10

I’m not sure of whether this is grammatically correct, although I've encountered the same expression many times before.

Most Google searches show it produces 35 times less carbon than the report suggested.

Does 35 times less have a precise meaning in this context, or is it ambiguous here? Does either of these two possibities apply?

  1. the original amount minus 35 times the original amount (35 times less than 100 units would be −3400 units)

  2. ¹⁄₃₅ of the original amount (35 times less than 100 units would be 2 ⁶⁄₇ units)

Anderson Green
  • 417
  • I think this is Not A Real Question. If something is normally sold at £35, and someone offers to sell it for "35 times less", who in their right mind would expect to be given £1190 (£35 - 35 x £35) if they offer to "buy" one? @Anderson - you should expect to pay £1 there. – FumbleFingers Nov 14 '12 at 22:08
  • 3
    @FumbleFingers I'm asking whether "thirty-five times less than 35" means "thirty-five divided by 35", or whether it means something else entirely. Why is that "not a real question"? – Anderson Green Nov 14 '12 at 22:12
  • By all means suggest some other credible alternative interpretation. Clearly the "literal" one makes no sense at all, so what's your problem with "1/35th the amount"? – FumbleFingers Nov 14 '12 at 22:16
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I think the statement "x = (35 times less than y)" could either mean "x = y/35" or "x = (35 times) minus y", or even "x = 35 multiplied by less than y". – Anderson Green Nov 14 '12 at 22:21
  • 1
    I'm not with you. You seem to be just repeating that "literal" interpretation which — as I said — is clearly not credible in the real world. Is this question just a peeve complaining that English idiomatic forms aren't always "logical"? – FumbleFingers Nov 14 '12 at 22:25
  • 2
    Let's cut to the chase. One just can't produce a negative quantity of carbon. Or a negative quantity of anything, for that matter. That is no longer production, that's consumption. So that interpretation simply is not an option. Not in terms of syntax, semantics, maths, logic, or [noun of your choice here]. So I am closing the question as rhetorical. If you can produce an example in which your suggested ambiguity actually exists, people can vote to reopen. Thank you. – RegDwigнt Nov 14 '12 at 22:57
  • 2
    This expression happens often enough that I'm familiar with it. People will want to understand what it means, and while the second interpretation is the correct one, it's not so obvious that it won't warrant a google search. And I'm not aware of a "general reference" that'd cover this. – Golden Cuy Nov 15 '12 at 00:28
  • 2
    @RegDwighт I still don’t know why things can be half/twice as much/big/long/tall/heavy/old/fast/smart as something else, and yet they cannot be half/twice as little/small/short/light/young/slow/stupid as anything at all. There’s something funny here. – tchrist Nov 15 '12 at 04:33
  • 2
    @tchrist That's why I asked the question in the first place - I thought it seemed like an unusual figure of speech, and I wanted to discuss its grammatical correctness and semantic clarity. (Given those reasons, why was this closed as "not a real question?") – Anderson Green Nov 15 '12 at 05:34
  • 1
    @AndrewGrimm In that case, was the closing of this question justifiable, or not? – Anderson Green Nov 15 '12 at 05:40
  • 2
    @AndersonGreen I don't think the closing was justified, and it didn't need a diamond mod closure. – Golden Cuy Nov 15 '12 at 07:54
  • 1
    And it's twice as cold! – SF. Nov 15 '12 at 08:55
  • @tchrist absolutely. But different question is different. The one you bring up we discussed in chat a while back, and I myself had brought it up. However, at no point did we even consider discussing manufacturing a negative amount of things — it's simply nonsense. Again, I expect this question to either have an example where that interpretation actually is possible, or to be changed such that it matches the one you are asking. – RegDwigнt Nov 15 '12 at 09:54
  • @Andrew I explained my reasons. Twice now. You are welcome to change the question accordingly, then I will gladly click "reopen". Thank you. – RegDwigнt Nov 15 '12 at 09:59
  • @RegDwighт was that meant to be addressed to me, or to Anderson Green? – Golden Cuy Nov 15 '12 at 10:22
  • @Andrew it was meant to be addressed to you, though at this point I don't really care who fixes the question. If all the energy that went into the comment thread had been put into fixing the question instead, the comment thread would have no reason to exist. – RegDwigнt Nov 15 '12 at 10:36

1 Answers1

7

There is nothing wrong with the grammar of the statement, but it does leave what actual amount is meant open to interpretation, and therefore it drifts toward meaninglessness.

The first question is "35 times less than what?" If the report suggested that the carbon produced was 35 grams, should we infer that the search produced 1 gram? If so, why not phrase it as "1/35th as much carbon as the report suggested"? That is certainly clearer.

Obviously, times is a multiplier, not a divisor, so it will never be used comfortably in the latter capacity. Even when talking about discounts, a 35% discount is 35 times greater than a 1% discount.

This little ambiguity is present in all the expressions of reduction: slower, shorter, smaller, and so on. It is far better to say something is half as fast than twice as slow.

Robusto
  • 151,571
  • 2
    Actually, it seems quite obvious to me that if A is 35x “less” than B, then B is 35x of A. So we’re talking about ¹⁄₃₅ᵗʰ. I can’t imagine it meaning anything else. – tchrist Nov 15 '12 at 00:03
  • @tchrist Your comment's exactly right. This is a garden path problem. You can say "B is 35 times more than A". Then, symmetrical thinking (analogy) can lead you to say "A is 35 times less than B". The way you got there is understandable, but the result is unclear. It would be more clear to say "A is 35 times smaller than B". – MetaEd Nov 15 '12 at 04:27
  • 3
    @MετάEd Actually, I think there is a problem with that. Something can be half/twice as big/long/tall/heavy/old/fast/smart, but it cannot be half/twice as small/short/light/young/slow/stupid. See the problem? It’s actually rather interesting. – tchrist Nov 15 '12 at 04:30
  • I'd argue with you about small, short, light, slow, and stupid. I might concede young, and even then I can't explain why. – MetaEd Nov 15 '12 at 04:34
  • 1
    @MετάEd I might grant you stupid, but what does it mean to be half as small, or half as short, or half as light, or half as slow? Or twice, for that matter? – tchrist Nov 15 '12 at 04:37
  • 2
    Mostly dead is slightly alive. —Miracle Max – MetaEd Nov 15 '12 at 04:45
  • 1
    @tchrist Mathematically it is meaningless, but if you are seeking a poetic understanding, or a philosophical one that a general sense of natural symmetry is corrupted by it, then I, for one am open to discussion about it. – WS2 Aug 16 '18 at 09:24