4 ms·
> 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
by DrammBA 10mo 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 10mo agoI 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 10mo agoTo 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