3 ms·
In this case, he's saying cut them down to at least 740 mm [or smaller—implied]. The usage is correct.
by frosted-flakes 5y ago
In this case, he's saying cut them down to at least 740 mm [or smaller—implied]. The usage is correct.
- jrochkind1 5y agoThe LEAST is the smallest. The word "least" means "smallest" At least, at the least, at the smallest. "at least": Not less than, at the minimum. It doesn't make sense for "at least" to mean "or smaller than". It literally means "or bigger than". You can say instead: I plan to cut them down to at most 740mm for a future project. I suppose you could say "I plan to remove at least 20mm".
- frosted-flakes 5y agoI think "at least" refers to how much they'll cut off ("cut them down"), not the resultant size, even if they specified the resultant size. Similar to "it was at least -40° outside last winter". The implied direction means -40° or colder, even though colder temperatures are lower. Of course, English is a flexible language. What you suggest as an alternative is not necessarily wrong, but to me it feels awkward. The intended meaning is obvious either way.
- jrochkind1 5y agoRight, "at least -40 outside" also does not make any sense at all. "At most -40 outside" would. Or else, how can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing, when "least" and "most" are antonyms?
- frosted-flakes 5y agoThe quality being described is coldness. "At least -40°" means that was the least cold it was, but it might have been colder. For the handlebars, the quality is shortness. "Cut them down to at least 740 mm, maybe more" means that that is the least short they will be, but they might end up shorter. > How can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing? Context. Language is stupid that way.