User talk:Choor monster

Talk:seven-level screwdriver

I've responded there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

twice as small

Why nonstandard/prescribed? Seems okay to me, and in many formal texts. What makes "twice as less" proscribed is the fact that it should be "twice as little", or "twice as much less"; it's not wrong in the "twice" part. Equinox ◑ 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For a reference, see the preface to Orr Twice as Less, 1987, which identifies both idioms as BEV. I disagree with your assessment of "twice as less".

The issue is that most of the natural, logical scales start at 0 and work up. "Twice X" means X+X on such a scale, and "twice as blank", on the surface, means identify the scale used to measure blankness, then double on that scale. There is no natural scale for measuring back down. I mean, we all know what the phrases "twice as thin", "twice as dumb", etc., mean, but the normally implied mathematical sense of "twice" just doesn't work. So this is strike 1 to a prescriptionist.

A related issue is scales typically carry a default. One end sticks out, the other doesn't. Without specifying, we implicitly understand "someone has attitude" to refer to bad attitude, because that is what sticks out. A "poundage problem" is a reference to obesity, not to anorexia.

The relatedness is that "twice" sticks out when it refers to doubling a size, and it does not stick out when referring to doubling a reciprocal of size. Violating expectations is strike 2 to a prescriptionist.

And as we all know, prescriptionists jump into action at half-a-strike even.

Also, I am unimpressed by usage in numerous formal texts as a measure of standardness. The quality of editing has gone way down hill over the past several decades. One of the twice as less citations, for example, is ungrammatical. Choor monster (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)