3

If I wanted to refer to a spatial scale relatively smaller than a kilometer, I might say "sub-kilometer" scale.

However, what is the proper prefix for describing a spatial scale relatively larger than a kilometer?

  • My perceived options: supra-, super-, hyper-... possibly others...

Example:

When describing something occurring at or dispersing across a distance. For example, if a mouse species sometimes travels 0.7 km and at other times travels 1.6km, I'd like to differentiate these dispersal trends: one being sub-kilometer and the other ____-kilometer dispersal

I lean toward supra-, but supra-kilometer just sounds weird when I say it, so I can't convince myself it's the best option.

theforestecologist
  • 624
  • 1
    Please show an example usage where you want to use this. – Weather Vane Aug 12 '23 at 20:16
  • When describing something occurring at or dispersing across a distance. For example, if a mouse sometimes travels 0.7 km and at other times travels 1.6km, I'd like to differentiate these dispersal trends: one being sub-kilometer and the other ____-kilometer dispersal – theforestecologist Aug 12 '23 at 20:44
  • 3
    For a colloquial tone of voice, I'd use under-km and over-km. For fancy academia, sub- and supra- are fair game. – Yosef Baskin Aug 13 '23 at 01:34
  • +1 for the concise way you have posed the question. But I question the use of sub and supra or whatever. Why don't you just measure the average distance the mouse travels, state what that distance is in meters, and then use the terms above-average and below-average? What benefit is obtained by using the arbitrary unit of measure "kilometer" ? – TimR Aug 13 '23 at 11:02
  • 1
    I'd use a suffix if accuracy weren't too important: 'kilometer-plus'. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 13 '23 at 17:31
  • @TimR because I am not referencing an average, per se. The organism is known to have both sub-km dispersal activities and [supra-]km dispersal activities, so the kilometer is not an arbitrary cut-off but one of biological relevance. – theforestecologist Aug 14 '23 at 02:51
  • 1
    @Yosef, I thought the scientific nature of my example and want for latin prefixes indicated that this is for "fancy academia," but I'll add this comment to clarify that fact explicitly. thanks. – theforestecologist Aug 14 '23 at 02:53
  • 1
    The example doesn’t seem to make much sense. However, over and under, and less than and greater than, are available without stretching the language. – Xanne Aug 14 '23 at 06:14
  • @theforestecologist The mouse has a range of movements, some shorter, others longer, and to fasten on the kilometer as a boundary as you're doing seems wholly arbitrary. Also, if you're interested in language, a single mouse cannot "disperse". – TimR Aug 14 '23 at 11:45
  • Can you say how the standard terms in the metric system fail you in technical terms, rather than 'supra-kilometer just sounds weird when I say it, so I can't convince myself it's the best option'? – Robbie Goodwin Aug 21 '23 at 20:47

2 Answers2

-1

There is no need with the metric system for words like "subkilometer" because there are units in the metric system designed to communicate distances less than one kilometer in a standard, precise way. 0.7km is 700m, 70dam, or 7hm.

In general 700m would be preferred because the prefix dam and hm are much less frequently used. To express a possible distance between 0.7km and 1.6km, you may say it exactly like that, as 700m to 1.6km, or as 700m to 1600m. Were it me, I would use 0.7km to 1.6km as it keeps units the same for easier reading.

Using an ambiguous prefix sacrifices precision and accuracy for no good reason. In my opinion, this is especially undesirable for academic writing.

R Mac
  • 3,598
  • This doesn't really answer the question. They aren't looking for precise distances but distance categories. – Fraser Orr Aug 14 '23 at 20:33
  • 1
    Yes it does. TLDR answer to what prefix to use is "none". I explained why and offered an alternative which I feel meets the needs of the idea being expressed. – R Mac Aug 14 '23 at 20:57
  • 1
    That I hate the metric system doesn't alter the fact that R Mac is correct. That's most of the point of the metric system… not that 10 x X is easy, but that the terminology covers such cases. – Robbie Goodwin Sep 10 '23 at 19:29
-1

I'm not sure that a good prefix applies here. The opposite of sub would be super, but super kilometer really doesn't convey what you want. You might consider:

The mouse traveled kilometer plus distances.

You could even get away with:

The mouse traveled plus-kilometer distances.

Which is probably the best you can do with prefixes -- though it sounds a little contrived to my ear.

Or you might consider:

Mouse A traveled under a kilometer, mouse B over a kilometer.

Fraser Orr
  • 16,783