12

In the question What part of speech are "plus", "times", and "minus", we discover that plus is a preposition, and are left to assume that so is times, in phrases such as "five times six".

That seems to make sense to me.

However, I checked Oxford Dictionaries, and it states that times is a plural noun.

Not to be won over by the lesser sibling, I checked the OED.com and found, to my surprise, the same answer:

A. n. ...
II. A point of time; a moment in time; a space of time considered without reference to its duration; an occasion, an instance. ...
19. In pl. Preceded by a number (in words or figures). ...
b. Followed by a number or an expression of quantity: expressing the multiplication of this by the preceding number.
Conventionally represented by the multiplication sign: 4 × 5 is read as ‘four times five’.

How is times, in e.g. "Four times five is twenty.", considered a noun?

Community
  • 1
Matt E. Эллен
  • 29,137
  • 2
    Times doesn't go with plus and minus. Multiplied by and divided by do. – corsiKa Jan 29 '16 at 23:22
  • 3
    Multiplied by means times. I think the equivalent for divided by would be over. So, yes, it does "go with" plus and minus. – Matt E. Эллен Jan 29 '16 at 23:40
  • Considering that you can say "I am timesing four by five", "four was timesed by five" times must be at least sometimes a verb. Of course it's very awkward to pin any word class on times, but calling it a noun is nonsensical. I wouldn't say this is at all a nonstandard usage. In "four times five is twenty" I'd call times a stative verb, which is why it appears uninflected. – curiousdannii Jan 30 '16 at 13:25

9 Answers9

14

I think it depends on how you perceive the word. For example, Merriam-Webster defines times as a preposition meaning:

multiplied by: 'three times two is six'

in the same way it defines minus:

[preposition] used to indicate that one number or amount is being subtracted from another

All 5 other dictionaries I can check now, Wiktionary, Collins Online Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition (2011), Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary © 2010, Dictionary.com define it as a preposition.

If times is classified as a (plural) noun, three times two would be a three-word compound noun where the first and second noun usually function as a noun adjunct which modifies the last noun as in "health care center" or "Obama Byden administration". The role of the noun times in the middle is not very clear.

However, if times is classified as a preposition, times two in "three times two" will be a prepositional phrase which can post-modify the noun three.

Three times two is six. Three minus two is one.
The book on the table is mine. The book under the table is yours.

We can notice that the times/minus two works in the same way as on/under the table as a post-modifying prepositional phrase. Times seems to be closer to a preposition than a noun.

  • The way I perceive it, is that when you talk about, say, an event, you'd say :"It happened three times". In this case, would you analyze "times" as a preposition? The event i is "happening/multiplied" by 3 occasions. I think, but I've got no source for that, hence a comment, that's why "times" is considered a noun. "2 times 3" is a way of saying "2,(happening) 3 times". It'd be awkward to say, and people instead use 2 Times 3. Putting the noun before the numeral to avoid confusion. Think about this: "how many times did you multiply it by?" You cannot "many" anything but a noun. – P. O. Jan 29 '16 at 13:18
  • @P.Obertelli I am in the middle of editing my post, but since you asked. If you contrast "the book on the table is mine" and "the book under the table is yours", you see the prepositional phrase is post-modifying the noun book. I think times and minus in "2 times/minus 2" work in the same way. –  Jan 29 '16 at 13:23
  • Is times in '1 times 2 is 2' OK? – haha Jan 29 '16 at 14:07
  • @haha times is not a verb. One times one is one. –  Jan 29 '16 at 14:10
  • Thanks, I though it was a noun. – haha Jan 29 '16 at 14:12
  • @haha My pleasure. Part of Speech is tricky and controversial as you have noticed in my question about "NOW". :-) –  Jan 29 '16 at 14:14
  • 1
    Yeah, I saw that. That was an interesting question. – haha Jan 29 '16 at 14:18
  • 2
    @rathony, in fact 'times' in this sense is a verb, at least in British English. The OED lists it as such (see my answer below). Although - in Merriam Webster,an American Dictionary, does indeed list it as a preposition. The joys of English! – Jascol Jan 29 '16 at 14:24
  • Is 'take' a verb in 'five take two is three'? I think you're on a sticky wicket with 'times is not a verb'. As @Peter Shor says, 'mathematical operations minus, plus, times have a different syntax than most of English ... None of the traditional parts of speech fits them perfectly.' So if we claim 'times is not a verb', we should balance this with 'times is not a preposition / noun / adverb ...'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 14:53
  • @EdwinAshworth I read the below answer posted by Jascol and I am not convinced. Is it a transitive verb or intransitive verb? If you want to prove that times could be a verb, please go ahead and prove it yourself. –  Jan 29 '16 at 14:58
  • If you think of the arrow diagram often used to illustrate a transformation rather than a static relation, it may well have x 2 written over the arrow. It could equally well have 'double' written to describe the operation. For x 5, 'increase scale factor 5'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 15:05
  • @EdwinAshworth Most of diagrams and charts use words or phrases part of which is elided or abbreviated. It is not a good example to prove times is a verb. Head noun is elided in x 2. It is not different from 2 (or whatever) x 2. –  Jan 29 '16 at 15:07
  • I was hoping you'd realise that that was just an indicator to the semantics involved, to pinpoint the verbal flavour involved. For the parallel 'three take one is two', I haven't found any dictionary claiming that 'take' is a preposition, and I'd doubt you could. Notice that I'm not claiming that 'verb' is the correct word class here, but that there are problems with all attempts at a classical classification. // A complication is that the process of subtraction covers both the transformation of reduction, and the comparison by differencing (arguably less 'verby'). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 16:22
  • You're choosing when you can choose to label relict forms as still extant. Two counted three times is six. // 'Three take one is two' is extremely common in BrE. And surely you wouldn't jib at 'Two add one is three'? – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 16:27
  • @EdwinAshworth I added "Times seems to be closer to preposition than noun". If you don't like it, please go ahead and edit it. –  Jan 29 '16 at 16:30
  • 2
    Peter Shor's 'None of the traditional parts of speech fits them perfectly' is correct and his 'but in my opinion preposition comes closest' a good working hypothesis (once the confusion about the different senses OP should avoid on ELU has been dealt with). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 16:36
  • @EdwinAshworth I respectfully disagree with you. I think it depends on how you perceive the word. is the first sentence I used in my post. Shall we stop now? –  Jan 29 '16 at 16:39
  • This is from the previous post: 'As you will have observed by now, identifying the "part of speech" of a particular word tells you nothing about the grammar, and is always fraught with disagreement, because the usual list of the Classical Eight was developed at about the same time as the Crusades for a different language, and suits modern English somewhat worse than English spelling does. So, whatever you decide, nothing useful has been discovered. However, it may please your teacher. – @John Lawler' – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 16:41
  • Is “now” a “preposition”? is the question I asked. I hope you upvoted it. There is no harm in trying to identify and classify part of speech. It is related with English Language and its Usage. More than 99% of the words belong to traditional and grammatical part of speech. If you are talking about the remaining 1% or less, I can't agree with John Lawler more. –  Jan 29 '16 at 16:45
  • Don't forget that the word by can be substituted for times in those cases when it functions as a preposition. "2 by 2 is 4." – Tim Ward Jan 29 '16 at 21:31
  • @Tim Ward Obviously from 'two multiplied by two', but that doesn't describe its function in the deleted form (an ex-preposition?) – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 23:11
  • @EdwinAshworth is it? I thought it odd, because when I was young, my mother used to say things like that, but I was only familiar with the "2 by 4" meaning a cut of wood... I think there's more to this linguistically than merely a reduction or omission of a word that explicates its function. Of course my mom knew I didn't understand exactly what she was saying and was trying to get me thinking. She eventually just said it was the same thing as 2 times 4. But I wondered about that ever since... – Tim Ward Jan 29 '16 at 23:22
  • I fail to see how 'Is “now” a “preposition”? is the question I asked.' is relevant; 'the previous post' refers to OP's linked 'What part of speech are "plus", "times", and "minus"'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 23:22
  • @TimWard I've always been under the impression that 2 by 4 comes from multiplication being understood as a calculation of area. 2 inches by 4 inches is 8 square inches. 2 by 4 is 8. – DCShannon Jan 30 '16 at 05:53
  • @DCShannon yes, that's exactly my point. The 'by' there also functions as multiplication, like 'times'. And my mom wasn't talking about area; she was just using 'by' instead of 'times'. In fact, she was reading the math homework I had and substituting 'by' where the 'x' for 'times' was written in the problem. – Tim Ward Jan 31 '16 at 23:09
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Yoichi Oishi Feb 12 '16 at 02:07
6

The Oxford Dictionaries define minus as a preposition, which is inconsistent with their definition of times as a noun.

The mathematical operations minus, plus, times have a different syntax than most of English, and this apparently confuses grammarians. None of the traditional parts of speech fits them perfectly, but in my opinion preposition comes closest.

Peter Shor
  • 88,407
  • 1
    You're saying Oxford is wrong??? – Hot Licks Jan 29 '16 at 13:06
  • 4
    @HotLicks One should never trust a dictionary for parts of speech. Better to go to a reputable grammar, which is where the dictionaries get their parts of speech from - with a fifty year time lag. – Araucaria - Him Jan 29 '16 at 13:23
  • 4
    @Hot Licks I'll certainly say that ODO is wrong here. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 14:35
  • 2
    I'd argue that, as 'add/plus', 'minus/subtract/take', and 'times' all signify operations, they are at least equally close to verbs. But I agree that they are not central members of traditional word classes (I'd go further and say they're not members of traditional word classes) and they're certainly not nouns in the a * b = c usage. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 14:44
  • 3
    @EdwinAshworth "Add", "subtract", and "multiply" are verbs. Sometimes people use "times" as if it were "multiply" ("Times that number by ten") but it is nonstandard usage. However, "plus", "minus", and "times" (standard usage) do not describe actions. – Monty Harder Jan 29 '16 at 17:57
  • @Monty Harder If you look through this thread, you will see that I've already said 'Sometimes people use "times" as if it were "multiply" ("Times that number by ten") but that does not make it standard usage.' or words to that effect. We're discussing the POS of 'times' in the standard usage 'Two times three equals six'. As Peter says, 'None of the traditional parts of speech fits [times in this usage] perfectly'. Peter implies it might be best lumped with prepositions; Professor Lawler says that insisting on a POS (here) is divisive and unhelpful. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 29 '16 at 23:16
  • Their saying times is a noun is different from plus and minus; it's not inconsistent with them, because they're asserting that it is different and was derived differently. In a sense they're even right, although I'd say that they're preserving a distinction that's pretty well dead by now. – hobbs Jan 30 '16 at 00:20
  • (What they're asserting is that "three times two" is equivalent to "two, three times", and that "times" in that phrase serves the same function as in "what I say three times is true".) – hobbs Jan 30 '16 at 00:23
  • @HotLicks - Sarcasm doesn't come off so well on the internet ;) – Mazura Jan 30 '16 at 04:08
  • @Mazura -- ??? I'm never sarcastic! – Hot Licks Jan 30 '16 at 12:28
6

The phrase four times five means five, four times i.e. five, five, five, five.

In this context, I think the meaning of it is similar to the meaning of times in "Once, twice, three times a lady". It's basically stating four occurrences of five, which, when totaled, equal twenty.

In the arithmetic, it's used idiomatically to describe multiplication. The fact that it looks similar in construction to four plus five is coincidental.

By this reasoning, times is a plural noun in the phrase four times which functions as an adjective describing the amount of fives.

Harrison Paine
  • 1,260
  • 5
    With your reasoning, "one times five" would be incorrect, right? – Mr Lister Jan 29 '16 at 16:51
  • @MrLister That would appear to be the case. – Patrick87 Jan 29 '16 at 17:57
  • 2
    At first glance, it seems at least plausible that this interpretation ("five, four times") explains the origin of this meaning of the word "times". But meanings and parts of speech change over time, and Mr Lister's example strongly implies that even if the word "times" in "four times five" was once a plural noun, it no longer is. – David K Jan 29 '16 at 22:35
5

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (By Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker, Edmund Weiner) defines times as a marginal preposition (along with less, minus and plus).

marginal preposition: a preposition that shares one or more characteristics with other word classes. For example, many marginal prepositions share certain features with verbs or adjectives.

Among the marginal prepositions are less, minus, plus and times.

  • What's five times six?
  • He arrived minus a ticket.
ermanen
  • 62,797
0

You are misinterpreting the second definition. They are not talking about multiplying numbers, as in "eight times five equals forty". They are talking about expressing the number of iterations you performed an actions, as in "I ran around the track eight times".

Kevin
  • 7,900
  • No, OP didn't misinterpret. There are examples like " times " under that definition. The definition has this subnote also: "Conventionally represented by the multiplication sign: 4 × 5 is read as ‘four times five’." – ermanen Jan 29 '16 at 19:18
  • I think that is a bad example on the oxford dictionaries part, as the rest of the examples they give are like mine. Also, don't know where OP got "Conventionally represented by the multiplication sign: 4 × 5 is read as ‘four times five’." but I can't find that anywhere on the linked page – Kevin Jan 29 '16 at 20:24
  • OP mentioned that it is from OED.com. It is not accessible by public, you need subscription. Also, the sense of "times" you are talking about is different. OP didn't say anything about it. – ermanen Jan 29 '16 at 20:30
  • Yes he did. "19. In pl. Preceded by a number (in words or figures)" – Kevin Jan 29 '16 at 20:57
  • You need to know how OED works. It is the general parent definition of subdefinitions. It doesn't say or prove much by itself and there can't be specific examples for that general parent definition. – ermanen Jan 29 '16 at 21:08
  • @Kevin it's part b. below that that completes the definition. – Matt E. Эллен Jan 30 '16 at 10:10
  • Alright this damn thing is messing with my brain. It's like a verb, noun and preposition at the same time. – Kevin Jan 30 '16 at 14:05
-1

Let's examine some sentences similar to "Four times five is twenty.":

"Four plus five is nine."

"Four and five are nine."

In the latter sentence, "and" is clearly a conjunction. I think there is a good case to be made that "plus", and "times" are conjunctions, (as the statement is not about either four or five individually, but about a combination of them) with "minus" and "divided by" having progressively less of a conjunctive character and more of a noun-modified-by-prepositional-phrase (or participle) flavor:

"Five from nine is four"

"Nine minus five is four"

"Twenty divided by five is four"

Higher-order mathematical operations seem even more solidly in the latter camp:

"Four squared is sixteen" (participle "squared")

"Four raised to the fifth power is 1,024." (participle modified by prepositional phrase)

"Four to the fifth power is 1,024." (prepositional phrase)

Community
  • 1
Monty Harder
  • 504
  • 1
    Notice that in "four and five are nine" you use "are" vs "is". The sentence structure is entirely different. It's equivalent to saying "Sue and Fred are a couple". – Hot Licks Jan 29 '16 at 18:40
  • @HotLicks "Is" and "are" are both forms of "be". I've certainly heard people say "four and five is nine"; I just happen to prefer the plural form. – Monty Harder Jan 29 '16 at 19:25
-1

I think to label plus and minus (and times) as prepositions is incompetence of dictionaries. As "minus" is a Latin comparative it is principally an adjective form which was adopted in mathematics as an operation sign. The same is true for "plus". Dictionaries may declare minus and plus are prepositions, but actually it is nonsense to label mathematical operation signs as prepositions.

50 minus 10 means 50 diminished by 10. I can't see what "diminished by" has to do with a preposition.

"times" can be a normal plural as in "in olden times" and it can be an operation sign in mathematics, also called operator in mathematical terminology. 50 times 10 is/equals 500 - here times means "multiplied by", and I would hardly call that a preposition.

rogermue
  • 13,878
-1

That dictionary entry is wrong. I assume it was an oversight.

When "times" is used to represent multiplication it's a preposition, as has been adequately explained by several of these answers, and as it is listed in most dictionaries.

"Times" is a plural noun when used in a different context:

  • These are strange times.
  • How are your forty times?
  • We had some good times.
DCShannon
  • 2,143
-2

"Times" could definitely be a noun depending on context, such as "These are strange times we're living in." or "My times in the 5k have been improving due to my new speed intervals workout routine."

tonybaldwin
  • 41