amperser
Don't complain about "obviously" when it's used reasonably
Compare
"Unlike introductions of H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2 into the human population, the emergence of the H1N2 subtype since 2001-2002 has not obviously increased incidence."
to
"Unlike introductions of H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2 into the human population, the emergence of the H1N2 subtype since 2001-2002 obviously has not increased incidence."
The first is problematic; the second isn't.
So it falls in Garner's category of "dogmatic terms", but perhaps with the ambiguity you suggest here meaning it in addition has the problem of being somewhat skunked even in its OK uses.
And even those uses might be ambiguous.
At the least, I found the opposite from you to be the case where first unproblematic(it's increase has not been easily measured/observed) and the latter somewhat problematic, while worse than either would be:
"Unlike introductions of H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2 into the human population, the emergence of the H1N2 subtype since 2001-2002 has obviously not increased incidence."
Where there the only role it plays is to be condescending toward the reader.
On Friday, February 12, 2016, Jordan Suchow <[email protected] javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote:
Compare
"Unlike introductions of H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2 into the human population, the emergence of the H1N2 subtype since 2001-2002 has not obviously increased incidence."
to
"Unlike introductions of H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2 into the human population, the emergence of the H1N2 subtype since 2001-2002 obviously has not increased incidence."
The first is problematic; the second isn't.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/amperser/proselint/issues/276.
