# Forum > Discussion > Friendly Banter >  Settle a stupid argument for me: forbidden vs strictly forbidden

## Myth27

I've been discussing with a friend whether the expression "strictly forbidden" is completely stupid and redundant because it has the same meaning as "forbidden" or not. The person who thinks it's not also says its opinion is supported by the fact that you can find "strictly forbidden" on many signs, but can you really? in your experience how common are "strictly forbidden" sign vs "forbidden" ?

----------


## animorte

The word strictly in this case does easily come across as superfluous. However, I could see the argument for a difference on scale. Perhaps forbidden refers to the concept of being overall forbidden in every circumstance. Perhaps strictly forbidden could be used on a smaller scale. In context:

_That behavior is strictly forbidden in this house. I dont care what you do elsewhere._

----------


## Keltest

In a literal reading, adding strictly is intended to emphasize how well the speaker is intending to enforce it. Its the difference between not allowing somebody a cookie before bed and not allowing them to put a penny in an electric socket.

More commonly, its just there to add emphasis.

----------


## Fyraltari

I see it more as way to say that the rule is strictly enforced. If you say something is simply forbidden, there may be special cases where it's allowed or you may let first offenders go with a warning, but if it's "strictly forbidden" then there's no "ifs" or "buts" about it.

----------


## Altair_the_Vexed

There's another use of the qualifier "strictly" - to say that "if we interpret the rules strictly, then that is forbidden" (with the implication that strict interpretation may not be what's going to always happen).
It would likely be expressed slightly differently, with at least a comma in there, e.g. "Talking about politics on the forum is, strictly, forbidden" or "Political discussion on this forum, strictly, is forbidden."

I doubt that's what the OP is referring to, though! ;)

----------


## Peelee

In the land of Peeleelandia, jaywalking is forbidden. Cop sees you do it, you may get stopped but you may not.

In Peeleelandia, murder is strictly forbidden. Cop sees you do it, you're getting arrested immediately.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I don't understand this argument.  :Confused:

----------


## Aedilred

It may be intended (at least as originally used) to evoke the concept of strict liability, which is kind of what Fyralti was getting at. For instance, if entry is forbidden on a strict liability basis then if you are found to have entered you will be penalised irrespective of intention, circumstances or consequence. Maybe you have been chased in there by a pack of wild bears. Maybe you were kidnapped, locked in a car boot and then released in the forbidden area. Maybe you were only in there for a fraction of a second, or the reason for prohibiting entry wasn't relevant during your visit (e.g. you caused no danger to yourself or anyone else by being there). Doesn't matter, you still get the penalty.

I suspect though that as generally used it's just inflationary, intended to somehow beef up the "forbidden" without actually meaning anything.

----------


## truemane

I think it's mostly one of those linguistic eccentricities that's carved a groove for itself through common use and so it sounds weird not to use it.

Like how you can say "I could care less" and (pedants aside) most people know that you mean you couldn't care less. Or how you can say 'literally' and (again, pedants aside) people know it's just an intensifier. Or how we still say 'roll down the window' and 'hang up the phone' despite those being things no one actually does any more.

My contention is that the modifier 'strictly' serves to clearly differentiate that which is forbidden in the legal sense from that which is forbidden in the supernatural sense.

Reading the Necronomicon in a museum late at night is "forbidden." Breaking into the museum in the first place, however, is "strictly forbidden."

----------


## Imbalance

The use of 'strictly' notes a lack of exception, as in Aedilred's examples.  But it also implies the existence of '_leniently_ forbidden', which may simply be the more general 'forbidden' with implicit exception from liability.

I like to use "I could care less," especially around those who I know would feel inclined to call me on it, so that I can just as snootily correct them with, "no, I literally could care less, but the default scale is from one to ten.  By default, my level of concern must be recorded at 1, though in truth, it is, in fact, zero.  I don't even care enough to bother specifying the more accurate scale.  But I could."

----------


## Aedilred

> Like how you can say "I could care less" and (pedants aside) most people know that you mean you couldn't care less. Or how you can say 'literally' and (again, pedants aside) people know it's just an intensifier.


You can say those things, but if you do so you are an enemy of humanity.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> You can say those things, but if you do so you are an enemy of humanity.


So you're saying that they are strictly forbidden.

But yes, I would agree that "strictly forbidden" is different from "forbidden" in a couple ways. First, "strictly forbidden" states that there is a wider net being cast. If cookies are forbidden in my house, you might be able to argue things which are cookie-adjacent like biscotti as not falling within the edicts laid out. If I say cookies are _strictly_ forbidden, it makes it clear that there is no wiggle room allowed and anything which could be seen as a cookie is not allowed within my house.

It also allows you to define a very narrow area of things being forbidden without making larger statements. "Cookies manufactured by Nestle are strictly forbidden in my house" means that cookies may or may not be forbidden, but the manufacturer itself is very clearly delineated as disallowed.

No, I don't know why I would have a rule like that.

----------


## Fyraltari

> It also allows you to define a very narrow area of things being forbidden without making larger statements. "Cookies manufactured by Nestle are strictly forbidden in my house" means that cookies may or may not be forbidden, but the manufacturer itself is very clearly delineated as disallowed.
> 
> No, I don't know why I would have a rule like that.


For boycott purposes?

----------


## Peelee

I assume Dame_Mechanus likes water.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> I assume Dame_Mechanus likes water.


It makes up about 56% of me. Normally 55% but I've had a lot of seltzer today.

----------


## animorte

> No, I don't know why I would have a rule like that.


Specifically because for some reason my mother is allergic to only Hersheys chocolate, no other form of chocolate.

----------


## Ionathus

> I've been discussing with a friend whether the expression "strictly forbidden" is completely stupid and redundant because it has the same meaning as "forbidden" or not. The person who thinks it's not also says its opinion is supported by the fact that you can find "strictly forbidden" on many signs, but can you really? in your experience how common are "strictly forbidden" sign vs "forbidden" ?


Oh boy, a grammar & usage discussion! My time has finally come  :Small Big Grin: 

One possibility for why you think it sounds weird is because you consider it an _absolute_ adjective and your friend doesn't. 

Absolute adjectives (for the purposes of this discussion, please don't @ me with grammar nitpicks) are words that really shouldn't be compared or given a "degree". Unless you're trying to be intentionally cute, an object can't be *more* perfect or *most* perfect -- it can only be "perfect" or "imperfect," because perfect has a very specific definition and something can't be only _partially_ perfect...or else it wouldn't be perfect at all. Some other absolute adjectives are *false*, *silent*, *freezing*, *dead*, and *pregnant*. Technically, they can only be one specific thing, and they can't become "more" or "less" of that adjective...if they change enough, they simply become _not_ that adjective anymore.

You may have noticed that a lot of these get modified with adverbs anyway. "Very pregnant," "mostly harmless," "Practically Perfect," "mostly dead." Some of this is done intentionally, for humor. Other times, it's just people doing what people do - changing language for emphasis. As truemane mentioned, saying "literally X" is often redundant or just plain incorrect in context, but people do it all the time because language is always evolving. 

I'd echo what other people here have said: "forbidden" might be an absolute - something is either forbidden or it's not - but in this situation, the phrase "strictly forbidden" could easily be interpreted to mean "(forbiddance is) strictly *enforced*".

----------


## Hagashager

Strictly forbidden usually carries with it the connotation that the forbiddence will be actively and punitively enforced.  

"Access Forbidden" on a private property sign is having someone come out and scream at you to get off their land


"Access Strictly Forbidden"  on a private property sign is someone holding you at gunpoint and calling the cops to arrest you for trespassing.

----------


## enderlord99

> Specifically because for some reason my mother is allergic to only Hersheys chocolate, no other form of chocolate.


Is she also allergic to Parmesan cheese?

----------


## Sigako

> I've been discussing with a friend whether the expression "strictly forbidden" is completely stupid and redundant because it has the same meaning as "forbidden" or not. The person who thinks it's not also says its opinion is supported by the fact that you can find "strictly forbidden" on many signs, but can you really? in your experience how common are "strictly forbidden" sign vs "forbidden" ?


You forgot "absolutely forbidden".
Simply "forbidden" means that it's not a big deal, you can either do it or not if you want.
"Strictly forbidden" means that it's a pretty important thing, so you definitely should do it, if only to see what all the fuss is about.
"Absolutely forbidden" means it's a grave matter, so you *MUST* do it, or you'll be regretting it forever.
A little bit of Russian "humor".

Jokes aside, "forbidden" is a discrete/absolute attribute without gradation, and, technically speaking, "strictly" is superfluous.
The distinction is informal, and the actual difference is in the level of importance and implied (or even explicit) threat for breaking the prohibition in question, as well as tolerance for loopholes and excuses.
_Actual_ usage of this distinction is often when the speaker lacks the means to enforce the prohibition effectively and tries (usually in vain) to inflate their authority, convey the importance of the ban and properly intimidate the subject.

----------


## Vinyadan

My experience is that the difference lies in where the two forms are used. "Strictly forbidden" is used in signs and notices that want to deliver the message more efficaciously (if you are writing a company's guide for employees, this longer, easily recognised form makes it easier to parse and find what they cannot do). 
Actual laws won't use it, however, because it has no legal meaning. And settings that wish to look formal won't use it for the same reason and because it'a pleonasm.

----------


## Peelee

> Actual laws won't use it, however, because it has no legal meaning.


I take it you've never had any "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED" signs in your neck of the woods?

----------


## Vinyadan

> I take it you've never had any "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED" signs in your neck of the woods?


I mean laws like those in a penal code. But no, I've never seen anything like that, just the speed limit and, on occasion, signs that warn you that your speed does indeed get checked on that road.

----------


## Peelee

> I mean laws like those in a penal code. But no, I've never seen anything like that, just the speed limit and, on occasion, signs that warn you that your speed does indeed get checked on that road.


Well sure, in penal codes it's useless, but that doesn't mean it's not used for legal purposes. In zones like that (IIRC drive into Virginia and you'll see a sign like that immediately), it's effectively saying "we have instructed our cops to not go easy on people" and letting the public know.

----------


## Imbalance

> Well sure, in penal codes it's useless, but that doesn't mean it's not used for legal purposes. In zones like that (IIRC drive into Virginia and you'll see a sign like that immediately), it's effectively saying "we have instructed our cops to not go easy on people" and letting the public know.


"Sgrictly enforced" has meaning that "strictly forbidden" lacks.  The authorities may forbid you from exceeding the speed limit as strictly as they want, but your foot is no less heavy.  Whereas, once the strict enforcement is concluded, your wallet is much lighter.

----------


## Peelee

> "Sgrictly enforced" has meaning that "strictly forbidden" lacks.


Not really. They both convey the same sentiment - the authorities will be much less likely to let you go if they catch you doing it.

----------

