a priori

[alan gould]

a priori isn’t used in English conversation, but I’ve seen it in erudite writing.  I had seen it in the dictionary example below w its given translation so i put it in a study notebook 

 Le feu, a priori d’origine accidentelle, a pris dans le dépôt

The fire which seems to have bn accidental, began in the warehouse    

 

if i look at the english, i would say in english "the fire which is alleged to have been accidental..." so in french, i would say "le feu, d'abord pre'sume' accidentelle..." 

to me, a priori doesn't distinguish between the fire having in fact been accidental or merely it being alleged.  i asked a french friend and she said "a priori" is better claiming it's more neutral.  i don't understand and hope u can clarify it.      

 

 

[Billy Bosworth]

I don't think the absolute meaning of either term is significant, as they both hint at doubt and uncertainty. 

It is more the context that distinguishes them, in that a scientist/intellectual may choose "a priori" whereas a police or media report would use "allegedly" because it's a safe word and most people know what it means. 

Other than by my old Latin master, I don't recall having heard the word in English, but I have heard it numerous times in French.

A posteriori perhaps we should use it more :-)

[alan gould]

so i guess if it's merely alleged, u use "a priori."  but if it was found to have been accidental, i guess u wouldn't use "a priori."