11

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)

Improve this question
16
  • 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
    Commented Nov 14, 2012 at 22:12
  • 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
    Commented Nov 14, 2012 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
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 0:28
  • 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 ♦
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 4:33
  • 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
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 5:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
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.

Improve this answer
7
  • 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 ♦
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 0:03
  • 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 ♦
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 4:30
  • 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 ♦
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 4:37
  • 3
    Mostly dead is slightly alive. —Miracle Max
    – MetaEd
    Commented Nov 15, 2012 at 4:45
  • 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
    Commented Aug 16, 2018 at 9:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .