. . . times lower than . . . (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Mullins, Bill AMRDEC]

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


"Five times" is a multiplying operation (to my ear), "lower" is a
subtracting operation.  This is one of several reasons that it sounds
like poor usage to me.


>
> I share the original concern:  "Five times lower" sounds
> strange to my ear and requires mental recomputation every
> time.  I wonder if this usage has arisen from a general
> unfamiliarity with fractional computations?  And "twice as
> short" as a 6-inch item would logically mean 12 inches, wouldn't it?
>
> I don't think we're being old curmudgeons here.  The usage
> just seems weird!
>
> At 10:57 AM 9/5/2007, you wrote:
> >---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >-----------------------
> >Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >Poster:       Laurence Urdang <urdang at SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> >Subject:      Re: . . . times lower than . . .
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >--------
> >
> >I wrote nothing about what LH calls "absolute" comparisons,
> for they are fine.
> >   But I cannot agree that "half as long" is the same as
> "twice as short":
> > such an equivalency makes no sense to me.  "Twice" means
> 'two times,'
> >not  'half,' and it is beyond me how or why the two have
> become confused.
> >   L. Urdang
> >
> >Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU> wrote:
> >   ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> >Sender: American Dialect Society
> >Poster: Laurence Horn
> >Subject: Re: . . . times lower than . . .
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >--------
> >
> >At 8:08 AM -0700 9/4/07, Laurence Urdang wrote:
> > >After the initial reading of the beginning of this response, I
> > >thought I'd gone daft. My comment about temperature had nothing
> > >whatsoever to do with the scales used, and they are entirely
> > >irrelevant.
> > > Also, I didn't say I don't understand it, just that I
> consider it an
> > >aberrant usage.
> > > L. Urdang
> >
> >For me, it would go along with operations on marked scales--e.g.
> >"twice as short" rather than "half as tall/long"; "three times as
> >narrow" rather than "one third as wide". On the other hand, absolute
> >rather than relative comparisons seem fine:
> >
> >two degrees lower
> >three inches shorter
> >one inch narrower
> >
> >YMMV.
> >
> >LH
> >
> > >
> > >"Joel S. Berson" wrote:
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > >-----------------------
> > >Sender: American Dialect Society
> > >Poster: "Joel S. Berson"
> > >Subject: Re: . . . times lower than . . .
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >----
> > ------
> > >
> > >At 9/4/2007 09:56 AM, Laurence Urdang wrote:
> > >> From a letter in today's Daily Telegraph:
> > >> ". . . the murder rate in London is five times lower than some
> > >> cities in the United States . . ."
> > >> I am not interested in the source or in the sense but in this
> > >> typical use of times that has sprung up in the past couple of
> > >> decades (according to my observation) with the meaning 'one nth':
> > >> in the present instance, in my dialect (!) I should have
> said, ". .
> > >> . is one fifth (of) that in some cities."
> > >> I cannot conceive how or why times, which is an indication of
> > >> multiplication, not division, has come to mean its opposite.
> > >> Am I the only English speaker on earth who has noticed
> this or is
> > >> bothered by it? I have never seen another comment on it.
> > >
> > >I have noticed it and am somewhat bothered by it, but I do
> understand
> > >it. And it does not seem incorrect mathematically -- that
> is, given
> > >one of the two numbers I can compute the other confidently.
> > >
> > >> A typical context would be, "The average temperature at the
> > >> Antarctic is five times lower than [that] at the
> Arctic." [Forget
> > >> about the truth of the statement, for grammar and truth are
> > >> unrelated.]
> > >
> > >Apart from truth, I don't think one can say this about the
> customary
> > >(Fahrenheit, Centigrade) temperature scales -- they do not
> have the
> > >mathematical property (whose name I've forgotten) that
> allows ratios
> > >to be computed. One can apply ratios to the Kelvin scale, with its
> > >zero at absolute zero.
> > >
> > >> In other words, instead of using the appropriate fraction or
> > >> percentage indicated, 'one quarter of' becomes "four times lower
> > >> than," 'one third of' becomes "three times less than," etc.
> > >
> > >Joel
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org