twice bigger?
Alvin Chen
Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
"Your car is twice as big as mine"?
But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"? If
yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
adjective???
Thanks in advance for help here :)
All the best,
Alvin
Ray O'Hara
"Alvin Chen" <alvin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:573a1847-8d09-4158...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Personally I'd say twice as large.
Jeffrey Turner
Three times bigger is ambiguous, and should be avoided. Two times
bigger has the same problem. Twice bigger just doesn't work at all.
I can't say why, but take the advice you were given.
--Jeff
--
Is man one of God's blunders or
is God one of man's?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Eric Walker
> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
> formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>
> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"? If
> yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
> adjective???
First: yes, it is proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than
mine." Second: though it sometimes has the same effect in sense, "twice"
is not a one-up synonym of "two times". The American Heritage Dictionary
gives:
1. In two cases or on two occasions: "I rewrote the essay twice."
2. In doubled degree or amount: "twice as many".
The difficulty you are having--which is not unreasonable, as this, like
many words deriving from the old concept of pairing, is a bit tricky--is
in conflating the two senses. In sense #1, it signifies pretty much the
equivalent of "two times", a phrase that can usually be substituted _when
that is the intended sense_; but in sense #2, "in doubled degree or
amount", you cannot use the same simple substitution.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Eric Walker
[...]
> First: yes, it is proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than
> mine."
Well, even Homer nodded. "Three times as big".
If I say "John is as big as I am", the phrase "as big as I am" has a
definite meaning, say 6'1"; likewise, if I say "John's car is as big as
mine" (for simplicity, let's here use "big" to mean long, else we get
sidetracked in needless complications of whether it means length or area
or volume or what), it means that both John's car and my car are, say, 9
feet long (minis of some sort). So, to show that John's car is 18 feet
long, we would say it's twice--"in doubled degree or amount"--as big as
mine is, meaning it's twice 9 feet in length.
Alvin Chen
I retrieved quite a few cases from BNC-word edition, where "X times"
plus "comparative adjectives" is used.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7djf9w_5fcvqcnd9
What bugs me is the reason why we just can't say "twice larger than
mine" or "twice greater that that"...but any number other than 2 works
out fine?
Alvin
James Hogg
> Hi all,
>
> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
> formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>
> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"?
> If yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of
> an adjective???
It can be difficult to say why a construction like this isn't used. It
just isn't -- any more. It has, however, been possible in English in the
past.
As the OED says of the sense "In a twofold degree; two times as much;
doubly":
"Usually with as (so obs.); more rarely with comparative, or
(rhetorically) with an adj. of quality"
An example from 1601: "The fire is twise more subtile then the aire."
--
James
Ian Jackson
<raymon...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Alvin Chen" <alvin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:573a1847-8d09-4158...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
>> formed.
It's perfectly understandable, but wrong. For no obvious reason, we
simply don't say it like that.
>> It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
>> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>>
Yes.
In general:
"Once" = "One time"
"Twice" = "Two times"
"Thrice" (not used much these days) = Three times"
These can usually be applied to 'the number of times', or simply to 'the
number' or 'the quantity'. Most of the time, you can say either. However
(for some reason), with a comparative, we prefer NOT to use the
once/twice/thrice form.
>> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"?
"Your car is twice bigger than mine" is wrong.
"Your car is two times bigger than mine" is OK.
Here, "twice" and "two times" are NOT interchangeable.
"Your car is twice as big as mine" is OK.
"Your car is two times as big as mine" is OK.
Here, "twice" and "two times" ARE interchangeable.
>> If
>> yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
>> adjective???
>>
Simply because we don't. Hey! This is English!
>
>Personally I'd say twice as large.
>
Understandable for anyone suffering from biggerphobia. You might say
that, but I couldn't possibly comment!
--
Ian
Eric Walker
[...]
> What bugs me is the reason why we just can't say "twice larger than
> mine" or "twice greater that that"...but any number other than 2 works
> out fine?
Not so: you cannot say "thrice larger" any more than you can "twice
larger". And there are no equivalent words for higher numbers. "Twice"
and "thrice" are hangovers, with "thrice" now approaching (or at) the
status of being archaic.
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
>Alvin Chen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is
>>ill-
>> formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
>> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"?
>>If yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of
>
>It can be difficult to say why a construction like this isn't used. It
>just isn't -- any more. It has, however, been possible in English in
>the past.
>
>As the OED says of the sense "In a twofold degree; two times as much;
>doubly":
>"Usually with as (so obs.); more rarely with comparative, or
>(rhetorically) with an adj. of quality"
>
>An example from 1601: "The fire is twise more subtile then the aire."
>
immediately think of any other comparatives where "twice" would sound
correct. Any suggestions?
--
Ian
James Hogg
> In message <hieasn$m4j$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Ray O'Hara
> <raymon...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> "Alvin Chen" <alvin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:573a1847-8d09-4158...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is
>>> ill- formed.
>
> It's perfectly understandable, but wrong. For no obvious reason, we
> simply don't say it like that.
>
>>> It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or "Your
>>> car is twice as big as mine"?
>>>
> Yes.
>
> In general: "Once" = "One time" "Twice" = "Two times" "Thrice" (not
> used much these days) = Three times"
>
> These can usually be applied to 'the number of times', or simply to
> 'the number' or 'the quantity'. Most of the time, you can say either.
> However (for some reason), with a comparative, we prefer NOT to use
> the once/twice/thrice form.
>
>>> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than
>>> mine"?
>
> "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is wrong. "Your car is two times
> bigger than mine" is OK. Here, "twice" and "two times" are NOT
> interchangeable.
Another interesting question is how many people say "three times bigger"
and how many find it unacceptable. You say it's OK but I wonder if other
Brits agree. Across the pond, Eric first said it was OK and then changed
his mind, so there's obviously some uncertainty about the construction.
I wouldn't use it myself and I would change it to "three times as big" if
I found it in a text I was editing.
--
James
James Hogg
You can try Google Books. I have found examples of "twice heavier". It's
amazing what you find.
A tantalising snippet in a book from 1893 has the following footnote in
what seems to be a review:
"As I have never met 'once bigger' which should have the sense of 'twice
as big', I assume this sense to be intended by the lowest of these
popular phrases ('twice bigger') and so on throughout the series."
By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean "three times
as big".
--
James
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
bigger/smaller/heavier/lighter/brighter/dimmer/louder/quieter than"
(etc, ad nauseam) is perfectly normal - as is "N times as big as" etc.
There is no subtle difference between them. But you don't normally say
"twice bigger" etc. "Twice more" is an obvious exception.
--
Ian
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Not so: you cannot say "thrice larger" any more than you can "twice
> larger". And there are no equivalent words for higher numbers. "Twice"
> and "thrice" are hangovers, with "thrice" now approaching (or at) the
> status of being archaic.
I was taught in 1961 in Denmark by my english-teacher that
"thrice" was archaic. His knowledge came not only from books but
also from visits to the UK.
I don't remember having seen "thrice" in a book.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Ian Jackson
Lund Hansen <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> writes
_8002/is_2009_May_16/nay-nay-thrice-nay-hes/ai_n38196001/pg_2/>
--
Ian
Bertel Lund Hansen
> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean "three times
> as big".
Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
say something with double instead of two times, but for higher
numbers "X times bigger" and "X times as big" mean the same.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Ian Jackson
Lund Hansen <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> writes
and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a house, and
twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as big as a house).
--
Ian
Alvin Chen
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <lt4mk5535jfivp4cbpif390b48mg746...@news.stofanet.dk>, Bertel
> Lund Hansen <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> writes>James Hogg skrev:
>
> >> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean "three times
> >> as big".
>
> >Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
> >say something with double instead of two times, but for higher
> >numbers "X times bigger" and "X times as big" mean the same.
>
> For something which is twice as big, you could say "as big again (as)",
> and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a house, and
> twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as big as a house).
> --
> Ian
wow...it looks like "twice bigger" is really doomed. LOL
But now i am confused with another issue:
Is "My house is three times bigger than yours" the same as "My house
is three times as big as yours"?
Or "My house is four times as big as yours"?
(This kind of reminds me of the time when i first studied "greater/
less than" symbols in elementary math class...."
Alvin
Paul Schmitz-Josten
>> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
>> formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
>> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>>
>> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"? If
>> yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
>> adjective???
>>
>> Thanks in advance for help here :)
>
>Three times bigger is ambiguous, and should be avoided. Two times
>bigger has the same problem. Twice bigger just doesn't work at all.
>I can't say why, but take the advice you were given.
From the answers given (and from my humble knowledge of the language)
I assume that the phrase is supposed to be "twice as (big) as"
(non-comparative) rather than "twice (bigger) than..." (comparative).
OTOH, "two times bigger than" is o.k., yet ambivalent.
Ciao,
Paul
Ian Jackson
<alos...@web.de> writes
bigger'. The 2 litre engine in my car is two times bigger than the 1
litre engine in my wife's car.
--
Ian
Don Phillipson
news:573a1847-8d09-4158...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"? If
> yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
> adjective???
Two vulgar errors
-- three times bigger
-- twice bigger
are commonly said by children, interpreted by S. Pinker
(The Language Instinct, 1994) as normal errors of learning
a language, viz. assuming that linguistic patterns are simpler
and more universal than they really are: e.g. adding -ed for
past tenses of verbs, hence thinked, wented etc.
These vulgar errors (q.v.) are now heard in adult speech
and appear in journalism more commonly than in, say, 1960,
suggesting that the vernacular is still evolving, i.e. concepts
of right and wrong are changing. But conservatives may still say
-- three times as big
-- twice as big
in order to maintain classic syntax.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
James Hogg
> On Jan 11, 9:13 pm, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <lt4mk5535jfivp4cbpif390b48mg746...@news.stofanet.dk>,
>> Bertel Lund Hansen <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> writes>James
>> Hogg skrev:
>>
>>>> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean
>>>> "three times as big".
>>> Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
>>> say something with double instead of two times, but for higher
>>> numbers "X times bigger" and "X times as big" mean the same.
>> For something which is twice as big, you could say "as big again
>> (as)", and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a
>> house, and twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as
>> big as a house). -- Ian
>
> wow...it looks like "twice bigger" is really doomed. LOL But now i am
> confused with another issue:
>
> Is "My house is three times bigger than yours" the same as "My house
> is three times as big as yours"? Or "My house is four times as big
> as yours"?
If you really wanted to tell someone that your house is the size of his
house (X) multiplied by 4, then the most efficient way would NOT be to
say "My house is three times bigger than yours." I don't think anyone would
interpret that as anything but X multiplied 3. You could perhaps say "My
house is three times bigger again than yours" but I wouldn't recommend
that for clarity either.
--
James
Ian Jackson
<41c5c3c4-53fa-44ad...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Alvin Chen <alvin...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jan 11, 9:13�pm, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <lt4mk5535jfivp4cbpif390b48mg746...@news.stofanet.dk>, Bertel
>> Lund Hansen <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> writes>James Hogg skrev:
>>
>> >> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean "three times
>> >> as big".
>>
>> >Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
>> >say something with double instead of two times, but for higher
>> >numbers "X times bigger" and "X times as big" mean the same.
>>
>> For something which is twice as big, you could say "as big again (as)",
>> and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a house, and
>> twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as big as a house).
>> --
>> Ian
>
>wow...it looks like "twice bigger" is really doomed. LOL
>But now i am confused with another issue:
>
>Is "My house is three times bigger than yours" the same as "My house
>is three times as big as yours"?
Yes.
>Or "My house is four times as big as yours"?
>(This kind of reminds me of the time when i first studied "greater/
>less than" symbols in elementary math class...."
>
No. Definitely NOT 4 times bigger!
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
I'm sorry, but in my version of BrE, there is absolutely nothing unclear
in that statement (unless you want to argue about whether it means
height, floor area, volume etc). "Three times bigger" means precisely
"the same size, only multiplied by three". Or is this some form of
NewSpeak which I haven't heard of yet?
--
Ian
James Hogg
What about the version with "again"? That word makes a big difference in the
following pair:
"half as big as yours"
"half as big again as yours"
I said that I wouldn't recommend "my house is three times bigger again
than yours" for clarity. I find it hard to imagine anyone saying it.
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
The ambiguity lies in interpretation.
>The 2 litre engine in my car is two times bigger than the 1
>litre engine in my wife's car.
That is unambiguous because you clearly state the sizes of the engines.
"Bigger" is sometimes used to refer to the ratio of the sizes: "two
times bigger" is "twice the size", but it is also used to refer to the
amount by which the size of the larger exceeds the size of the smaller,
that is, the increment.
"My engine is two times bigger than my wife's 1 litre engine" can be
interpreted as meaning that your engine is twice the size of your
wife's, i.e. 2 litres, or that the amount by which it is bigger (the
increment) is twice the size of your wife's engine, which makes your
engine 1 litre plus 2 litres.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
I'd probably say "You've got a big car, man". I mean, who, other than
a nerd, goes around measuring and comparing the volume of cars?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
as being an addition of something multiplied by two. No, nay never - no,
nay never EVER!!!
--
Ian
James Hogg
STS warning!
Those who want to avoid the Wild Rover may hum this:
If paradise is two times nicer...
--
James
Ian Jackson
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <hif965$9oi$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Hogg
>><Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
>>> Alvin Chen wrote:
>>>> On Jan 11, 9:13 pm, Ian Jackson
>>>><ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <lt4mk5535jfivp4cbpif390b48mg746...@news.stofanet.dk>,
>>>>>Bertel Lund Hansen <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk>
>>>>>writes>James Hogg skrev:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean
>>>>>>>"three times as big".
>>>>>> Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
"Half as big as yours" means a ratio of 0.5.
"Half as big again as yours" means a ratio of 1.5.
And "my house is three times bigger again than yours" is quite clear.
It's a ratio of 3. Not for even a fraction of a microsecond would anyone
think otherwise!
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
(while sober, at least).
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I agree that it is unusual. However, but, when the multiplication is
expressed as a percentage the cats of chaos break loose.
B is 50% bigger than A. B = 1.5 x A (almost certainly)
B is 150% bigger than A. B = 2.5 x A or is it 1.5 x A?
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I agree that it is unusual. However, but, when the multiplication is
> expressed as a percentage the cats of chaos break loose.
> B is 50% bigger than A. B = 1.5 x A (almost certainly)
> B is 150% bigger than A. B = 2.5 x A or is it 1.5 x A?
I think that when you introduce percentages, the mathematical
order takes over. So I'd say 2.5 times in the second case.
--
Bertel, Denmark
CDB
>
> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is
> ill- formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of
> mine" or "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>
> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"?
> If yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form
> of an adjective???
>
> Thanks in advance for help here :)
>
size of ..." is clear, and seems correct enough. Your car is twenty
times the size of mine (a dinky toy, at best).
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>
>
>I agree that it is unusual. However, but, when the multiplication is
>expressed as a percentage the cats of chaos break loose.
>
> B is 50% bigger than A. B = 1.5 x A (almost certainly)
>
> B is 150% bigger than A. B = 2.5 x A or is it 1.5 x A?
>
Ah! You definitely have a point there.
Up to 100% should pose no problem - but more, and things could go
astray. That is definitely a construction which should be avoided.
I've also heard similar (especially when someone is trying to be a bit
clever), such as "100% less" (uh??). On the unthinking tongue, even 75%
less is confusing.
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
<belle...@sympatico.ca> writes
"Your car is twice the size of mine"
Ian
the Omrud
I've never been able to cope with "three times smaller".
--
David
Don Petter
I agree, and have always used 'three times bigger' as being the same
as 300% bigger, and certainly not the same as 'three times as big'.
Newspapers (particularly local ones) regularly like to inflate the
enormity of drink-drive cases by saying a driver was 'x times over the
limit' when the figures indicate he was approximately x times the
limit. (I use this as an example, not something I condone, whichever
the figure!)
Don (UK)
JimboCat
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <hifae1$gh...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Hogg
> <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> writes
> >Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> In message <hif965$9o...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Hogg
> >><Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> writes
"New Size! 10% Bigger!" == 1.1 times the old size.
"New Size! 30% Bigger!" == 1.3 times old size.
Therefore, "100% Bigger" == 2.0 times old size. It couldn't suddenly
become "100% Bigger == exactly the SAME size", could it?
Therefore, 200% Bigger MUST mean 3.0 times the old size, for
consistency's sake. Advertisements aren't big on consistency (or
accuracy, for that matter) but we're talking about communication, not
indoctrination.
200% AS BIG, on the other hand, means 2.0 times the old size.
This is the ambiguity to which we refer. "As big" is not the same as
"bigger". The origin of the ambiguity is in the conventions for
fractional increases: we use "10% bigger" to mean 1.1 times the size.
Mathematicians could never countenance a sequence where "101% bigger"
is less big than "100% bigger".
It is entirely logical. Just so confusing that the "x% bigger"
structure should never, ever be used beyond 99%, and likewise the "x
times bigger" just shouldn't be used at all.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"The difference between smart people and stupid people is that smart
people tend to make bigger and more terrible mistakes." - anon
Ian Jackson
<537564c3-63df-435d...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
JimboCat <10313...@compuserve.com> writes
--
Fred
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote in message
news:9LJ2n.24791$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Or 'up to five times cheaper'.
CDB
message to it, I must not have reread it. I still recommend that form
to him as being simpler and less ambiguous than the others.
Robert Bannister
That's why I always ignore advertisements and political announcements
that contain percentages. Twice as big, three time bigger all make
perfect, unambiguous sense to me, but as soon as you say 50% bigger, I
suspect you are concealing something.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On 1月11æ—¥, ä¸‹å ˆ1時44分, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:26:14 +0000, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> First: yes, it is proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than
>>> mine."
>> Well, even Homer nodded. � "Three times as big".
>>
>> If I say "John is as big as I am", the phrase "as big as I am" has a
>> definite meaning, say 6'1"; likewise, if I say "John's car is as big as
>> mine" (for simplicity, let's here use "big" to mean long, else we get
>> sidetracked in needless complications of whether it means length or area
>> or volume or what), it means that both John's car and my car are, say, 9
>> feet long (minis of some sort). � So, to show that John's car is 18 feet
>> long, we would say it's twice--"in doubled degree or amount"--as big as
>> mine is, meaning it's twice 9 feet in length.
>>
>> --
>> Cordially,
>> Eric Walker, Owlcroft Househttp://owlcroft.com/english/
>
> I retrieved quite a few cases from BNC-word edition, where "X times"
> plus "comparative adjectives" is used.
>
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7djf9w_5fcvqcnd9
>
> What bugs me is the reason why we just can't say "twice larger than
> mine" or "twice greater that that"...but any number other than 2 works
> out fine?
Except that there isn't any other word like "twice" apart from the
rarely used "thrice". "Two times" works as well as "three times and
"four times", but twice, thrice and fice don't work.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In message <lt4mk5535jfivp4cb...@news.stofanet.dk>, Bertel
> Lund Hansen <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> writes
>> James Hogg skrev:
>>
>>> By this reviewer's logic, "two times bigger" ought to mean "three times
>>> as big".
>>
>> Of course - but at least in Danish it just isn't so. We usually
>> numbers "X times bigger" and "X times as big" mean the same.
>>
> For something which is twice as big, you could say "as big again (as)",
> and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a house, and
> twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as big as a house).
If it's three times as big, why not say so?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
You are confusing logic with English usage. The percentage examples are,
as you say, confusing and frequently wrong. The 'x times bigger' or 'as
big' structure, however, works for all normal English speakers without
ambiguity, confusion or mendacity.
--
Rob Bannister
Eric Walker
[...]
> Two vulgar errors
> -- three times bigger
> -- twice bigger
> are commonly said by children, interpreted by S. Pinker (The Language
> Instinct, 1994) as normal errors of learning a language, viz. assuming
> that linguistic patterns are simpler and more universal than they really
> are: e.g. adding -ed for past tenses of verbs, hence thinked, wented
> etc.
>
> These vulgar errors (q.v.) are now heard in adult speech and appear in
> journalism more commonly than in, say, 1960, suggesting that the
> vernacular is still evolving, i.e. concepts of right and wrong are
> changing. But conservatives may still say
> -- three times as big
> -- twice as big
> in order to maintain classic syntax.
That gets to the core of what I think was the original issue, the one on
which I carelessly floundered and had to correct myself: that "X times"
is a construct that can only be rightly used with the "as Y" form, and
not with the "Y'er" form:
My yard is two times as big as Fred's. Yes
My yard is two times bigger than Fred's. No
"Bigger" is, of course, the comparative form, while "big" is simply the
positive. When we say that something is larger than something else, we
are saying that its size is X times the size of that something else--and
the size of that something else is conceptually a positive, not an
comparative. The "X times bigger" is, in effect, a double comparative,
which makes no sense. If we slightly recast--
My yard is two times the size of Fred's.
--the logic may be clearer. We can say--
My yard is bigger than Fred's.
--but when we apply the multiplier "two times", we have to ask "two times
_what_?" Likewise, we can say "My yard is twice the size of Fred's,"
because "the size" is a positive, not a comparative; but, again likewise,
we cannot say "My yard is twice bigger than Fred's," because that is a
double comparative.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Alvin Chen wrote:
>> I retrieved quite a few cases from BNC-word edition, where "X
>> times" plus "comparative adjectives" is used.
>> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7djf9w_5fcvqcnd9 What bugs me is
>> the reason why we just can't say "twice larger than mine" or "twice
>> greater that that"...but any number other than 2 works out fine?
>
> Except that there isn't any other word like "twice" apart from the
> rarely used "thrice".
Uh, "once"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Eric Walker
> Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
>> For something which is twice as big, you could say "as big again (as)",
>> and variants. For example, you can say "It's as big as a house, and
>> twice as big again" (meaning that it is three times as big as a house).
>
> If it's three times as big, why not say so?
My sense of it is that the "again" form is most commonly used with
fractions, and simple ones at that:
It is half again as big.
It is a third again as expensive.
To find that form used for an amount greater than one would strike me as
most unusual. Even for a "fraction" of 1 ("It's as big again as . . .")
would seem, to me, a little odd.
Used with simple fractions, it strikes me as felicitous way of avoiding
mathematics in plain prose; things like "It's one-and-a-third the price"
or "It is 33 percent more expensive" might be thought by some a tad ugly.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Well, even Homer nodded. "Three times as big".
Doh!
Peter Moylan
> There's absolutely nothing ambiguous (or ambivalent?) with 'N times
> bigger'. The 2 litre engine in my car is two times bigger than the 1
> litre engine in my wife's car.
I make that 3 litres - unambiguously. For the sense you intend, you need
"two times as big".
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> I'm sorry, but in my version of BrE, there is absolutely nothing unclear
> in that statement (unless you want to argue about whether it means
> height, floor area, volume etc). "Three times bigger" means precisely
> "the same size, only multiplied by three". Or is this some form of
> NewSpeak which I haven't heard of yet?
While to me "three times bigger" precisely and unambiguously means that
the size is multiplied by four.
It's because different people have different interpretations of such a
phrase that in practice we just don't use it, except - as in advertising
or politics - when actively trying to mislead people. Similarly, we
don't use "twice bigger" because of the same potential for confusion
[1]. It's just as easy, and far less confusing, to use the more common
construct "three times as big".
[1] Although that's probably not the only reason. After all, we don't
use "once bigger" either, even though it's unlikely that anyone would
think it meant anything other than "twice as big".
James Hogg
> On 12/01/10 00:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> There's absolutely nothing ambiguous (or ambivalent?) with 'N times
>> bigger'. The 2 litre engine in my car is two times bigger than the
>> 1 litre engine in my wife's car.
>
> I make that 3 litres - unambiguously. For the sense you intend, you
> need "two times as big".
Can an expression be called "unambiguous" if Ian says it and means one
thing but Peter hears it and understands something completely different?
Out of interest, I looked at Google Books to see if anyone has ever used
the phrase "one time bigger". The sole example came from a Chinese
publication:
"All the eleven sites have the same dimensions; only No. 12 building
site is one time bigger than others."
And a note about the Chinese language explains this construction:
"[squiggles] literally 'one time bigger', means 'twice as big'."
(The latter example is from a 1966 magazine, predating the Internet and
Google.)
--
James
Bertel Lund Hansen
> > I make that 3 litres - unambiguously. For the sense you intend, you
> > need "two times as big".
> Can an expression be called "unambiguous" if Ian says it and means one
> thing but Peter hears it and understands something completely different?
I don't think so, but I think that Peter Moylan referred to his
own perception of the expression.
I believe that he shares that sentiment with a lot of people. I
for one agree completely and unambiguously with myself.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Out of interest, I looked at Google Books to see if anyone has ever
> used the phrase "one time bigger". The sole example came from a
> Chinese publication:
>
> "All the eleven sites have the same dimensions; only No. 12 building
> site is one time bigger than others."
>
> And a note about the Chinese language explains this construction:
>
> "[squiggles] literally 'one time bigger', means 'twice as big'."
Not far from "as big again".
On "twice" and "two times", I've quite recently (as my dreamy mind
reckons recency) and more than one time heard "group of two". Long ago
and far away, I even let it slip through something I was editing (not my
worst editorial sin, I confess).
--
Mike.
Ian Jackson
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
carefully-prepared text, the editor might be wise to make it totally
unambiguous. Mars probes have been known to have been 'written off' by
similar mistakes!
--
Ian
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Alvin Chen wrote:
>>> I retrieved quite a few cases from BNC-word edition, where "X
>>> times" plus "comparative adjectives" is used.
>>> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7djf9w_5fcvqcnd9 What bugs me is
>>> the reason why we just can't say "twice larger than mine" or "twice
>>> greater that that"...but any number other than 2 works out fine?
>> Except that there isn't any other word like "twice" apart from the
>> rarely used "thrice".
>
> Uh, "once"?
>
My apologies, but I was thinking only of the Nce bigger phrase and "once
bigger" didn't really come into my thinking - it seems to acquire a time
sense as soon as you couple it with an -er word.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On 12/01/10 00:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but in my version of BrE, there is absolutely nothing unclear
>> in that statement (unless you want to argue about whether it means
>> height, floor area, volume etc). "Three times bigger" means precisely
>> "the same size, only multiplied by three". Or is this some form of
>> NewSpeak which I haven't heard of yet?
>
> While to me "three times bigger" precisely and unambiguously means that
> the size is multiplied by four.
Very odd. You're thinking of getting your stake money back as well as
your winnings. "Three times" means 'multiply by three' to me without any
thought of adding the number you first thought of.
>
> It's because different people have different interpretations of such a
> phrase that in practice we just don't use it, except - as in advertising
> or politics - when actively trying to mislead people. Similarly, we
> don't use "twice bigger" because of the same potential for confusion
> [1]. It's just as easy, and far less confusing, to use the more common
> construct "three times as big".
Sure, and I probably use the "as big" expression myself anyway, but I
don't see problems with the other way and find it difficult to see how
you arrive at your answer.
>
> [1] Although that's probably not the only reason. After all, we don't
> use "once bigger" either, even though it's unlikely that anyone would
> think it meant anything other than "twice as big".
>
As I've already said in a reply to Evan, as soon as you use "once" with
an "-er" word, you seem to be stuck with "earlier" meaning.
--
(once brainier) Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
--
Rob Bannister
Paul Schmitz-Josten
>>> "Three times bigger" means precisely
>>> "the same size, only multiplied by three". Or is this some form of
>>> NewSpeak which I haven't heard of yet?
>>
>> While to me "three times bigger" precisely and unambiguously means that
>> the size is multiplied by four.
>
>Very odd. You're thinking of getting your stake money back as well as
>your winnings.
Wouldn't you, too, expect this in case of "50 % bigger"?
50 % bigger = 150 % of the original size
which by simple maths leads to
100 % bigger = 200 % of the original size
200 % bigger = 300 % of the original size
300 % bigger = ?
>"Three times" means 'multiply by three' to me without any
>thought of adding the number you first thought of.
IMHO as a foreigner:
"Three times the size": Yes
"Three times bigger": No
Ciao,
Paul
James Hogg
Your logic is correct, and I myself have pointed out that "three times
bigger" ought to mean the original size multiplied by four. In real
life, however, if you come across the expression "three times bigger" it
is fairly safe to assume that the speaker or writer means the original
size multiplied by three.
--
James
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister in <7r4ngq...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>>> "Three times bigger" means precisely
>>>> "the same size, only multiplied by three". Or is this some form of
>>>> NewSpeak which I haven't heard of yet?
>>> While to me "three times bigger" precisely and unambiguously means that
>>> the size is multiplied by four.
>> Very odd. You're thinking of getting your stake money back as well as
>> your winnings.
>
> Wouldn't you, too, expect this in case of "50 % bigger"?
> 50 % bigger = 150 % of the original size
I would never ever say that. It's "half as big again" or "one and a half
the size".
> which by simple maths leads to
> 100 % bigger = 200 % of the original size
> 200 % bigger = 300 % of the original size
> 300 % bigger = ?
This is why I ignore any and all expressions using "bigger, smaller,
cheaper, etc." when coupled with percentages. You can play even bigger
tricks by using different starting points, ie percentage of something
different from what you expect.
>
>> "Three times" means 'multiply by three' to me without any
>> thought of adding the number you first thought of.
>
> IMHO as a foreigner:
> "Three times the size": Yes
> "Three times bigger": No
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul
--
Rob Bannister
Prai Jei
continuum:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently I was told that "Your car is twice bigger than mine" is ill-
> formed. It is better to say "Your car is twice the size of mine" or
> "Your car is twice as big as mine"?
>
> But is it proper to say "Your car is three times bigger than mine"? If
> yes, why can't we use "twice" together with a comparative form of an
> adjective???
When we talks proper tidy like down yere in Kairdiff we says twice times
bigger we do.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply