Ten times smaller
Outspan
misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 times
smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already no size
at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I
understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context
and this usage already widely accepted?
Maria Conlon
How much is "widely"?
There are those of us who object to "10 times smaller" or "[any] times
smaller." If someone says (or writes) "ten times smaller" I assume
"one-tenth the size of [something else]" is the meaning, and if that's
the case, then I wonder why that someone doesn't just say (or write)
"one-tenth the size of [whatever].
Btw, "ten times less" is in the same category (bad) as "ten times
smaller." And "90% smaller" is right in there with them.
Maria Conlon,
Who, as usual, could be wrong as well as opinionated.
John Kane
Opininated indeed. On the other hand I agree with you.
When I first read the phrase it did not sound all that bad but it does
not make a lot of sense and should not be used in written English.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Chuck Riggs
Since it is subject to misinterpretation, I avoid that format. Various
alternative formats are available to the writer that offer clear,
unambiguous ways of expressing comparisons.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland
and usually spells in BrE
Pat Durkin
news:h34uoq$nqp$1...@news.albasani.net
"Twice the savings" bothered me the other day. "Why", I wondered,
"don't they say something related to the price? Or even state the
original price, and then the sales price, and let the prospective
customer figure the amount he will save?"
-People who don't have opinions are piss-poor conversationalists. Don't
you wonder if they are even listening? Or, maybe they are just bored.-
JimboCat
> "Maria Conlon" <conlonma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
"33% More FREE!"
That's the same as "25% off!" (if you figure the unit price, e.g.
dollars per ounce) but it sounds BIGGER!
"90% smaller" is bad. "Ten times smaller" is worse. I agree with those
upthread who prefer "one-tenth the size".
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"I always give 100% at work....12% on Monday, 23% on Tuesday, 40% on
Wednesday, 20% on Thursday, 5% on Friday"
Mark Brader
I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size".
I was actually more bothered by the tramslation as "90% smaller",
which I don't think I would ever say. But then I realized that if
the percentage was say 10 times smaller, so we were talking aobut
something 91% of the size as being 9% smaller, I *would* say it; so
that's just me and there's nothing wrong with that expression either.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | This process can check if this value is zero, and if
m...@vex.net | it is, it does something child-like. --F. Burkowski
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> "90% smaller" is bad. "Ten times smaller" is worse.
Three times worse.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Andrew B.
>
> > I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
> > misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 times
> > smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already no size
> > at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I
> > understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context
> > and this usage already widely accepted?
>
> I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size".
I agree too - I can't see any possible objection to "10 times smaller"
- it's analogous with other physical concepts like "10 times the
conductance" meaning "having 1/10 the resistance".
Mark Brader
> > I agree with the poster. "10 times smaller" means "1/10 of the size".
> I agree too - I can't see any possible objection to "10 times smaller"
> - it's analogous with other physical concepts like "10 times the
> conductance" meaning "having 1/10 the resistance".
Actually, that is a possible reason to object. If it's 10 times
*more* conductive, some would say that it's 11 times *as* conductive.
By analogy, "10 times smaller" should then mean "1/11 of the size"!
But I think that that interpretation of a number + "times" + the
comparative is pretty much obsolete now.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No flames were used in the creation of
m...@vex.net | this message." -- Ray Depew
Hatunen
When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a
major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no
idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60%
of original size.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
What if there were no unit of conductance and it was "ten times
less resistance"?
Eric Walker
As most any desk dictionary will show, the word "times" means "multiplied
by". When one says X is ten times larger than Y, the meaning is simple
and clear: X is 10 times Y. But to say that A is ten times smaller than
B has no clear or obvious meaning: A is Y multiplied by what? As many
have already noted, such forms are readily subject to multiple
interpretations, which works against the base idea of language: to
communicate.
In short, it is utterly silly to speak of reduction in terms of increase.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Maria Conlon
>
> When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a
> major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no
> idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60%
> of original size.
Starting the sentence (wrongly) with a digit: 60% generally means 60% of
the original size. Unless, that is, one is "screening" a photo or
illustration that is too dark overall.
Do newspapers still do that?
--
Maria Conlon,
Having spent eight years (1966-74) dealing with offset printing
(newspaper and brochures).
Hatunen
<conlo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a
>> major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no
>> idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60%
>> of original size.
>
>Starting the sentence (wrongly) with a digit: 60% generally means 60% of
>the original size.
That, of course, was my understanding. But I wouldn't know if
that was the author's understanding. The usage of, say, "@ 60%"
would have been much less ambiguous.
R H Draney
>
>When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a
>major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no
>idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60%
>of original size.
Sixty percent reduction is the same as 167% oxidation....
(I think that's right, but I'm pretty rusty at this)....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
semir...@my-deja.com
With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Hatunen filted:
>>
>>When I was an illustrator working from clients' markups it was a
>>major frustration to see the direction "60% reduction". I had no
>>idea if he meant he wanted it at 40% of original size or at 60%
>>of original size.
>
>Sixty percent reduction is the same as 167% oxidation....
>
>(I think that's right, but I'm pretty rusty at this)....r
<groan>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Nick
Which adds another slant to it. Does even "one tenth of the size" mean
the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension
reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
If A is 10 times smaller than B, then it is 1/10 the size of B.
If B is 10 km long, then A is 1 km long.
If B is 10 metres high, then, then A is 1 metre high.
If B contains 50 litres, then A contains 5 litres.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Outspan
> semireti...@my-deja.com writes:
> > On 9 July, 13:06, Outspan <borghibor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
> >> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 times
> >> smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already no size
> >> at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I
> >> understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context
> >> and this usage already widely accepted?
>
> > With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries.
>
> Which adds another slant to it. Does even "one tenth of the size" mean
> the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension
> reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)?
Personally I'd understand it as "one tenth the volume," unless the
object had a very predominant dimension -- say, a thin and narrow
ruler -- in which case I'd understand it as "one tenth the predominant
dimension."
semir...@my-deja.com
>>>I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
>>>misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10 times
>>>smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already no size
>>>at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I
>>>understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context
>>>and this usage already widely accepted?
>>With a tenth of the size there might be a hundredth of the worries.
>Which adds another slant to it. Does even "one tenth of the size" mean
>the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension
>reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)?
The clue would be in the noun. A ruler would be shorter, but a bottle
of wine would have less volume.
pdpi
which is still 1/10th the volume
Outspan
Not necessarily... if you compare two bars, or two rulers, and say "A
is one tenth the size of B," I don't care if the section of B is
different, I only care that the length of B is one tenth that of A.
This is just how *I* would interpret it though.
R H Draney
>>the area/volume reduced to 1/10th or does it mean "each dimension
>>reduced to 1/10th" (and so 1/100 or 1/1000 of area/volume)?
>
>The clue would be in the noun. A ruler would be shorter, but a bottle
>of wine would have less volume.
If it's a bag of potato chips, there should be a printed notice:
�This package is sold by weight, not by volume. Some settling of contents
normally occurs during shipment and handling.�
That's to keep you from complaining when the bag of chips contains half a bag of
chips....r
Skitt
> Outspan wrote:
>> I received a comment to an article I recently wrote arguing that I
>> misused the phrase in the subject. The commenter argues that "10
>> times smaller" means "1,000% smaller", where 100% smaller is already
>> no size at all and suggesting that "90% smaller" was more accurate. I
>> understand the critic, but isn't the meaning obvious from the context
>> and this usage already widely accepted?
>
> If A is 10 times smaller than B, then it is 1/10 the size of B.
>
> If B is 10 km long, then A is 1 km long.
>
> If B is 10 metres high, then, then A is 1 metre high.
>
> If B contains 50 litres, then A contains 5 litres.
If B is 10" by 20", then A is ? by ?
--
Skitt (AmE)
John Varela
wrote:
If the cross section of A and B are the same, then one tenth the
length is also one tenth the volume.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
pdpi
I read an implied "all else remaining equal" rather than "disregarding
all other dimensions".
Steve Hayes
I never was any good at menstruation at school.