Posted on 10/16/2014 9:57:39 AM PDT by Doctor 2Brains
The other day, an English professor (retired) showed me a story in a magazine and corrected an interesting grammatical issue he found there. I at first thought he was crazy, but now I’m pretty sure he’s correct. After all, he’s the prof’. Here it is: When we speak of numbers, certain words always translate to mathematical formulas. “Less” means subtract. “There were ten, now there are three less.” 10-3. Duh. “Times” means multiply. “Of” means multiply. “How many cars were there?” “There were 10 of them.” 10 “OF” cars means 10 X 1.” Or… “I had half OF the six pack of sodas.” ½ OF means ½ X 6 =3. Here’s the problem: We often see it printed in news stories (yesterday on FR there was a nuclear fusion story that did it) sentences like this: “Americans drink 10 TIMES LESS home brewed beer than Africans.” Now, we all know what they are TRYING to say is, “US drinks 1/10th HB beer that As do.” But wording it the former way is wrong and cannot “get you there.” Let’s say the average African drinks 100 home brews a year, and the average American drinks 10. CORRECT: US drinks 1/10 of what Africans drink. 1/10 OF 100 = 10. Or 1/10th X 100 = 10. INCORRECT: Now try to convert “N drinks 10 times less than Y drinks.” N = 10 X 100. N = 1000? I think not. Now, of course we put the “less than” in the equation and still it does not work. N = 10 X -100. N = -1000. Again, I think not. “10 times less” will NEVER equal “One tenth of.”
In most cases of the above “Less” should be “Fewer”
“X times less (or fewer)” isn’t as clear as “one xth as much (or many).” But it is still a perfectly valid, if cumbersome, grammatical construction. Think of it as “more” of a “negative.” “Colder” is less heat, not more coldness. But we talk about cold As if it were a presence of something instead of its opposite’s absence. You can talk about poverty as the absence of money or the presence of penury. So a poor person could be deemed to have 10 times less money (or 10 times as much penury) as a wealthier person.
But in the strict mathematical sense, you are right. “Ten times less” is not the same as “one tenth of.” Let’s say the statement is “100 is 10 times less than 1000.” Ten times 1000 is 10000. 100 is not 1000 - 10000, so the statement is wrong. Maybe you meant 10 times 1000. But then you’re claiming that 100 = 1000 - 1000, which is still wrong.
On the other hand, to say “100 is one tenth of 1000” is clearly demonstrable. 1000 x 0.1 = 100.
The bottom line is, no editor worth his red pen would let a phrase like “ten times less” stand. And no writer worth his Underwood would use it in the first place.
This thread is timeless.
x = y/10
This is one of my big pet peeves as well. “It takes 10 times less energy than before.” “Ok, before it took one kilowatt, now, it’s ten times one kilowatt?” “Uh no, ...”
I, too, agree with the English professor. Although you can convince yourself that you understand the meaning, the usage is sloppy at best.It does not help the reader as much as it should and, like writing in the passive voice, it gives the impression that the writer himself may not know what he is talking about.
Only if you write it that way. Duh. It is NOT said that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.