Re: Ten times smaller
- From: Eric Walker <email@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:19:50 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:06:02 -0700, Outspan wrote:
I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 times
smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already no size
at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I understand
the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context and this
usage already widely accepted?
As most any desk dictionary will show, the word "times" means "multiplied
by". When one says X is ten times larger than Y, the meaning is simple
and clear: X is 10 times Y. But to say that A is ten times smaller than
B has no clear or obvious meaning: A is Y multiplied by what? As many
have already noted, such forms are readily subject to multiple
interpretations, which works against the base idea of language: to
communicate.
In short, it is utterly silly to speak of reduction in terms of increase.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
.
- References:
- Ten times smaller
- From: Outspan
- Ten times smaller
- Prev by Date: Re: Skitt's Law
- Next by Date: Re: The definition of the Standard variation of British English
- Previous by thread: Re: Ten times smaller
- Next by thread: Re: Ten times smaller
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
