Always black and white with you. «"people surviving a jump off some building 89% of the time" indicates "people will likely survive a jump off that building"»

Exactly my point. (I guess you're just as black and white.) Or are you falsly claiming you said "parenthesizes are likely to indicate lists"?

Check out the Meriam-Webster entry for indicate.

I already checked the dictionary. Since you didn't take your own advice, I'll copy it here:

• Parens don't point out lists.
• Parens don't point to lists.
• Parens aren't a sign of lists.
• Parens aren't a symptom of lists.
• Parens aren't an index of lists.
• Parens don't demonstrate the necessity of lists.
• Parens don't demonstrate the advisability of lists.
• Parens don't suggest the necessity of lists.
• Parens don't suggest the advisability of lists.
• Parens don't state lists.
• Parens don't express lists briefly.

There's an implied level of uncertainty with "indicate". That is, the "likely" , "probably", etc. is implied. For example, "Our records indicate a depth of 3,000 feet here" doesn't guarantee that's the depth, but barring additional information that would call the chart into question it likely is. Or "The map indicates where the treasure is buried." likely means the treasure is not buried there -- at least according to TV and movies! (^_^)

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

I think you're argument is:

One has a reasonable expectation of seeing a list following a paren, so parens indicate the presence of a list.

I stipulate that this is a valid argument — true if it's premises are true — but I don't buy the premise.

The odds of seeing something other than a list after a paren is too great for it to be reasonable to expect to see a list following a paren.

Even with your made up number of 89%, that means one bug every 10 parens. That's a huge error rate! Much too great to use in teaching.

There's an implied level of uncertainty with "indicate". That is, the "likely" , "probably", etc. is implied.

I don't understand why you bring this up. You've already agreed that "a list is likely present" isn't the same as "a list is present". It now sounds like you're trying to prove the opposite. Did you change your mind? Either way, the argument fails.

Our records indicate a depth of 3,000 feet here.

What's uncertain here is the validity of the records. You can't measure the validity of parens.

The map indicates where the treasure is buried.

What's uncertain here is the validity of the map. You can't measure the validity of parens.

That is, the "likely" , "probably", etc. is implied.

The uncertainty would be about the validity of the parens, and that makes no sense. The uncertainty is therefore not applicable to "parens indicate the precense of a list".

There is a relation between the records and the depth: The records were built from measurements of the depth. This is why the records indicate the depth.

There is a relation between the map and the treasure: The map was built based on information about the treasure. This is why the map indicates the location of treasure.

There is a no relation between parens and list, so one can't indicate (point to) the other. This is why the parens don't indicate the presence of a list.