 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Ten times smaller
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? > 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? How much is "widely"? There are those of us who object to "10 times smaller" or "[any] times smaller." If someone says (or writes) "ten times smaller" I assume "one-tenth the size of [something else]" is the meaning, and if that's the case, then I wonder why that someone doesn't just say (or write) "one-tenth the size of [whatever]. Btw, "ten times less" is in the same category (bad) as "ten times smaller." And "90% smaller" is right in there with them. Maria Conlon, Who, as usual, could be wrong as well as opinionated. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Maria Conlon, > Who, as usual, could be wrong as well as opinionated. Opininated indeed. On the other hand I agree with you. When I first read the phrase it did not sound all that bad but it does not make a lot of sense and should not be used in written English. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I >> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Btw, "ten times less" is in the same category (bad) as "ten times > smaller." And "90% smaller" is right in there with them. "Twice the savings" bothered me the other day. "Why", I wondered, "don't they say something related to the price? Or even state the original price, and then the sales price, and let the prospective customer figure the amount he will save?" -People who don't have opinions are piss-poor conversationalists. Don't you wonder if they are even listening? Or, maybe they are just bored.- > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I > >> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -People who don't have opinions are piss-poor conversationalists. Don't > you wonder if they are even listening? Or, maybe they are just bored.-- "33% More FREE!" That's the same as "25% off!" (if you figure the unit price, e.g. dollars per ounce) but it sounds BIGGER! "90% smaller" is bad. "Ten times smaller" is worse. I agree with those upthread who prefer "one-tenth the size". Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "I always give 100% at work....12% on Monday, 23% on Tuesday, 40% on Wednesday, 20% on Thursday, 5% on Friday" > "90% smaller" is bad. "Ten times smaller" is worse. Three times worse. --Jeff  SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Btw, "ten times less" is in the same category (bad) as "ten times >smaller." And "90% smaller" is right in there with them. When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60% of original size. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a > major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no > idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60% > of original size. Starting the sentence (wrongly) with a digit: 60% generally means 60% of the original size. Unless, that is, one is "screening" a photo or illustration that is too dark overall. Do newspapers still do that? SignatureMaria Conlon, Having spent eight years (1966-74) dealing with offset printing (newspaper and brochures). >> When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a >> major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Starting the sentence (wrongly) with a digit: 60% generally means 60% of >the original size. That, of course, was my understanding. But I wouldn't know if that was the author's understanding. The usage of, say, "@ 60%" would have been much less ambiguous. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a >major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no >idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60% >of original size. Sixty percent reduction is the same as 167% oxidation.... (I think that's right, but I'm pretty rusty at this)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >(I think that's right, but I'm pretty rusty at this)....r <groan> SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >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? Since it is subject to misinterpretation, I avoid that format. Various alternative formats are available to the writer that offer clear, unambiguous ways of expressing comparisons. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Subject: Ten times smaller > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context > and this usage already widely accepted? I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size". I was actually more bothered by the tramslation as "90% smaller", which I don't think I would ever say. But then I realized that if the percentage was say 10 times smaller, so we were talking aobut something 91% of the size as being 9% smaller, I *would* say it; so that's just me and there's nothing wrong with that expression either. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | This process can check if this value is zero, and if msb@vex.net | it is, it does something child-like. --F. Burkowski My text in this article is in the public domain. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size". I agree too - I can't see any possible objection to "10 times smaller" - it's analogous with other physical concepts like "10 times the conductance" meaning "having 1/10 the resistance". Mark Brader: > > I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size". Andrew Bull: > I agree too - I can't see any possible objection to "10 times smaller" > - it's analogous with other physical concepts like "10 times the > conductance" meaning "having 1/10 the resistance". Actually, that is a possible reason to object. If it's 10 times *more* conductive, some would say that it's 11 times *as* conductive. By analogy, "10 times smaller" should then mean "1/11 of the size"! But I think that that interpretation of a number + "times" + the comparative is pretty much obsolete now. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "No flames were used in the creation of msb@vex.net | this message." -- Ray Depew My text in this article is in the public domain. >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >- it's analogous with other physical concepts like "10 times the >conductance" meaning "having 1/10 the resistance". What if there were no unit of conductance and it was "ten times less resistance"? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > 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. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > 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? With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries. Which adds another slant to it. Does even "one tenth of the size" mean the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > semireti...@my-deja.com writes: > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension > reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)? Personally I'd understand it as "one tenth the volume," unless the object had a very predominant dimension -- say, a thin and narrow ruler -- in which case I'd understand it as "one tenth the predominant dimension." > > semireti...@my-deja.com writes: > > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ruler -- in which case I'd understand it as "one tenth the predominant > dimension." which is still 1/10th the volume > > > semireti...@my-deja.com writes: > > > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > which is still 1/10th the volume Not necessarily... if you compare two bars, or two rulers, and say "A is one tenth the size of B," I don't care if the section of B is different, I only care that the length of B is one tenth that of A. This is just how *I* would interpret it though. > > > > semireti...@my-deja.com writes: > > > > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > different, I only care that the length of B is one tenth that of A. > This is just how *I* would interpret it though. If the cross section of A and B are the same, then one tenth the length is also one tenth the volume. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > > > semireti...@my-deja.com writes: > > > > >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > different, I only care that the length of B is one tenth that of A. > This is just how *I* would interpret it though. I read an implied "all else remaining equal" rather than "disregarding all other dimensions". >semireti...@my-deja.com writes: >>>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? >>With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries. >Which adds another slant to it. Does even "one tenth of the size" mean >the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension >reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)? The clue would be in the noun. A ruler would be shorter, but a bottle of wine would have less volume. semiretired@my-deja.com filted: >>Which adds another slant to it. =A0Does even "one tenth of the size" mean >>the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension >>reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)? > >The clue would be in the noun. A ruler would be shorter, but a bottle >of wine would have less volume. If it's a bag of potato chips, there should be a printed notice: “This package is sold by weight, not by volume. Some settling of contents normally occurs during shipment and handling.” That's to keep you from complaining when the bag of chips contains half a bag of chips....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >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? If A is 10 times smaller than B, then it is 1/10 the size of B. If B is 10 km long, then A is 1 km long. If B is 10 metres high, then, then A is 1 metre high. If B contains 50 litres, then A contains 5 litres. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I >> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If B contains 50 litres, then A contains 5 litres. If B is 10" by 20", then A is ? by ? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I >>> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >If B is 10" by 20", then A is ? by ? I never was any good at menstruation at school. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.