4 ms·

> It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of. It conforms to: > “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to m

by DrammBA 9mo ago

> It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of. It conforms to: > “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.” which I agree is no common usage that I am aware of

tmoertel 9mo ago
No, it does not conform. As I wrote earlier, I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not. That is, expressions like "twice as slow/thin/short/..." or "2x as slow/thin/short/..." or "200% as slow/thin/short/..." have a well-established usage that is understood to mean "half as fast/thick/tall/..." But "50% as slow/thin/short/..." or "half as slow/thin/short/..." have no such established usage. For some evidence to support my claim, please see this 2008 discussion on Language Log: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20further%20complexity%3A%20in%20addition%20to%20the%20N%C2%A0times%20more/larger%20than%20usage%2C%20there%20is%20also%20a%20N%C2%A0times%20less/lower%20than%C2%A0%271/Nth%20as%20much%20as%27%C2%A0usage https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20fur... Since HN has a tendency to trim URLs and might prevent this link from taking you to the relevant portion of a rather lengthy article, I'll quote the salent bits: "A further complexity: in addition to the N times more/larger than usage, there is also a N times less/lower than [to mean] '1/Nth as much as' usage" "[About this usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage reports that] times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood."
- DrammBA 9mo ago
  > I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not. > For some evidence to support my claim Please note that the 2008 discussion you linked does not support your claim in any way, so 50% does conform.
  - tmoertel 9mo ago
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that the history of English language usage is replete with examples such as "X times less than" when X > 1, but similar constructions for X <= 1 do not appear with appreciable frequency. In any case, I think that continuing our conversation is unlikely to be productive, so this will be my last reply. I will just say in closing that our conversation is a good example of why the MAGA folks have probably chosen phrasing such as this.
    - DrammBA 9mo ago
      To be fair our conversation can be summarized as: > only pedants misunderstand this, here's a 2 decade old source that doesn't support my claim, I rather not continue the conversation so it was never meant to be productive

by DrammBA 9mo ago

tmoertel 9mo ago

No, it does not conform. As I wrote earlier, I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not. That is, expressions like "twice as slow/thin/short/..." or "2x as slow/thin/short/..." or "200% as slow/thin/short/..." have a well-established usage that is understood to mean "half as fast/thick/tall/..." But "50% as slow/thin/short/..." or "half as slow/thin/short/..." have no such established usage. For some evidence to support my claim, please see this 2008 discussion on Language Log: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20further%20complexity%3A%20in%20addition%20to%20the%20N%C2%A0times%20more/larger%20than%20usage%2C%20there%20is%20also%20a%20N%C2%A0times%20less/lower%20than%C2%A0%271/Nth%20as%20much%20as%27%C2%A0usage https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20fur... Since HN has a tendency to trim URLs and might prevent this link from taking you to the relevant portion of a rather lengthy article, I'll quote the salent bits: "A further complexity: in addition to the N times more/larger than usage, there is also a N times less/lower than [to mean] '1/Nth as much as' usage" "[About this usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage reports that] times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood."

DrammBA 9mo ago
> I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not. > For some evidence to support my claim Please note that the 2008 discussion you linked does not support your claim in any way, so 50% does conform.
- tmoertel 9mo ago
  I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that the history of English language usage is replete with examples such as "X times less than" when X > 1, but similar constructions for X <= 1 do not appear with appreciable frequency. In any case, I think that continuing our conversation is unlikely to be productive, so this will be my last reply. I will just say in closing that our conversation is a good example of why the MAGA folks have probably chosen phrasing such as this.
  - DrammBA 9mo ago
    To be fair our conversation can be summarized as: > only pedants misunderstand this, here's a 2 decade old source that doesn't support my claim, I rather not continue the conversation so it was never meant to be productive