-07-18T21:12:00Z")
There are certainly some absolute terms where combination with ‘almost’ grates really badly - for example: ‘almost infinite’, ‘almost endless’, ‘almost forever’ - they’re the same thing really - but in these cases, the ‘almost’ instantly destroys the meaning - ‘almost infinite’ would (I suppose) just mean ‘really, really big, but finite’ - so it’s not infinite at all. Here’s a related phenomenon that makes me grimace every time I hear it: [[something] was endless, _but not as endless as_ [something else]](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22endless%2C+but+not+as+endless+as%22). Really bad writing (not sure how many of the linked examples are doing it badly on purpose, but I’ve seen this one in print, in earnest. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/33 "2012-07-18T21:20:10Z")
I’ve got no problem with almost exactly. How else would you phrase it? ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/34 "2012-07-18T21:22:58Z")
> [@Saffer](#): > > …Neither of them are convinced despite you backing my position. Uh, this should be “Neither of them IS convinced despite YOUR backing my position.” ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/35 "2012-07-18T21:34:41Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > I’ve got no problem with almost exactly. How else would you phrase it? I tend to agree. “Almost” means it isn’t quite. To **Mangetout’s** point, I also don’t have a problem with “almost” modifying infinite, endless, or forever. It means just what you suggest - it isn’t infinite or endless, it is almost. That is different than the situation of comparing one ‘endless’ to another - I agree that grates. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/36 "2012-07-18T21:37:27Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > I think she was trying to say “rarely.” Or maybe: “usually don’t” or “usually avoid” or “usually make it a point to not”. “Usually never” isn’t hideous, though. It has the feel of “usually make a great effort to avoid.” ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/37 "2012-07-18T22:08:35Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > I tend to agree. “Almost” means it isn’t quite. To **Mangetout’s** point, I also don’t have a problem with “almost” modifying infinite, endless, or forever. It means just what you suggest - it isn’t infinite or endless, it is almost. > > That is different than the situation of comparing one ‘endless’ to another - I agree that grates. How can anything be “almost infinite”? No finite magnitude, no matter how large, comes anywhere close to being infinite. Is there some non-finite magnitude that isn’t infinite, but “almost” so? On a separate but related thread of thought: Can any measurable quantity be “almost average” or even “highly average”? Can a quality be “highly mediocre”? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/38 "2012-07-18T22:15:28Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I’d say “colorless” and “green” are pretty mutually exclusive. True but irrelevant. A statement can be grammatical and yet nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/39 "2012-07-18T23:11:29Z")
> [@Saffer](#): > > Background to this question: I am having an argument with some colleagues. I used this term to describe something and they have pointed out that I cannot use that term. One is calling it an oxymoron and the other is saying it is not an oxymoron but it is gramatically incorrect. :dubious: > > Neither of them are convinced despite you backing my position. IMO, theirs is a fairly unique position on this… ☹ someone beat me to _unique…_ ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604/40 "2012-07-18T23:25:53Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > How can anything be “almost infinite”? No finite magnitude, no matter how large, comes anywhere close to being infinite. Is there some non-finite magnitude that isn’t infinite, but “almost” so? See the bit I quoted above from the definition of “unique” in the Oxford dictionary. You are right: as an absolute concept, there is no such thing as “almost infinite”. But it has a secondary, less precise sense: it’s really huge/extensive/whatever, and we all know it isn’t infinite but man is it big. It is hyperbole used for dramatic effect, and while maybe not useful in a debate, it is still grammatically acceptable (which is where this all started). > [@Senegoid](#): > > On a separate but related thread of thought: Can any measurable quantity be “almost average” or even “highly average”? Can a quality be “highly mediocre”? I think “almost” is different from “highly”. There aren’t degrees of “averageness” or “mediocreness”, but “highly” implies that even after you achieve averageness or mediocreness, you can still become even more average or mediocre. “Almost” simply means you haven’t quite become average yet, which I would argue is OK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-almost-exactly-an-oxymoron/628604.md?page=3)