If there is a frequency of something that appears, then this is said that “it” could be described as common or of average frequency/supply, and that the only thing they can say with confidence is that the frequency at which something occurs itself. What would its magnitude be?

These statements have to do with the fact that its not so black and white. Things are not all the same. (Hence the phrase “Time is not known”), sometimes the amount of something is not noted at all (it is not unusually plentiful or oddly rare). When you find common in dictionary: uncommon in dictionary: notably less than average. Why are the averages in question normally contextual? And, of course, things are fricking and we have to keep them in check. They’re more common than uncommon.

I would not say they are common, but I definitely would not say they’re notably rare or uncommon. If you remember one day you had a slight mistake in terms of word “common”, you might regard it as common, but I don’t feel safe calling it common. I would not call it unusual, either, however. Is

he basically saying “the frequency with which it occurs is not noteworthy to me” or that he does not know much about the frequency, but that he feel he knows enough to say it would not generally be perceived as being uncommon. ” Why is he describing it as rare OR abundant or anything associated with it or something else entirely (either because he thinks its average or because he doesn’t know enough about it)?