save off/on
Adrian Bailey
by googling)
I'd say "50% off..." or "Save 50% on..."
Did people in the UK always** say "save ... off" or has the language
changed?
**in the commercial era
Adrian
semir...@my-deja.com
Save 50pc off
THE PRICE ON
all children's toys.
(Abbreviate as you feel appropriate)
contrex
> Did people in the UK always** say "save ... off" or has the language
> changed?
I would say or write either
"Save fifty per cent on all children's toys"
or
"Get fifty per cent off all children's toys"
"The price of" being implied and universally understood and therefore
redundant in the context.
But I was educated in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, so what do I know?
I think Semireti...@my-deja.com needs to study up on the difference
between "off" and "of". At least he or she didn't write "off of"...
R H Draney
Ah, that great song "Can't Take My Eyes Over You"....
There are worse things than getting the preposition a teensy bit wrong...they
could have said "save up to fifty percent and more!"...r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Peter Moylan
In my experience, store advertising always abbreviates by omitting your
upper-cased words.
Once I was attracted into a department store by a sign saying "Women's
underwear 50% off." They lied.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Robert Bannister
>
> Once I was attracted into a department store by a sign saying "Women's
> underwear 50% off." They lied.
>
I get just as cross about "free range eggs". They may well be range
eggs, but they're never free.
--
Rob Bannister
semir...@my-deja.com
> I think Semireti...@my-deja.com needs to study up on the difference
> between "off" and "of". At least he or she didn't write "off of"...
Charming!
Please abbreviate "off" as you see fit.
(The failure of "contrex" to quote may make this appear to be an
insult.
Please read the context before so judging)
contrex
> On 16 Apr, 21:12, "contrex" wrote:
>
> > I think Semireti...@my-deja.com needs to study up on the difference
> > between "off" and "of". At least he or she didn't write "off of"...
>
> Charming!
>
This is what you actually wrote
--Save 50pc off
--THE PRICE ON
--all children's toys.
--(Abbreviate as you feel appropriate)
Abbreviate ***what***? Why?
Ah! Light dawns (sort of)
> Please abbreviate "off" as you see fit.
That's not what you wrote. You may think that you implied it, but it
was not at all obvious, especially since "off" is incapable of any
sensible abbreviation. The original question, and al the rest of the
thread (the slightly wider context) is about "of" vs. "on".
I suppose you were trying to be funny. Difficult to tell on the
Internet sometimes. Actually I did read the context. Ironic intent
allied with clumsy expression make a heady brew.
contrex
> The original question, and al the rest of the
> thread (the slightly wider context) is about "of" vs. "on".
>
I mucked that up didn't I? Guilty of the crime I accused Semiretired
of... <gives up>
Mike M
>
> There are worse things than getting the preposition a teensy bit wrong...they
> could have said "save up to fifty percent and more!"...r
>
Ah, one of my beasts black, that one. I get irritated by adverts that
claim their product will (say) "Kill up to 90% of known germs". UP TO?
1% is "up to" 90%. Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should be made to
use the form "Kills AT LEAST n%".
Mike M
Skitt
> R H Draney wrote:
>> There are worse things than getting the preposition a teensy bit
>> wrong...they could have said "save up to fifty percent and more!"...r
>
> Ah, one of my beasts black, that one. I get irritated by adverts that
> claim their product will (say) "Kill up to 90% of known germs". UP TO?
> 1% is "up to" 90%. Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should be made to
> use the form "Kills AT LEAST n%".
They hope that you have been taught to "think big" by the ads that say
"costs less than $100", when the item's price is $99.99 plus tax.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Peter Moylan
99%, in the case of Simpson's Individual Stringettes.
Nick Atty
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Once I was attracted into a department store by a sign saying "Women's
>underwear 50% off." They lied.
Did you demonstrate your disapproval underneath a sign saying
"menswear"?
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Nick Atty
http://www.ppsa.com/magazine/llap.html
DEVELOP UP TO 38 BICEPS
GROW UP TO 12" TALLER
LOSE UP TO 40" OF FAT IN YOUR FIRST WORK-OUT!
PROLONG YOUR LIFE BY UP TO 1,000 YEARS
GO TO BED WITH UP TO ANY LUDICROUS NUMBER OF GIRLS YOU CARE TO THINK OF
PROVIDING YOU REALIZE THIS STATEMENT IS QUITE MEANINGLESS AS THE PHRASE
'UP TO' CLEARLY INCLUDES THE NUMBER 'NOUGHT'
R H Draney
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:29:17 +1000, Peter Moylan
>
> >Once I was attracted into a department store by a sign saying "Women's
> >underwear 50% off." They lied.
>
> Did you demonstrate your disapproval underneath a sign saying
> "menswear"?
You mean this one?
http://members.cox.net/dadoctah/images/menswear.jpg
....r
nanc...@verizon.net
> I get irritated by adverts that
> claim their product will (say) "Kill up to 90% of known germs". UP TO?
> 1% is "up to" 90%. Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should be made to
> use the form "Kills AT LEAST n%".
I always interpret "kills up to 90% of" as meaning "Won't kill any
more than 90% of". That's probably not how the advertiser would want
me to understand it, but that is actually what it means.
Peter Moylan
No men swearing there that I can see. Only a picture of a woman's hammer.
Peter Moylan
I have the same reaction to "90% fat free". Who wants to eat something
that's 10% fat?
Phil Carmody
> nanc...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 7:30 am, Mike M <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I get irritated by adverts that claim their product will (say)
> >> "Kill up to 90% of known germs". UP TO? 1% is "up to" 90%.
> >> Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should be made to use the form
> >> "Kills AT LEAST n%".
> > I always interpret "kills up to 90% of" as meaning "Won't kill any
> > more than 90% of". That's probably not how the advertiser would want
> > me to understand it, but that is actually what it means.
>
> I have the same reaction to "90% fat free". Who wants to eat something
> that's 10% fat?
If they're pork scratchings - at over 40% fat - count me in!
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
Al in Dallas
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>nanc...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 7:30 am, Mike M <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I get irritated by adverts that claim their product will (say)
>>> "Kill up to 90% of known germs". UP TO? 1% is "up to" 90%.
>>> Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should be made to use the form
>>> "Kills AT LEAST n%".
>>
>> I always interpret "kills up to 90% of" as meaning "Won't kill any
>> more than 90% of". That's probably not how the advertiser would want
>> me to understand it, but that is actually what it means.
>
>I have the same reaction to "90% fat free". Who wants to eat something
>that's 10% fat?
What's the correct percentage for a ribeye?
--
Al in St. Lou
Roland Hutchinson
If you have to ask, you don't want to know.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Ray
An extremely irksome advertising gimmick is "Save up to 50% or more".
What exactly does this mean? That you'll save between 0 and 100%.
Probably closer to 0.
--
Ray
(remove the Xs to reply)
Skitt
> "nanc...@verizon.net" wrote:
>> Mike M wrote:
>>> I get irritated by adverts that
>>> claim their product will (say) "Kill up to 90% of known germs".
>>> UP TO? 1% is "up to" 90%. Arguably, so is 0%. I think they should
>>> be made to use the form "Kills AT LEAST n%".
>>
>> I always interpret "kills up to 90% of" as meaning "Won't kill any
>> more than 90% of". That's probably not how the advertiser would
>> want me to understand it, but that is actually what it means.
>
> An extremely irksome advertising gimmick is "Save up to 50% or more".
> What exactly does this mean? That you'll save between 0 and 100%.
> Probably closer to 0.
Well, yes -- you save a nice 100% if you don't buy anything. Don't even go
there ...
--
Skitt
I may not understand what you say, but
I'll defend to your death my right to deny it.
--Albert Alligator
Evan Kirshenbaum
> An extremely irksome advertising gimmick is "Save up to 50% or
> more". What exactly does this mean? That you'll save between 0 and
> 100%. Probably closer to 0.
My take is that it means something like "There will be discounts of
more than 50%, but they appear statistically too infrequently to
claim".
I don't know what the numbers ould be, but it would seem reasonable to
have a requirement that in order to say "Save up to X", at least, say,
5% of the items sold at a discount would have to have a discount of
at least X. But there might be deeper discounts on some products, so
"up to X and more" makes sense.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
hacizade...@gmail.com
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Baba Veziroğlu sevmək istesek
I thought that was Turkish, but Google Translate says it's Azerbaijani
(as I should have guessed, as ə is a letter in Azerbaijani but not in
Turkish). Apparently it means "If we want to love Baba Veziroglu". I
don't feel much the wiser. Not much to do with English usage.
--
athel