4 ms·
Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but even going by that the first definition would mean any plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the thr
by CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but even going by that the first definition would mean any plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the threshold potentially lower than 50%.
I prefer Merriam Webster, which is far more clear. Definition 2 (defn 1 does not apply in this context): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most
- b112 1y agoWe have multiple parties in Canada. There may be a minority government elected, with 40% of the seats, and 30%, 20%, 10% to other parties. The 40% party will be described as winning the most seats.
- harmmonica 1y agoHa, I gotta say after reading your reply I feel kind of dumb for even saying the 80%; I had blinders on. Most, when it's relative, is the highest of a set even if that number is super low. Totally spaced on that when I asked, but I was fixated on how it's used to define something that's a percentage like in the 65% example. It happens so frequently in journalism and it's frustrating because it's trying to make an argument that sometimes the numbers themselves don't support. Anyway, appreciate you reminding me (and I deserved to feel dumb so also making me feel a bit dumb about it).
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoYes, that is definition 1 (merriam-webster). This definition is often invoked by saying "the" before "most," as you did. It's a different definition than defn 2 (m-w), which is what is used when saying "Most farms are not owned by farmers." "The 40% party won the most seats" carries a different meaning than "The 40% party won most seats"
- Dylan16807 1y agoIt's more complicated. They got "the most" seats but they didn't get "most" seats. Pure "most" is implicitly that option versus all the rest.