Clue on “Jeopardy!” highlights correct name of the Church

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That said, I think I can make a case for NOT doing it (Latter-day Saints as opposed to Latter-Day Saints). When two or more words are hyphenated to form a compound modifier, it makes of those words a single term, as though they were one word. 
 

Maybe, but every time I type that, my fingers stop automatically really want to put that capital in there.   My brain has to cite Executive Privilege to make my fingers do it!

I mean who ever abbreviates it "LdS"?

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe, but every time I type that, my fingers stop automatically really want to put that capital in there.   My brain has to cite Executive Privilege to make my fingers do it!

I mean who ever abbreviates it "LdS"?

 

 

Which could be a supportive rationale for President Russell M. Nelson’s directive to cease using that abbreviation as an appellation for the Church of Jesus Christ or its members. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which could be a supportive rationale for President Russell M. Nelson’s directive to cease using that abbreviation as an appellation for the Church of Jesus Christ or its members. 

Well, good.

I must make my fingers repent.

Maybe a good knuckle crack would be sufficient punishment for them.

[Amulek]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I have to wonder about your understanding of the definition of unknown, virtually, completely, virtually completely and virtually completely unknown.

I think I can break it down fairly quickly:

• unknown - not known or well-known (see, e.g., here)
• virtually - almost entirely / nearly (see, e.g., here)
• completely - total[ly] (see, e.g., here)

So virtually completely, then, would be something that is nearly complete. If thought about in terms of percentages, completely would be 100%, and virtually completely would be something very near (but not quite) 100% - I'm thinking something around 90-99% would probably satisfy most people.

Now we just have to add on knowledge, or (rather) the lack thereof, in order to come up with a meaningful understanding of virtually completely unknown.

My understanding is that something is virtually completely unknown if it is not known or well-known by pretty much everybody. And I think the correct name of the Church fits within that meaning. The overwhelming majority of people do not know the correct name of the Church (again, as clearly evidenced by the Jeopardy! contestants in the OP, not to mention pretty much everybody I have ever met in my entire life).

 

Quote

If I’m acquainted with a long title, it cannot accurately be said that the title is unknown to me, even if I have not yet learned it well enough to rattle it off on the spot. 

If your college professor gave a test and asked you to provide said title, and you failed to do so, I'm fairly certain he would come to the conclusion that the title was, indeed, "not known" (i.e., unknown) to you.

 

Quote

For example, I would venture to say that a good many Americans these days are well acquainted with the CDC abbreviation and are aware that it is short for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and they would recognize the name when they saw it, even if they had not yet committed the wording of the long title to memory. It would defy reason to insist that the title is “unknown” to them, be it virtually or completely. 

You seem to be using the term unknown in a very strict sense, limiting it to only those things which you have absolutely zero exposure to or zero knowledge of whatsoever.

In my opinion, if people aren't familiar with something well enough to recall it, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to say that it is unknown to them, at least in some sense.

For example, I would venture to say that most Americans have, at some point, come across an article about a celebrity who goes by a stage name different from his or her given name. Let's pick someone fairly popular, like Sting or Bono.

Do you think it would defy reason to suggest that Sting's legal name, Gordon Sumner, is virtually completely unknown? I certainly wouldn't. Because I think his given name is virtually completely unknown.

Sure, lots of people have heard it or come across it at some point, but I think it's accurate to say that his legal name is virtually completely unknown.

And I think the same holds true for the correct name of the Church.

I agree that lots of people have been exposed to the proper name of the church, but I also think it's fair to say that the correct name of the Church is virtually completely unknown - sort of like how the names Gordon Sumner and Paul Hewson are virtually completely unknown.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think I can break it down fairly quickly:

• unknown - not known or well-known (see, e.g., here)
• virtually - almost entirely / nearly (see, e.g., here)
• completely - total[ly] (see, e.g., here)

So virtually completely, then, would be something that is nearly complete. If thought about in terms of percentages, completely would be 100%, and virtually completely would be something very near (but not quite) 100% - I'm thinking something around 90-99% would probably satisfy most people.

Now we just have to add on knowledge, or (rather) the lack thereof, in order to come up with a meaningful understanding of virtually completely unknown.

My understanding is that something is virtually completely unknown if it is not known or well-known by pretty much everybody. And I think the correct name of the Church fits within that meaning. The overwhelming majority of people do not know the correct name of the Church (again, as clearly evidenced by the Jeopardy! contestants in the OP, not to mention pretty much everybody I have ever met in my entire life).

 

If your college professor gave a test and asked you to provide said title, and you failed to do so, I'm fairly certain he would come to the conclusion that the title was, indeed, "not known" (i.e., unknown) to you.

 

You seem to be using the term unknown in a very strict sense, limiting it to only those things which you have absolutely zero exposure to or zero knowledge of whatsoever.

In my opinion, if people aren't familiar with something well enough to recall it, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to say that it is unknown to them, at least in some sense.

For example, I would venture to say that most Americans have, at some point, come across an article about a celebrity who goes by a stage name different from his or her given name. Let's pick someone fairly popular, like Sting or Bono.

Do you think it would defy reason to suggest that Sting's legal name, Gordon Sumner, is virtually completely unknown? I certainly wouldn't. Because I think his given name is virtually completely unknown.

Sure, lots of people have heard it or come across it at some point, but I think it's accurate to say that his legal name is virtually completely unknown.

And I think the same holds true for the correct name of the Church.

I agree that lots of people have been exposed to the proper name of the church, but I also think it's fair to say that the correct name of the Church is virtually completely unknown - sort of like how the names Gordon Sumner and Paul Hewson are virtually completely unknown.

 

Collins Dictionary online supports my conception of the term, what you call “very strict”:

unknown

(ʌnnoʊn)

Word forms: unknowns

1. ADJECTIVE

If something is unknown to you, you have no knowledge of it.

An unknown number of demonstrators were arrested. 

The motive for the killing is unknown.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

My understanding is that something is virtually completely unknown if it is not known or well-known by pretty much everybody. And I think the correct name of the Church fits within that meaning. The overwhelming majority of people do not know the correct name of the Church (again, as clearly evidenced by the Jeopardy! contestants in the OP, not to mention pretty much everybody I have ever met in my entire life).

The producers of that “Jeopardy!”episode apparently know it, and they apparently believe it is well enough known that a typical contestant would have at least a fighting chance of responding correctly. Lots of people fail to respond correctly to “Jeopardy!” clues; it’s not a game for dullards. But it would be a pretty boring show if the producers only provided clues that were apt to be beyond the ken of a person of above-average awareness and knowledge, such as a typical “Jeopardy!” contestant. 
 

Similarly, Hamba showed that the correct name of the Church is well known to the largest-circulation newspaper in Mexico and, by reasonable conjecture, to many readers of that newspaper. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

If your college professor gave a test and asked you to provide said title, and you failed to do so, I'm fairly certain he would come to the conclusion that the title was, indeed, "not known" (i.e., unknown) to you.

If I didn’t get it completely right, I would understand if he marked the question incorrect on the test paper, but if I had approximated the title, I would think him an idiot if he claimed the title was “unknown” to me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Do you think it would defy reason to suggest that Sting's legal name, Gordon Sumner, is virtually completely unknown? I certainly wouldn't. Because I think his given name is virtually completely unknown.

You know it. And for those who are interested it is easy enough to find on accessible public sources such as Wikipedia. So no, I don’t agree that it is “virtually completely unknown.” 

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Collins Dictionary online supports my conception of the term, what you call “very strict”:

I am aware this is one definition of the word. However, what you were questioning was my understanding of the word, so I provided you with the requested context.

As I noted above, Merriam-Webster lists it as "not known or well-known;" and the Cambridge Dictionary follows suit giving the definition as "not known or familiar."

Both of these are popular, mainstream dictionaries which recognize the word is commonly used more broadly than you seem to want to admit.

 

Quote

The producers of that “Jeopardy!” episode apparently know it, and they apparently believe it is well enough known that a typical contestant would have at least a fighting chance of responding correctly. Lots of people fail to respond correctly to “Jeopardy!” clues; it’s not a game for dullards. But it would be a pretty boring show if the producers only provided clues that were apt to be beyond the ken of a person of above-average awareness and knowledge, such as a typical “Jeopardy!” contestant. 

I don't think this helps your argument. If your typical Jeopardy! contestant is someone of above-average intelligence who spends his time memorizing obscure facts, only to have a "fighting chance" of getting the answers right, then what does that say about the fact that they selected the name of the Church as an answer in the first place? And then that all of the contestants got it wrong?

It means that the correct name of the church is so obscure that even smart people who spend their time studying obscure facts don't know it. 

 

Quote

Similarly, Hamba showed that the correct name of the Church is well known to the largest-circulation newspaper in Mexico and, by reasonable conjecture, to many readers of that newspaper. 

I don't know that the correct name of the Church is "well known to the largest-circulation newspaper in Mexico." Just because an author or editor is capable of looking up the name of the Church online and/or following the Church's style guide doesn't mean that the name is well known to them. And it certainly doesn't follow that the name is "well known" to many readers.

 

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

If your college professor gave a test and asked you to provide said title, and you failed to do so, I'm fairly certain he would come to the conclusion that the title was, indeed, "not known" (i.e., unknown) to you.

If I didn’t get it completely right, I would understand if he marked the question incorrect on the test paper, but if I had approximated the title, I would think him an idiot if he claimed the title was “unknown” to me. 

Well, as a professor, he probably wouldn't say that the title was completely unknown to you - only that the correct title was unknown to you.

 

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Do you think it would defy reason to suggest that Sting's legal name, Gordon Sumner, is virtually completely unknown? I certainly wouldn't. Because I think his given name is virtually completely unknown.

You know it. And for those who are interested it is easy enough to find on accessible public sources such as Wikipedia. So no, I don’t agree that it is “virtually completely unknown.” 

Then, by this definition, pretty much nothing is "virtually completely unknown."

Are the number of laws in the Koran virtually completely unknown to Americans? Nope - you can probably Google that.

Is the ability to read / write cursive virtually completely unknown to teenagers today? Clearly not - it's publicly available after all.

Or how about the identity of the current members of the Wu-Tang Clan being virtually completely unknown to Utahns? Surprisingly not I suppose - Wikipedia to the rescue!

I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with any of that.

If the overwhelming majority of people do not know something then I think it's perfectly sensible to say that the thing they do not know is virtually completely unknown.

Keep in mind that we are only talking about what is known / not known among a given population. So it doesn't matter if I know it. Or even if a bunch of other people outside the population in question know it. I mean, there are probably tons of people in India who could identify the most popular actor / actress in Bollywood right now, but here in America those celebrities would be virtually completely unknown.

I think you are doing the same sort of thing with the name of the Church. You know it, sure; and so do a significant number of people you know / interact with. And that knowledge is certainly available to anyone who wants to know it. But none of that changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in America don't know it. As such, it makes complete sense to say that the correct name of the Church is virtually completely unknown to most Americans.