# Is "necessary" gradable, or not?



## M56

Hello, All.



In which situation would you, personally, use number one over number two?

1. This is *as **much **unnecessary **as *it is undesirable.

2. This is *as **unnecessary **as *it is undesirable.


----------



## lsp

Casting my vote for #2. Much is unnecessary  in #1.


----------



## M56

lsp said:
			
		

> Casting my vote for #2. >
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> <Much is unnecessary  in #1.


>

Why do you think it is there?


----------



## Kelly B

I think that the structure as ... as... is used to emphasize how true it is that something is unnecessary, rather than the degree to which it is unnecessary. So "much" is... as unnecessary as it is undesirable.


----------



## Artrella

If you can say "very necessary" then it is "gradable".  IMHO


----------



## la grive solitaire

lsp said:
			
		

> Much is unnecessary  in #1.


    lol Excellent!


----------



## lsp

M56 said:
			
		

> >
> 
> Why do you think it is there?


impossible to know - is it the writer's personal preference, lack of understanding, propensity to be redundant... impossible to know.

'Much' in this case is part of a comparison anyway, it would not serve to make 'necessary' "gradable," IMHO (and Kelly B's )


----------



## whatonearth

Number 2 for me I think


----------



## Aupick

I think 'much' is there out of confusion. We use much in 'as... as' comparisons when we're comparing two nouns, but not two adjectives. Examples:

'The prime minister's speech was as much an admission of defeat as a policy statement.'
'The first world war was as much the beginning of a new era of warfare as the war to end all wars.'

I suppose you can also use 'as much... as' with prepositional phrases:

'Football is as much about money as about sportsmanship.'

Maybe also in other cases which I'm not thinking of, but with adjectives I think it's as much a clumsy error as a wordy alternative. (Sorry...)

And I don't think it can be used to hide the fact that 'necessary' is not gradable.


----------



## touaregsand

Artrella said:
			
		

> If you can say "very necessary" then it is "gradable".  IMHO



We also say "not as necessary" and "absolutely necessary" so it's "gradable" IMO as well.


----------



## LV4-26

Of course _necessary_ is gradable. To the same extent as many other adjectives, like _small_, for example.
But you would never say
_Paul is as much small as John_
So, why would you say "_as much unnecessary_" ?
(I'm not adding anything new. This is just an illustratin of what Aupick said).


----------



## sergio11

I don't understand the relationship of the title question with the rest of the thread. 

If you mean by the question, 'Is "necessary" gradable or not' whether you can say, "it is more necessary" or "it is less necessary", or "very necessary", "extremely necessary" or "not at all necessary", yes it is gradable, the same as in any language. You can say that in Spanish, in French, and probably in every language you can think of.

In the case of the sentences in examples 1 and 2, you don't need to use "much". I don't know the explanation off the top of my head. Maybe a linguist cant tell you. 





			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> _Paul is as much small as John_


I would say 'Paul is as small as John', without "much".

Saludos


----------



## touaregsand

sergio11 said:
			
		

> I don't understand the relationship of the title question with the rest of the thread.
> 
> If you mean by the question, 'Is "necessary" gradable or not' whether you can say, "it is more necessary" or "it is less necessary", or "very necessary", "extremely necessary" or "not at all necessary", yes it is gradable, the same as in any language. You can say that in Spanish, in French, and probably in every language you can think of.
> 
> In the case of the sentences in examples 1 and 2, you don't need to use "much". I don't know the explanation off the top of my head. Maybe a linguist cant tell you.
> 
> Saludos



You don't need to use 'much' because it's unnecessary. ;-)


----------



## sergio11

touaregsand said:
			
		

> You don't need to use 'much' because it's unnecessary. ;-)


Great explanation, touaregsand, I liked it!


----------



## timpeac

M56 said:
			
		

> Hello, All.
> 
> 
> 
> In which situation would you, personally, use number one over number two?
> 
> 1. This is *as **much **unnecessary **as *it is undesirable.
> 
> 2. This is *as **unnecessary **as *it is undesirable.


 
I would always use number two over number one.

1 sounds wrong and so I've analysed it to myself and I think it is wrong because "much" is an adjective and as such needs to describe a noun, not another adjective.

Eg 
-The was much confusion. There was as much confusion as understanding.
But 
-This is very unnecessary. This is as extremely unnecessary as it is undesirable or "this is unnecessary to such an extreme extent as it is undesirable" (I add these last two sentences for comparison with the line above only - they are very contorted, we would normally just use number 2).

This whole sentence (containing the "much" or "extremely" or any gradation), in any form, is horrid since things are either unnecessary or they are necessary. The one containing the "much" just has the added complication of being grammatically wrong as well!


----------



## panjandrum

"Necessary" is not gradable.
Neither is "unnecessary".


----------



## Amityville

Exactly.
To say "as unnecessary as undesirable" doesn't quantify unnecessariness, it is just a figure of speech meaning "equally unnecessary and undesirable".


----------



## timpeac

Amityville said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> To say "as unnecessary as undesirable" doesn't quantify unnecessariness, it is just a figure of speech meaning "equally unnecessary and undesirable".


 
True true true, but I'm sure the main reason that sentence sounds horrible to native speakers is that you have "much" plus "adjective".


----------



## Starcreator

Yeah #2's my vote as well.


----------



## Douglas

whatonearth said:
			
		

> Number 2 for me I think


 
Hi friends,

I'll just join some of the fun. "Much" is an adj and adv. Normally an adv can precede an adj but not "much." He was much the strongest in his class. As we see we cannot say he was the much strongest. On the other hand we can say was much stronger which is the comparative form of an adj. The bottom line, the question is not whether "necessary" is gradable or not, it is how we use the adv. "much." And generally speaking it does not precede an adj in the nominative case. This is how I see it friends, have a happy weekend.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Regards,

Doug


----------



## sergio11

Douglas said:
			
		

> The bottom line, the question is not whether "necessary" is gradable or not, it is how we use the adv. "much."


 Exactly. That is why I said I did not understand the relationship of the title question with the rest of the posting.

Regarding the gradability of "necessary", I don't agree with those who say it is not gradable, if gradable means to be able to say "more necessary" or "less necessary", because clearly, that is possible and correct. 


			
				Douglas said:
			
		

> http://forum.wordreference.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


Douglas, I think you tried to post an icon by double-clicking under the message box. You have to get it from the drop-down menu on the editing bar over the box, next to the color menu, next to the font size window.  I am not sure what the other ones are for (the ones under the editing box).


----------



## lsp

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Great explanation, touaregsand, I liked it!


Ditto (see post #2... )


----------



## panjandrum

I am intrigued that several posters consider necessary to be gradable.
Could one of you give an example?


----------



## Aupick

OK, so I just tried some googling, because logically 'necessary' can't really be gradable, can it? Something either is or isn't necessary. But I know language use isn't logical, and if people use such expressions as 'very necessary', they do it for a reason.

For me, a construction such as 'very necessary' (324,000 hits) sounds really awkward, 'less necessary' (106,000 hits) is a bit awkward and 'more necessary' (540,000 hits) is almost acceptable (to use the examples given in this thread). But I think a lot of the time what's gradable when people use such expressions is how certain they are that something is necessary. So, when people say 'very necessary', they are trying to say 'I am highly convinced that it is necessary'. If they say 'quite necessary', they really want to say 'I am pretty much convinced it is necessary'.

It seems that the rest of the time people are trying to indicate the importance or urgency of something. 'Very necessary' often = 'highly urgent', which is a little different and a bit of a deviation from the meaning of necessary. Otherwise there are adjectives for expressing degrees of importance that much nicer than using very: very necessary = essential, very essential thumbsdow , but 139,000 hits) = vital, etc.

Don't know what to conclude from this. I still think 'very necessary' is ugly, but what can you do?


----------



## M56

Kelly B said:
			
		

> I think that the structure as ... as... is used to emphasize how true it is that something is unnecessary, rather than the degree to which it is unnecessary. So "much" is... as unnecessary as it is undesirable.


 
In mine too.


----------



## sergio11

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I am intrigued that several posters consider necessary to be gradable.
> Could one of you give an example?


My reasoning to consider it gradable is that often we say that something is "*more* necessary" than something else.  for example, if you have a shopping cart full of items that total 156 euros, but you only have 110 euros, you start to unload things.  How do you decide which ones to keep and which ones to discard?  By order of necessity.   Those items that are vital, such as the milk for your baby and the diapers, will go in first.  Then you will keep the items you needed for the recipe you are cooking tonight.  Then will come some of the items for tomorrow's meals, and finally, the stuff you wanted just to have in your cabinet for some remote future.   So you could say that the items for your baby and tonight's meal are the "*more* necessary" things.  The rest is "*less* necessary" because you can come back for them tomorrow, and some of the items are "*even less* necessary" because they are not to be used in the immediate future. 

OK., you could argue that the correct word there is not "necessary" but "urgent". But in that case I could give you the example of spaghetti with meat sauce.  The spaghetti, the tomato paste, and the meat are "*more *necessary" than the bay leaves, the oregano, the garlic and the olives.  So if you run out of money in the middle of your shopping, you would do without the olives, the oregano, the garlic and the bay leaves, because they are "*less *necessary", but not without the spaghetti, the tomato paste and the meat.  

Does it make sense?  Or did you mean something else by "gradable"?

I am open to corrections.


----------



## timpeac

sergio11 said:
			
		

> My reasoning to consider it gradable is that often we say that something is "*more* necessary" than something else. for example, if you have a shopping cart full of items that total 156 euros, but you only have 110 euros, you start to unload things. How do you decide which ones to keep and which ones to discard? By order of necessity. Those items that are vital, such as the milk for your baby and the diapers, will go in first. Then you will keep the items you needed for the recipe you are cooking tonight. Then will come some of the items for tomorrow's meals, and finally, the stuff you wanted just to have in your cabinet for some remote future. So you could say that the items for your baby and tonight's meal are the "*more* necessary" things. The rest is "*less* necessary" because you can come back for them tomorrow, and some of the items are "*even less* necessary" because they are not to be used in the immediate future.
> 
> OK., you could argue that the correct word there is not "necessary" but "urgent". But in that case I could give you the example of spaghetti with meat sauce. The spaghetti, the tomato paste, and the meat are "*more *necessary" than the bay leaves, the oregano, the garlic and the olives. So if you run out of money in the middle of your shopping, you would do without the olives, the oregano, the garlic and the bay leaves, because they are "*less *necessary", but not without the spaghetti, the tomato paste and the meat.
> 
> Does it make sense? Or did you mean something else by "gradable"?
> 
> I am open to corrections.


 
I know what you mean Sergio. I think that strictly speaking "necessary" is not gradable. However, when we "compare" "necessary" things we are not really comparing like with like. For example tomatoes are necessary to make tomato soup. Eggs are necessary to make an omelette. When you go shopping is it more necessary to buy eggs or tomatoes? Well it depends if you'd rather eat soup or omelette!

To give an even starker example, I don't think that anyone would disagree that air, water and food are necessary for life. Are they equally necessary? Well, if I put you in an airless room and offered either to pump air in or give you a glass of water I'd imagine you'd quickly decide which were more necessary. Even here, we are not comparing like with like. "air" is necessary to survive for the next 5 minutes, "water" is necessary to survive for the next few days, "food" is necessary to survive for the next few weeks. If we say "air" is more necessary than "water" to survive, what we really mean is that it is more important to have air than water since it is more important to survive for the next 5 minutes and air is necessary for that whereas water is not.

So, back to my original point, I think that when you really analyse what you are saying if you can grade something then it cannot be "necessary" in its basic sense of "vital" what we really mean is "important", but then few things really are.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I know what you mean Sergio. I think that strictly speaking "necessary" is not gradable. However, when we "compare" "necessary" things we are not really comparing like with like. For example tomatoes are necessary to make tomato soup. Eggs are necessary to make an omelette. When you go shopping is it more necessary to buy eggs or tomatoes? Well it depends if you'd rather eat soup or omelette!
> 
> To give an even starker example, I don't think that anyone would disagree that air, water and food are necessary for life. Are they equally necessary? Well, if I put you in an airless room and offered either to pump air in or give you a glass of water I'd imagine you'd quickly decide which were more necessary. Even here, we are not comparing like with like. "air" is necessary to survive for the next 5 minutes, "water" is necessary to survive for the next few days, "food" is necessary to survive for the next few weeks. If we say "air" is more necessary than "water" to survive, what we really mean is that it is more important to have air than water since it is more important to survive for the next 5 minutes and air is necessary for that whereas water is not.
> 
> So, back to my original point, I think that when you really analyse what you are saying if you can grade something then it cannot be "necessary" in its basic sense of "vital" what we really mean is "important", but then few things really are.



I think your specifications only support the viewpoint that "necessary" is gradable.  You said that it depends on the situation, but "necessary" by definition depends on the situation.  Otherwise, the term is pretty useless.  "Books are necessary" doesn't mean anything.  The questions that inevitably follow are "for what?" "when?" "for whom?" etc. 

That said, it would behoove us to analyze whether something can be more or less necessary *in a specific situation* since the discussion is otherwise useless and illogical. 

As you well said, in a specific situation one thing can be more or less necessary than the other - depending on your priorities and goals (or, in some cases, depending on who the person is).

*Both books and a teacher are necessary for language instruction.  A book is more necessary  to somebody who would like to strengthen classroom instruction with self-study; a teacher is more necessary  to somebody who is interested in the cultural implications of language and associations that can only be communicated from personal experience. *


----------



## panjandrum

OK - pedantic day is over 
Fascinating, isn't it, how a word that has such a stark "binary" definition (either it can't be done without = necessary, or it is unnecessary) will allow for such fine variations in meaning.

I could pick at the examples you gave(see footnote); for example, in the air-water-food example, only air is necessary TODAY. In the omelette/soup example; eggs are necessary for omelette, tomatoes for the soup, but neither omelette nor soup are necessary. In the spag bol recipe; spaghetti, tomato, meat and onion are necessary; the rest are optional - kind of 

I guess we are using a qualified "necessary" (confess to doing it myself of course) as a shorthand way of describing the wider context.

[[The following sentence was meant to appear here, but as you can see, I couldn't resist the temptation: "But really life is too short and time is pressing."]]


----------



## touaregsand

Mr Pedant, I agree that strictly speaking necessary is not gradable. 

Usage alters meaning and the word is so commonly graded as "a shorthand for describing wider context" that it is acceptable, even 'correct' to do so.


----------



## timpeac

Elroy/Pan - I think we are all saying pretty much the same thing. I am saying that necessary is gradable if, and only if, you are talking about things that are slightly different (albeit minimally so)- that's why I gave the air-water-food example. All are "necessary" and we can only grade them if we also grade the importance of what they are necessary for.

So, whether you consider "necessary" gradable or not seems to come down to whether you consider it fair to use slightly different contexts (eg because you also happen to die quicker without air than without water), and Elroy you apparently do. I come down on the side of prefering strict comparison. To be honest I am slightly surprised that you don't too, since I know that you have had linguistic study, and normally in linguistics when comparing two things you compare two identical sentences/sounds etc and change just that one little thing you want to analyse, eg to prove /c/ and /b/ are phonemes we need only to consider /cat/ and /bat/.

In a similar fashion rather than compare the necessity of "air" or "water" I would consider, say, "a pen and paper are necessary to write a letter". Which is more necessary? neither since both are necessary.

But we are all entitled to our views, we just have to be sure we have set the parameters.


----------



## panjandrum

timpeac said:
			
		

> In a similar fashion rather than compare the necessity of "air" or "water" I would consider, say, "a pen and paper are necessary to write a letter". Which is more necessary? neither since both are necessary.
> 
> But we are all entitled to our views, we just have to be sure we have set the parameters.


That's very helpful - to easing my brain.
So really we ought not to compare the relative necessity of "air today" and "scone tomorrow"


----------



## touaregsand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> That's very helpful - to easing my brain.
> So really we ought not to compare the relative necessity of "air today" and "scone tomorrow"



Only if we are linguists. ;-)


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> That's very helpful - to easing my brain.
> So really we ought not to compare the relative necessity of "air today" and "scone tomorrow"


 
Hahaha, very good Pan.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Elroy/Pan - I think we are all saying pretty much the same thing. I am saying that necessary is gradable if, and only if, you are talking about things that are slightly different (albeit minimally so)- that's why I gave the air-water-food example. All are "necessary" and we can only grade them if we also grade the importance of what they are necessary for.
> 
> So, whether you consider "necessary" gradable or not seems to come down to whether you consider it fair to use slightly different contexts (eg because you also happen to die quicker without air than without water), and Elroy you apparently do. I come down on the side of prefering strict comparison. To be honest I am slightly surprised that you don't too, since I know that you have had linguistic study, and normally in linguistics when comparing two things you compare two identical sentences/sounds etc and change just that one little thing you want to analyse, eg to prove /c/ and /b/ are phonemes we need only to consider /cat/ and /bat/.
> 
> In a similar fashion rather than compare the necessity of "air" or "water" I would consider, say, "a pen and paper are necessary to write a letter". Which is more necessary? neither since both are necessary.
> 
> But we are all entitled to our views, we just have to be sure we have set the parameters.



I think we may be considering two different angles of "necessity."  You are considering whether something is necessary or not; I am considering how necessary it can be.  In other words, you ask yourself the question "is this/are these necessary," answer with "yes" or "no," and then stop.  I take it a step further and compare the two (or more) items *under the premise that they are necessary.*  That is, you can say that two apples are red, and then ask yourself which one is redder.  I realize that the situation with "necessary" is different, since as you said both are necessary (or not) and the degree (gradation) of necessary will only become manifest when you have more context.

I'm not sure I understand your example with phonemes.  We are not talking about structural linguistics here, but rather usage.  When discussing usage context is indispensable.

At the end of the day, I agree with you that we hold the same views, and that it depends on how far you're willing to go in your analysis of whether and/or to what degree something is necessary. 

 How necessary was that explanation?  Would it have been more necessary for me to give examples or to elaborate further?  Did I use unnecessary words, and if so, which of the unnecessary words were more necessary than the others?  If all of the words were necessary, were they all equally necessary?


----------



## Benjy

an interesting reply, but at the end of the day further treatment of the necessity of two items after it has been established that they are necessary is superflous and totally illogical. if you have two critical paths in completing a house for example, is it possible to say that one stage is more critical than the other? both are critical, the house cannot be completed before both paths are finished. the only way in which one item/concept can be more necessary than another is if the "less" necessary one is actually unnecessary. just like 1 is more true than 0 in boolean logic


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> I think we may be considering two different angles of "necessity." You are considering whether something is necessary or not; I am considering how necessary it can be. In other words, you ask yourself the question "is this/are these necessary," answer with "yes" or "no," and then stop. I take it a step further and compare the two (or more) items *under the premise that they are necessary.*


 
With respect, I don't think you are comparing how necessary they are. I think you are comparing how _important_ two things are, for which something is necessary. For example both air and water are necessary for life, and I believe you would say air is more necessary for life than water. I would say that would this is really is that both are necessary for life, but it is more important to get air first than water, because you die quicker without air. Both are, however, necessary for life. You die eventually without either one.

The underlying "important thing" in that example is very obvious. To take a less obvious example "eggs are necessary to make a cake" and "paper is necessary to write a letter". Which is more necessary, or as I would word it "important"? Well it depends why you want to bake a cake and why you want to write a letter. Perhaps the cake is for you son's birthday who will be very upset if you don't bake it, but perhaps the letter is to your bank manager to stop them repossessing your house. Now the necessity of the egg to _making a cake_ and the importance of paper _to writing the letter_ is equal, both are necessary, without them the final goal would not be achieved. Which is more important...well that is for you to decide. It is this very subjectiveness that I don't like in relation to "necessity". Perhaps you think I am just playing semantics here - I don't think I am, but fair enough - to my mind something is necessary for something or it is not. Which outcome out of two you would prefer is a matter of preference based on how much importance you assign to the outcomes.

Perhaps my phoneme example is slightly confusing, but all I was trying to do is to create an example where the final outcome was the same so that we could see if it really made sense to compare the necessity of two things (as opposed to all of the examples above where the outcome is slightly different, eg living for the next 5 minutes or living for the next week, baking a cake or writing a letter etc). Benjy has done that well in his example.


----------



## elroy

It seems to me that you both understand the word "necessary" to mean "absolutely indispensable and critical."  Something that is "necessary" is to you something without which a certain goal cannot be accomplished.  That said, of course everything that is "necessary" is just necessary - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary! (excuse the clumsy diction, but you know what I mean.)

Nevertheless, I do feel that the situation and the context make a difference and contribute to a permissible gradation of the word.  Yes, everything can be necessary, but certain things can be more necessary than others, depending on the situation, the time, the person, etc.  I don't think such an analysis is superfluous or illogical; if so, then we shouldn't qualify adjectives at all and always settle for absolute descriptions.

For example, you could say that a bathing suit and hiking shoes are both necessary for participation in a certain camp, because the campers will swim and hike every day at the camp.  However, on some days they will spend more time hiking, on other days they will spend more time swimming.  Therefore, both a bathing suit and hiking shoes are necessary for an enjoyable and successful experience in the camp, but bathing suits are more necessary on the days on which there will be more swimming than hiking (that is, if on that day you could only bring one item, you should bring a bathing suit and not hiking shoes.)  Although both are necessary even on that day, the bathing suit is more necessary because the net outcome will be more favorable if you bring a bathing suit than it will be if you bring hiking shoes.  Either way, the experience is not optimal but bringing a bathing suit contributes more strongly to - and is therefore more necessary for - overall success and enjoyment in the camp.

Imagine you were graded.  You get a zero for every hour in which you don't participate.  If you're stuck with the option of being able to bring only one item on a given day, you should bring the one which you will spend more time using, thus maximizing your grade.  Again, both are necessary on that day, but one is more necessary for a higher grade.

I don't know if this example will hold water, but my gut feeling persists in telling me that "necessary" is gradable.  I will have to keep thinking about this more to see if I come across an epiphany that either confirms my viewpoint or completely alters it.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you both understand the word "necessary" to mean "absolutely indispensable and critical." Something that is "necessary" is to you something without which a certain goal cannot be accomplished. That said, of course everything that is "necessary" is just necessary - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary! (excuse the clumsy diction, but you know what I mean.)
> 
> Nevertheless, I do feel that the situation and the context make a difference and contribute to a permissible gradation of the word. Yes, everything can be necessary, but certain things can be more necessary than others, depending on the situation, the time, the person, etc. I don't think such an analysis is superfluous or illogical; if so, then we shouldn't qualify adjectives at all and always settle for absolute descriptions.
> 
> For example, you could say that a bathing suit and hiking shoes are both necessary for participation in a certain camp, because the campers will swim and hike every day at the camp. However, on some days they will spend more time hiking, on other days they will spend more time swimming. Therefore, both a bathing suit and hiking shoes are necessary for an enjoyable and successful experience in the camp, but bathing suits are more necessary on the days on which there will be more swimming than hiking (that is, if on that day you could only bring one item, you should bring a bathing suit and not hiking shoes.) Although both are necessary even on that day, the bathing suit is more necessary because the net outcome will be more favorable if you bring a bathing suit than it will be if you bring hiking shoes. Either way, the experience is not optimal but bringing a bathing suit contributes more strongly to - and is therefore more necessary for - overall success and enjoyment in the camp.
> 
> Imagine you were graded. You get a zero for every hour in which you don't participate. If you're stuck with the option of being able to bring only one item on a given day, you should bring the one which you will spend more time using, thus maximizing your grade. Again, both are necessary on that day, but one is more necessary for a higher grade.
> 
> I don't know if this example will hold water, but my gut feeling persists in telling me that "necessary" is gradable. I will have to keep thinking about this more to see if I come across an epiphany that either confirms my viewpoint or completely alters it.


 
I'm afraid I think your whole camp participation example is flawed because it is all based on the initial premise that "a bathing suit and hiking shoes are both necessary for participation in a certain camp" and then you go on to describe situations where you can participate in the camp without one or the other item (eg when you get your points for participation) thus proving that the items were not strictly necessary to participate in the camp.

What you in fact mean is that "a bathing suit and hiking shoes are both necessary for *full* participation in a certain camp". Now both are equally necessary for that - unless you'd like to argue that there are also gradations of "full"?

Again, you are infact talking about two different outcomes, one of which you consider as more desirable. Say you swim for 4 out of the 7 days and hike for 3 out of the 7 days then "a bathing suit is necessary to participate for 4/7 of the time" and "hiking boots are necessary to participate for 3/7 of the time". If you view the important outcome to be maximum participation, and you can only take one or the other, then it is more important to have a bathing suit. If you are lazy like me you would consider it more important to have the boots since you have to do less exercise overall.

Elroy, I think it is time to agree to disagree. There is no confusion here. You view the word "necessary" as a potential synonym for "important", I do not. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I think your whole camp participation example is flawed because it is all based on the initial premise that "a bathing suit and hiking shoes are both necessary for participation in a certain camp" and then you go on to describe situations where you can participate in the camp without one or the other item (eg when you get your points for participation) thus proving that *the items were not strictly necessary to participate in the camp.*



Yes, that's exactly my point.  I think they can be necessary and not strictly necessary.  Yes, I initially meant "full participation."  In that case, they are both necessary, as you said.  However, you can still be allowed to participate in the camp, just not fully, with one or the other - in which case you choose the one that's "more necessary" for the most favorable outcome.  Of course it depends on the outcome.  Otherwise, how do you determine whether something is necessary or not in the first place? 

PS - There are many who would argue that there are gradations of "full," but I'm not even gonna go there right now.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, that's exactly my point. I think they can be necessary and not strictly necessary. Yes, I initially meant "full participation." In that case, they are both necessary, as you said. However, you can still be allowed to participate in the camp, just not fully, with one or the other - in which case you choose the one that's "more necessary" for the most favorable outcome. Of course it depends on the outcome. Otherwise, how do you determine whether something is necessary or not in the first place?
> 
> PS - There are many who would argue that there are gradations of "full," but I'm not even gonna go there right now.


 
I think our points of view come down to the following -

1) A is necessary for outcome B.
2) C is necessary for outcome D.
3) Let's say we consider outcome D more desirable than outcome B.
4) Therefore you, Elroy, consider C to be more *necessary* the A, whereas I, Tim, consider C to be more *important* than A.

I think that covers every example we have talked about, so I don't think we can resolve it.

PS - thank you for not starting a discussion on whether or not there are gradations of "full" - I don't think my fragile sanity could take it!


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think our points of view come down to the following -
> 
> 1) A is necessary for outcome B.
> 2) C is necessary for outcome D.
> 3) Let's say we consider outcome D more desirable than outcome B.
> 4) Therefore you, Elroy, consider C to be more *necessary* the A, whereas I, Tim, consider C to be more *important* than A.
> 
> I think that covers every example we have talked about, so I don't think we can resolve it.
> 
> PS - thank you for not starting a discussion on whether or not there are gradations of "full" - I don't think my fragile sanity could take it!



Fair enough, I guess.   

"Necessary" and "important"...there's a very fine line.


----------



## panjandrum

elroy said:
			
		

> Fair enough, I guess.
> 
> "Necessary" and "important"...there's a very fine line.


At risk of further extending an already over-extended discussion - this is not a fine dividing line; it is a huge chasm. This distinction is critical to understanding of the discussion so far. 

Necessary is yes/no.

Important is gradable. 

Necessary is not.


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> At risk of further extending an already over-extended discussion - this is not a fine dividing line; it is a huge chasm. This distinction is critical to understanding of the discussion so far.
> 
> Necessary is yes/no.
> 
> Important is gradable.
> 
> Necessary is not.


 
Yes, I was going to let this one die too, but since you mention it, I think it is a huge difference too.


----------



## panjandrum

Thanks Tim.

If we lose the meaning of the word "necessary" as meaning "cannot be done without", what are we to use in its place?


----------



## elroy

I'm not going to pursue this further; suffice it to say that I think "huge chasm" is just a slight exaggeration.

"Indispensable" works perfectly and unambiguously.


----------



## cuchuflete

Having enjoyed all the sparring, which was instructive and amusing though not necessary, I have to express a rare disagreement with Sergio.

Usage has made 'necessary' gradable, but that is sloppy usage that ignores the inherent attributes of the word. Necessary/unnecessary are, logically, absolute and forcefully descriptive words. To modify them with the likes of 'very' and...please pass me a pail...'much', is to ignore their inherent meanings. 

That said, it is done. It is done so much that the gradeability has become part of the language. It's ugly, and imprecise to grade an absolute.

How necessary is this post? That's a foolish question. A better one would be, "Is this post necessary?" Necessity is binary: on or off. 

Those who are at ease with the gradeability of 'necessary'---yes I confess it exists, but as a matter of habit rather than of necessity---might be those who say that a lady is 'very pregnant' or who indulge in that horrid expression, "very unique".

May I step down from my soapbox now, please?  

A bowl of ginger ice cream is very necessary to calm my nerves...and a walk to the river is so thoroughly necessary that it's well nigh essential to my peace of mind, which in turn is somewhat necessary to my dog, who has trouble with my absolutely unnecessary abruptness when I'm tense. 

Necessary=required=essential.  Modify them at your peril.


----------



## sergio11

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Having enjoyed all the sparring, which was instructive and amusing though not necessary, I have to express a rare disagreement with Sergio.
> 
> Usage has made 'necessary' gradable, but that is sloppy usage that ignores the inherent attributes of the word.


 You are right. I have to admit that I was wrong.  I just went to the local public library to check the Oxford English Dictionary and found that in English it is restricted to the toggle switch or binary "yes/no" or "on/off" meaning.  I had looked earlier to the original Latin word in some other dictionaries, and had found that it had been used in a more lax fashion, judging by the examples given from classical texts.  However, that does not seem to be the case in English.  The Oxford English Dictionary does not have any such examples or definitions.  Consequently, I deleted my previous posting where I was defending the opposite position.

I am sorry for the unnecessary debate.  I have no alternative but to sheepishly offer my humble apologies and ask for your clemency and forgiveness.


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Necessary=required=essential. Modify them at your peril.


 
And all things are equally necessary/required/essential. Have I got it right?


----------



## cuchuflete

M56 said:
			
		

> And all things are equally necessary/required/essential. Have I got it right?



You may well have it right, but I'll confess that I don't understand what your question is about.

Nutriment is necessary for life.   _i_Pods, despite what our offspring may tell us, are not. 

Please help me understand what you are asking.

Thanks,
Cuchu

PS-  A reply is not necessary, but would be much appreciated.


----------



## Saqui

M56 said:
			
		

> Hello, All.
> 
> 2. This is *as **unnecessary **as *it is undesirable.


 
#2 is grammatically correct. That's the best option.


----------

