The adverb actually means "it may be argued", i.e. shown by argument.

Ah, ok, that makes sense! :-)

Thx a lot!

it means as much as "it's a matter of opinion."

It actually sometimes means just as Granini suggested:
"one need NOT argue about"
i.e., no argument necessary

I guess like dude says.

Dictionary: arguably

Anyway, Granini, Yes total opposite of what you would think. You were right.

Do you actually ever have an opinion and stick with it, opine? Or do you always waver/guess? Your life must be very difficult.

@ #4

No, 'arguably' does not mean 'no argument is necessary',
it means exactly what Carullus said in #1.

I always find a good dictionary is most useful
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/feat...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguably

Does a "matter of opinion" need to be argued?

most definitely, when it is arguably wrong

how is that wrong, bluejay?

I should have said 'opine's opinion', Dude.

Oh. Well, that usually goes without saying, though, doesn't it? ;-)

So, an opinion can be arguably wrong?

Ouch, @SD3. I hope you feel better.

Otherwise, this is "Sprachlabor", and how do you feel about the OP?

Does it mean "it can be argued" or "there's no arguing needed"?

That's the question. I'd appreciate if you didn't keep copy-pasting
the same thing on Leo whenever the spirit seems to move you. I don't
follow you around Leo. It's not attractive.

@ #14
I sometimes wonder whether you can actually read, Opine.

Does it mean "it can be argued" or "there's no arguing needed".

Correct answer given in #1 by Carullus, Dude #3, reiterated by myself #6.

I'm afraid your contributions often serve only to confuse and some-one has to tell you that.

Perhaps the copy-pasting should give you a hint about how the Sprachlabor should function. Doris's comments should not be disregarded lightly.

(OT: SD3 follows me around and that's the trademark copy-paste. It's a form of mobbing. You'd be surprised that I can indeed read, bluejay! I hope you also feel better!)

For what it's worth, opine, I think the consensus here is that your comments often - if not usually - serve more to obfuscate an issue than to help. You go back and forth, you express yourself in imprecise and confusing ways, and people (myself included) often have no clue what you're actually saying, which leads to the suspicion that perhaps you don't, either. It helps no one, least of all the person wanting to know the answer to his/her question, when you say things like (and I quote):

It actually sometimes means just as Granini suggested:
"one need NOT argue about"
i.e., no argument necessary

I guess like dude says.

That's not what I said, and your own answer is incorrect. Why do you keep obfuscating these issues and threads? You have been told by many here on LEO to just not say anything at all if you're not sure. Your constant guessing, wavering and leaving strange comments doesn't help. Sometimes, silence is indeed golden.

(OT: Okay, pile on if you must. I hope you too feel better!
Sorry to read your comments. I'd use your writing skills to
help other queries. I was supporting your #3 with my
comments. It got lost both in translation and in the thread.

Granini checked out contentedly in #2. It's "Sprachlabor".
Are you part of the "anti-opine" camp? Well, silly question really.
Peace!!! BTW, Everyone sees/views/hears/interprets language
in a different way.)

arguably:
used (often before a comparative or superlative adjective) when you are stating an opinion that you believe you could give reasons to support
He is arguably the best actor of his generation.
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.c...

Definition of ARGUABLY
: as may be argued or shown by argument
First Known Use of ARGUABLY
1890
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguably

ar‧gu‧a‧bly [sentence adverb]
used when giving your opinion to say that there are good reasons why something might be true: Senna was arguably the greatest racing driver of all time.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/arguably

I add the above merely in support of Carullus, dude and bluejay(uk), who have already dealt competently with the OP. It is a great pity that users feel obliged to spend time correcting someone who, for whatever reason and despite requests from Doris and, increasingly, other LEO users, insists on writing misleading and/or incorrect nonsense.

Your examples show "as may be argued", or "as it was argued", which often leads to "as has been much argued", which can be construed as "does not have to be argued about anymore"... And as a matter of fact, often when somebody says arguably he wants to say that a subject be prerequsite for the discussion, and does not have to be illuminated. I guess that was opine's train of toughts, or am I wrong?

I 100% agree with SD3, Dude, Carullus, and Bluejay: arguably means 'can be argued' i.e. is a matter of opinion. But opine clearly said "It actually sometimes means just as Granini suggested" and I have to agree there.

What can I say, I'm just not a friend of the recent opine-bashing mentality here in the forum, may her contributions be controverse (as mine?) and even confusing at times.

Yep, Sage, that was indeed my train of thought, and I wondered if that's what the OP was asking. There are times when one uses "arguably" and it means as you wrote: "does not have to argued about anymore".... Meaning to say, that arguing is not the point. It's just an intensifier. Now, I hope that doesn't get me into trouble again. I know what the "definition" of the word is, and technically everyone was right about what it says in a dictionary. I just felt my point got lost along the way.

Thanks for pointing it out! Your words were very nice. (BTW, I'm a he.)
I enjoy your contributions wherever they may be. They always make me think.

Well I thought so, maybe you just should have pointed that out in the first place...

Thanks for the kudos and sorry for the 'her'. But admittedly, I was 100% convinced you were a girl :-) Sorry man, and I'm enjoying your contributions too. (most of them :-))

What can I say, I'm just not a friend of the recent opine-bashing mentality here in the forum, may her contributions be controverse (as mine?) and even confusing at times. -> What can I say? I'm just not a friend of the recent opine-bashing mentality here in the forum, however controversial (as controversial as mine?) or even confusing at times his contributions may be.

You could say: "Thank you to all those who try to make sure that questions about English receive reliable responses."

Perhaps you are not able to judge how misleading some "contributions" concerning questions of English are. Fortunately for you, many of us can.

If people object on a regular basis to misleading posts from a single source, maybe it's because that single source produces many misleading posts. Try considering that possibility.

I was among those objecting, and not only once as you may remember, but still. There is no such thing as a reliable answer for one thing, and for another, perhaps you are not able to always grasp all the subtle subtlety of Language, but fortunately for you, a few of us are. Here in this concrete case opine had a good point, but no one was listening, just dismissing him with your opine-contributions-are-worth-shit-anyway speech.

As I already said, I agree that opine's contributions are often confusing, and I also told him that he should have pointed out that Dude is 100% right but actually sometimes it means just what the OP suggested.. He should just generally try to articulate a little more carefully. And shouldn't your approach be to help him with constructive criticism rather than copy-pasting recent Doris-Posts? Really infantile.

How does "arguably" mean "one need NOT argue about"? That makes no sense to me. If I read "July is arguably the hottest month," that means (to me) that July is hot, but August could be hotter; it's a matter of opinion and, perhaps, statistics. And if statistics are involved, it may well be a matter of interpreting those. "Arguably" never means "one need NOT argue about."

@dude As I read it correctly, both meant: one need not argue about it anymore. However, that would actually mean something is fact. That is, you just could use another word for that (I am really against these types of I-get-every-meaning-into-one-word-cuz-then-I'll-have to-use-less-vocabulary.) i.e., "July is definitely/actually the hottest month."

And, note (and take that lightly please ;)): language is evolving, yes. But if everyone thinks he can put every meaning into every word, we soon gonna end up in Babel.

As I said, I basically agree—but I can very well imagine someone say e.g. "As July is arguably the hottest month in the year I assume that the gross solar irradiation is top as well." With this he wants to set the premiss "July is the hottest month" and he just wants to discuss his hypothesis about radiation. To support his prerequisite but also to dissociate himself from generalizing it, he says "arguably". Meaning for me: Very probable, but of course one could argue.

It really never means "one need NOT argue about", I agree, but I think it can often be interpreted as "it's extremely probable, so let's not argue about it now", right?

Sorry, Sage, but you're spouting nonsense, IMO. If something is probable, it's not a fact. The same goes for "arguably." You can read whatever you like into what someone says, but that doesn't make it correct.

And I'm not sure what language evolving has to do with this (#26).

@Sage What's with overcomplicating sentences today ;)? You woulda say: "Assuming July is the hottest month of the year, gross solar radiation should be at its highest level as well." Then, you can go on discussing why and put the emphasis on the causality between "hot month" and "gross solar radiation". If you don't wanna talk about sth. right now, then "let's assume for a moment that", e.g., the earth revolves around the sun ;)

@dude I am sorry, the last sentence did not refer to you (that's why I split it i 2 paragraphs). I do not want to contribute to the confusion right now ;)

I was refering to "There is no such thing as a reliable answer for one thing, and for another,..." from Sage's earlier posting. Such an argument usually goes hand in hand with saying, there's no reliability in meaning because language is ever-changing.

dude, If you reread Sage's #20, there was a logical buildup/progression that lead to:
"does not have to be argued about anymore". Makes sense to me! It's hard to choose the exact word there (in the progression). It doesn't need to make sense to everyone, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands it somewhat differently. I try not to think/process in absolutes. I feel the OP's question likely never got answered, and the definition could have been looked up in an online dictionary, anyway! I think nuance was involved.

(OT: SD3. If you label me as misleading, then my tit-for-tat -- It is laborious for me sometimes to read your writing. You'd be surprised how helpful/constructive/intuitive I can be. If you don't like my style, don't read. I don't follow you around Leo. Peace.)

Super-OT: dude, Can you believe the rain?

I never said it designated a fact, but in speech "arguably" IMO often means that something does not need to be, or is not liked to be argued about, for whatever reason. It's not about facts and statistics, but about what someone wants to get across. Let me put it like this: If someone postulates something with "arguably", you can probably assume that he would rather not like you to disprove it, right?

But strictly speaking you're 100% right, for the fourth time.

ThinkinAboutIt,
sorry I don't get that, what were you trying to say? I know that 'assumption' is a better way of starting such a discussion, but sometimes people just allege things, you know?

opine, M-W is very succinct about "arguably":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguably
Definition of ARGUABLY: as may be argued or shown by argument an arguably effective strategy; arguably the greatest writer of his era

Where in the world do you see "one need NOT argue about" here? You're confusing the issue - and probably a lot of people to boot. Please stop your nonsense.

#33, That was posted in #19. It's beside the point ... at this point.

But if absolutes are 100% absolute. You are right. There's a point being
made that goes being what one can read in a dictionary.

So the correct german translation would be "wie man zeigen kann" ?

@arcus: Man kann behaupten/sagen, dass ... finde ich da besser. "Zeigen" erscheint mir zu technisch/absolut.

@opine: I give up, but: There's a point being
made that goes being what one can read in a dictionary. Say what? Could you at least try to make sense?

There's a point being made that goes beyond what one can read in a dictionary.

(#36. Sorry, Typing too fast. Ever been there? Hope that clears it up.)

opine, yes, but be aware that our thoughts on this are rather philosophical than language-related. Semantically this is a clear cut case.

Arcus, it's like all -ables.. Something arguable is able to be argued about, i.e. discussed. Same as a bootable disk can be booted, a stackable wooden case can be stacked upon, something variable can be varied, and you've probably heard 'fuckable', too. :)

@sage Yes, you said it yourself :) "Allege things", i.e. why not use "As July is allegedly/probably the hottest month in the year..." You do not need "arguably" for that. That's what I was trying to say. Yo have enough words to describe the things you want to express, you do not need to "bend" another word's meaning for that. No offense meant.

And no offense taken at all!
I/we just meant that sometimes people say A and mean B, but as I already pointed out this has nothing to do with the word "arguably", I just dropped in to rescue opine from the mob :-)

Auch wenn ich vielleicht völlig falsch liege: Mir drängt sich der Verdacht auf, dass die unterschiedlichen Ansichten darüber, was arguably bedeutet (oder zumindest bedeuten kann), damit zu tun haben, dass schon die Bedeutung von to argue nicht ganz eindeutig ist. Die in LEO aufgeführten Übersetzungen sind jedenfalls aus meiner deutschen Sicht recht unterschiedlich:
Einerseits heißt to argue "streiten, diskutieren, disputieren", so dass as may be argued mit "man kann darüber streiten" übersetzt werden könnte, was in Richtung "es ist Ansichtssache, die Meinungen darüber gehen auseinander" geht.
Andererseits kann to argue aber auch "darlegen, räsonieren, argumentieren, Gründe anführen" bedeuten, so dass as may be argued mit "man kann behaupten" oder sogar "man kann darlegen" übersetzt werden könnte, was eher in Richtung "es ist anzunehmen" oder sogar "es ist begründet" geht.
Nur so eine Idee...

#41 : Das war arguably der für German native speakers hilfreichste + einleuchtendste Beitrag.

So Granini, the answer to your question:

I'm wondering about the word "arguably".
If I understand correctly, it actually means "one need NOT argue about", like "Juli is arguably the hottest month".

is very simply: IT IS WRONG

And however arguably is actually defined, #42 has certainly provided a good example of how it's used.

I agree with #1 (and #3, #6, #15, on so on, as well as #43).

I do not agree with #41: "...dass schon die Bedeutung von to argue nicht ganz eindeutig ist."

Yes, the word "argue" has a couple of different meanings, but that doesn't mean the word itself in not clearly defined. What's meant by "argue" is usually quite clear from context.

The comments from opine and Sage in this thread should be disregarded by anyone learning English. (In fact, language learners would be well advised to ignore opine's comments in virtually any thread.)

(OT: Ouch, Liz. I fear you haven't read the whole thread. Anyway, peace. I wouldn't write words like that. I also take it you don't read everything I participate in.)

opine: wrong.

#47, opine: wrong. What's wrong? That's very vague.
You didn't read the whole thread, or you don't read most of
the threads I participate in?

#45, Yes, the word "argue" has a couple of different meanings, but that doesn't mean the word itself in not clearly defined. What's meant by "argue" is usually quite clear from context.

What are the different meanings, Liz?

P.S. It's Sprachlabor. Your definition of the meanings may help others.

#48: "What are the different meanings?"
Read the post I referred to.

"P.S. It's Sprachlabor. Your definition of the meanings may help others."

I have read this entire thread, but I'm sure I have not read every post you've ever written. Still, it seems clear to me that you have no interest in being of real help to language learners. You continue to post nonsensical, confusing, poorly-written twaddle after having been asked repeatedly not to do so. I conclude that your only interest is in regaling the public at large with every impulse that flits through your brain. I wish you would have mercy on the language learners, and spare us all (or most of us) the annoyance.

What's wrong with "unarguably"?
July is unarguably the hottest month.

But as soon as someone were to say that sentence, it's almost certain someone else will want to argue about it, regardless of the intended meaning. (Or is that irregardless? :-))

"Inflammable" is unarguably a synonym of "flammable." The opposite of "flammable" is unarguably "nonflammable." So when someone says, "We're so relieved! Our baby's PJs are inflammable," are you going to argue with them? Do you understand what they mean?

Is a dictionary (like LEO) arguably correct to exclude some kind of note that "inflammable" is commonly used to mean "nonflammable"?

Or, is a dictionary (like LEO) unarguably correct to exclude some kind of note that "inflammable" is commonly used to mean "nonflammable"?

Is opine arguably correct to try (however inartfully) to explain that sometimes in common use "arguably" can mean "unarguably"?

Or is opine unarguably correct to try (however inartfully) to explain that sometimes in common use "arguably" can mean "unarguably"?

Just my opinion. Oftentimes I don't understand opine's posts, but other times I see keen insight. He shouldn't be dismissed so automatically. Otherwise, value may be lost.

If one is translating something into English, then use the grammatically correct and dictionary correct word. If one is translating from English into another language, then it is important to understand that sometimes, in common usage, a word can mean its exact opposite. I think "arguably" is one of those cases.

Agalinis, this was helpful. Seriously, thank you.
A very nice exemplification, guess you hit the mark.

There is nothing wrong with "unarguably:" it means the opposite of arguably - as does "inarguably."
As mentioned in #6: a good dictionary is most useful.
*edit*
Agalinis, are you certain "inflammable" is commonly used to mean "non-flammable"? I have often come across the question ("Why does "inflammable" mean the same as "flammable"?") but have not often seen the incorrect usage. And besides, does it really make sense to ask a dictionary to list the things a word doesn't mean, even thought it sounds like they should? Or did you mean, just in this one particular case? Or did you just mention the idea to get those words into those sentences?

Hi Liz (ae in de),
I'm not asking that a dictionary should always list the things a word doesn't mean, but in the case of inflammable, every dictionary I know, my Webster's Collegiate at home, my Webster's New College (actually a Houghton Mifflin production) here at work, and Wikipedia all have notes about it. Here's what Wikipedia says:
The word “inflammable” came from Latin “'inflammāre” = “to set fire to,” where the prefix “'in-”' means “in” as in “inside”, rather than “not” as in “invisible” and “ineligible”. Nonetheless, “inflammable” is often erroneously thought to mean “non-flammable”. To avoid this safety hazard, “flammable”, despite not being the proper Latin-derived term, is now commonly used on warning labels when referring to physical combustibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflammable

My office dictionary also notes that "flammable" had a brief life in the early 19th century and was deliberately resurrected by safety officials in the 20th century "in order to eliminate possibly dangerous confusion about the combustibility of various materials.

I have heard people, particularly politicians, use "arguably" to mean "unarguably" or "inarguably." I think that is the original question in the OP. And if one is translating from English to German, one should know about the possibility of that duality of meaning, or you run the risk of mistranslation, an error of omission. The only way to be sure is overall context, and if there is no context, then just go with what is dictionary-right.

If you attend a baby shower and all you hear is "Our baby's PJs are inflammable," then be shocked and horrified and proceed to correct them. If instead you hear in context "We're so relieved! Our baby's PJs are inflammable," then smile and congratulate them for being so concerned about safety and get another piece of cake. :-)

Also, focus should be on the thread, not on the contributors to the thread.

I had understood the original question to be about what the correct meaning of the word is, not whether it is ever used erroneously or how to react if it is.