I have been so thrown on uncommon pluralization after I heard people on "Coast to Coast AM" call a number of Bigfoot organisms "Bigfoots," not "Bigfeet."
― spanikopitcon (Abbott), Saturday, 7 August 2010 03:37 (thirteen years ago) link
haha i'd probably lean toward the former myself - surely "bigfoot" is an individual lil dude, not a species?
― terry squad (k3vin k.), Saturday, 7 August 2010 16:07 (thirteen years ago) link
"In Canada, for every Rush, there are at least three Gordon Lightfeet."
― ˙˙˙˙˙ (Pleasant Plains), Saturday, 7 August 2010 18:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Someone please spot-check my numerical logic here, because something is making me feel crazy. I'm going to change the content, but I'm looking at a stat being used in the following way:
43% of teenage boys are more likely than the average person to drink Teenage Boy Soda!
This strikes me as a terrible statistic -- doesn't it actually mean that a majority (57%) of teenage boys are LESS (or just equally) likely than the average person to enjoy the soda? That fewer than half of them are on the above-average side of the distribution? And yet the stat is presented with such confidence and glee that it's making me question myself: am I missing some trick of medians or deviations that somehow makes this stat a good thing?
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 12 August 2010 22:09 (thirteen years ago) link
pretty sure that's just a terrible statistic. sounds like it's derived from some sort of iffy "how likely are you to do x in the next week" survey results.
― circles, Thursday, 12 August 2010 22:42 (thirteen years ago) link
Always sad to see the NY Times screw it up:
"Growing up in rural Montana, Jere was drawn to the paintings in seed catalogs the way other kids poured over Mad magazine."
― My totem animal is a hamburger. (WmC), Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:01 (thirteen years ago) link
It may not have been evident from the context, but the other kids were pouring imitation maple syrup over those Mad magazines.
― Aimless, Saturday, 14 August 2010 18:41 (thirteen years ago) link
"nearly one in five americans believe" or "nearly one in five americans believes"
― max, Thursday, 19 August 2010 06:56 (thirteen years ago) link
The former.
― litel, Thursday, 19 August 2010 07:24 (thirteen years ago) link
"nearly one in five americans believe" = 16,800 google hits"nearly one in five americans believes" = googlewhack
― Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 19 August 2010 07:25 (thirteen years ago) link
"the same number of people have had a ghostly experience" or "the same number of people has had a ghostly experience"
― max, Thursday, 19 August 2010 07:26 (thirteen years ago) link
Although singular is more logical, it looks odd, therefore I would go with plural.
― Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 19 August 2010 07:33 (thirteen years ago) link
both are acceptable go with the more widely used one
― ? (dyao), Thursday, 19 August 2010 07:34 (thirteen years ago) link
Is it true to say that an indeterminate number is always plural, even if there's a strong implication that the number is one?
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:57 (thirteen years ago) link
happy enough with that, yeah, though context would help
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:59 (thirteen years ago) link
i use this trick all the time when talking about previous lovers for instance
redknapp apparently willing to listen to offers for
wilson palacios.
now, he's not had a great few months but that's absolute madness.
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:01 (thirteen years ago) link
can someone give me a percentages refresher? if someone says "we're 50% more popular now than we were last year" then that means that if, say, 8 people voted for them last year, 12 did this year? because 4 is 50% of 8 and then you add it to the total? so they're 50% MORE popular than they were last year but equally you could say their popularity is 150% of what it was last year? now that i'm saying it everything makes sense but i swear this stuff confuses the hell out of me sometimes
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:02 (thirteen years ago) link
that all makes sense, unlike me posting spurs transfer rumours
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:03 (thirteen years ago) link
your first reading is right I think ? 150% to me would mean 20 ppl voted
― ? (dyao), Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:05 (thirteen years ago) link
20 is 150% of 13.3
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:08 (thirteen years ago) link
i think both tracer's readings are the same?
yep
― just sayin, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:14 (thirteen years ago) link
50% more = 150% of
oh i remember now the confusing thing: when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support since last year". that means they had 8 last year and 12 this year. ok cool. but when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support for the last five years".... well that just doesn't mean anything, does it? it could mean 5 years ago they had 8 and now they have 12, or it could mean that each year there's been a 50% increase over the year before...
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:10 (thirteen years ago) link
would mean taking the five years ago figure as the starting point i'd say
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:11 (thirteen years ago) link
so yeah 5 years ago 8, now 12
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:10 AM Bookmark Suggest
With the latter I would assume 50% total, not 50% per year, because it would be weird to talk about support in average increase per year.
― Theodore "Thee Diddy" Roosevelt (Hurting 2), Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:14 (thirteen years ago) link
― ? (dyao), Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:05 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
oh doh I thought he was asking about what the difference between "50% more" and "150% more was" not "150% of"
fukken preps
― ? (dyao), Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:15 (thirteen years ago) link
it would be weird to talk about support in average increase per year.
would it though? in finance you get this kind of talk, like in a company's annual reports - "50% year on year growth" always confuses fukkk out of me
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:45 (thirteen years ago) link
year on year is the compound growth, which is different, tbf
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 13:15 (thirteen years ago) link
what's our growth going forward wrt marginal incomes on that though?
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 August 2010 13:16 (thirteen years ago) link
"Mel Gibson directed the movies The Man Without a Face and Braveheart, in both of which he starred."
^^sounds hella awkward, but is it wrong?
― jaymc, Thursday, 19 August 2010 16:06 (thirteen years ago) link
Haha maybe not in a technical sense but jeez.
"Mel Gibson directed the movies The Man Without a Face and Braveheart and starred in both."
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 19 August 2010 16:10 (thirteen years ago) link
"Mel Gibson directed and starred in The Man Without a Face and Braveheart."
― quincie, Thursday, 19 August 2010 17:08 (thirteen years ago) link
Oh yeah, for sure those work better. The actual example I was dealing with, though -- not about Mel Gibson! -- was syntactically a little more complex. I ended up turning it into two sentences.
― jaymc, Thursday, 19 August 2010 17:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Cutting awkward sentences in two is my most valuable contribution to any editorial project in which I participate.
― quincie, Thursday, 19 August 2010 17:42 (thirteen years ago) link
Q:
"Plaintiffs hereby request that defendant PRODUCE the following documents..." or "Plaintiffs hereby request that defendant PRODUCES the following documents..."
I think the former is correct but want to make sure.
― Ground Zero Mostel (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 August 2010 17:25 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah - subjunctive, right?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 20 August 2010 18:39 (thirteen years ago) link
"high quality standards" -- no hyphen, because you can speak of "high standards" OR "quality standards"? As opposed to a "high-quality car."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:23 (thirteen years ago) link
I wd say: correct, no hyphen.
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:28 (thirteen years ago) link
New question: Just overheard someone at work being informed that the phrase "run the gauntlet" needs to be corrected to "run the gantlet". Now, I would have expected confusion between "gauntlet" and "gamut", along the lines of "stanch" and "staunch". But I have ever in all my life heard "run the gantlet".
Have you?
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:29 (thirteen years ago) link
*never in all my life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_the_gauntlet
I have learned something new today. Thank you, this thread!
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:31 (thirteen years ago) link
I knew I'd read "gantlet."
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:32 (thirteen years ago) link
New = that gantlet is an acceptable alternative. I'm well aware of the phrase, but have always believed it to be gauntlet.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:33 (thirteen years ago) link
Well, apparently the original mis-translation of Swedish "gantlopp" into "gauntlet" via mishearing was around 400 years ago, during the Thirty Years' War. I don't feel too bad about a mistake with four centuries of precedent.
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:36 (thirteen years ago) link
I might start using "run the gantelope" from now on.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Oh please do.
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Next time the phrase is called for, I promise I will.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:45 (thirteen years ago) link