Talk:twice as small

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

twice as small

SoP. Also not nonstandard or proscribed, just neutral usage. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. It can't be SoP because twice + as + small makes no sense, or if it does, it means the same thing as "twice as large". If you measure the size of something small and then multiply it by two, you get something larger, not something half the size. Therefore, this is an idiom since it means something different from what its parts mean (rather like I could care less). I don't know how widespread the proscription against it is, but if I came across it in written material that I was editing, I would change it to "half the size" or something and would tell the author not to write that anymore. —Angr 16:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the reason you gave, I'd say delete and create twice as or add usage notes to as. The same considerations also apply to "three times as tall" or "ten times as hot". —CodeCat 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The C and F temperature scales don't even begin at zero (like Kelvin does), so it's not necessarily a case of multiplying by two there! I think this business is a red herring. Equinox ◑ 16:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "Three times as tall" is fine; if X is n meters tall and Y is three times as tall as X, then Y is 3n meters tall. It's when you say Y is "three times as short" as X to mean that Y is ${\frac {n}{3}}$ meters that things get wonky. "Ten times as hot" doesn't make sense unless you're measuring in Kelvins. —Angr 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm sure that there are people who have used "times as hot" referring to C or F as well. They would call 20 C to be twice as hot as 10 C. That doesn't make sense physically of course, but English speakers don't have to be physicists. —CodeCat 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Simple reciprocity; compare twice as short, quiet, etc. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't logical either though, and for loudness I don't know how it would work at all. Is 50 decibels half as loud as 100 decibels? 'Cause I thought decibels were measured logarithmically rather than arithmetically. —Angr 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Twice as loud would be log₁₀2 bels additional, or +3.01 dB. (Plus, not times.) 100 dB is 100000 times louder than 50 dB.

Delete. A conceptual error expressed in words does not a dictionary entry make (nor paradoxes, oxymoronic expressions, etc.). DCDuring TALK 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We sometimes have misspellings as dictionary entries. The same policy, I would assume, would apply for conceptual errors that are common enough. As for oxymorons, we have deafening silence and invisible ink. Choor monster (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I created this entry, and the similar twice as less. In the latter, I cited Orr Twice as Less. In her book's introduction, she said both idioms were BEV, hence nonstandard and proscribed.

I also introduced a second meaning for twice, meaning half, in a non-gloss entry referring to this idiom. "Twice as X" means 2X when X can be measured (at least metaphorically) starting at 0, but it means, in essence, -(-X)/2 when the opposite of X can be measured starting at 0. For example, "twice as dumb" means "half as smart", because we intuitively think of a scale measuring out smartness, with "dumb" reserved for the low end of the "smart" scale. Similarly, we talk about a "lengthy" discussion or a "weighty" manner, automatically assuming we are talking about the high end of "length" or "weight" scales. We do not have corresponding "scales" for the low end. This idiomatic asymmetry inherently implies "twice as short" or "twice as thin" are not just illogical, but are using to the wrong name for the scale.

I have no idea, and no opinion, where this should all go. Choor monster (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Angr, I think you're totally wrong. "If you measure the size of something small and then multiply it by two, you get something larger, not something half the size." just doesn't seem relevant at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Logic is irrelevant, this is linguistics, not mathematics. Should we also add every possible Portuguese phrase that uses não and nada because the use of double negative is illogical? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I was on the fence at first, but as CodeCat notes, this is far from being the only 'mathematically illogical' phrase to use as in this way. In addition to "twice as small" and "twice as little", every other phrase I checked was also attested: "twice as few", "twice as empty", "twice as bare", "three times as few", "three times as empty", "four times as few", "four times as small", "thrice as small"... - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Als Angr, something large can be made twice as small, not only something small. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Something large can be made half the size, but "twice as small" still has no interpretable meaning. —Angr 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess to you "twice as big" has not interpretable meaning either, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it does. If object B's dimensions are 2× those of object A, then object B is twice as big as object A. But if object B's dimensions are 0.5× those of object A, then object B is half as big as object A, not "twice as small". The only way 2x can ever be smaller than x is if x is negative, but "small" doesn't mean "having negative size". —Angr 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that your brain can't handle "twice as small" whereas other people's brains can. No, really. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I happen to agree with Angr that "twice as small" is not mathematically sensible, even though I would understand what someone meant (was trying to say) if they said it. I just think the entry should be deleted anyway, because, as I noted, the set of such constructions is open-ended, not idiomatic: thrice as small, four times as small, five times... times as empty (vs full), times as bare (vs covered)... etc... - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was being genuine rather than (deliberately) rude. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I don't understand it, I said it doesn't have an interpretable meaning. I know perfectly well what people are trying to say when they say it, even though the words they're uttering don't mean what they think they do. That's why I consider this an idiom like I could care less, which means exactly the opposite of what it says. But the expression asked about in the Tea Room discussion that started this whole thread, "a ninefold decrease in profits", really is baffling to me. Without explanation I don't think I would know whether it meant profits had decreased by one ninth (to 88.9% of what they were) or to one ninth (to 11.1% of what they were). —Angr 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it doesn't have an interpretable meaning. What's special about the adjective small? What property does it have that big doesn't? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That its comparative implies a decrease, while the comparative of big implies an increase. But multiplication by any number greater than 1 results in an increase, so multiplication by 2 or by 9 is compatible with a word like bigger but incompatible with a word like smaller. —Angr 14:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I just added part of the following to twice: [1]

  He is so thin his skin don't fit him, hence the phrase "thin as a shad." You can't get anything thinner than a spring shad, unless you take a couple of them, when, of course, they will be twice as thin.

The point of the author is to pun on "twice". He starts with the shad, which he just stated is the thinnest possible thing, yet by taking two shad, haha, the result is something twice as thin, hahahaha, and since twice as thin implies thinner, well, we have one self-amused author here. In summary, the only reason anyone could think there's a joke here is that the phrase "twice as thin" can't be understood literally. Choor monster (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I think I agree with Hyarmendacil in this thread. In summary, the only other reason anyone could think there's a joke here is that the phrase "[ two-timed twice as less again (double) the intensity of ] thinness" can be understood metaphorically (See also derived terms). (Yes, I know this is WT:RFD, not yet the Beer parlour?)--Riverstogo (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 20:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)