[shinkansen]

> I would take it to mean that there are slightly more woman in north america than man.

That's a terrible assumption. The problem with 'most' is it doesn't imply an exact number, it could be 0.01% more or 99.9% more and either is 'most'.

Nothing about that statement tells you it's near a 50:50 ratio.

Since we're not dealing with exact numbers (obviously 17 and 16 million units is rounded off) and because the difference is fairly small ~5%, it's less confusing to note a more specified relationship rather than an ambiguous and potentially confusing 'most'. Esp if later it's quoted out of context: "Most iOS device sales are not iPhones," (how many is most? how close is the margin?) is less informative than, "IDevices excluding the iPhone comprise about 5% more sales, with iPhones selling 16m units and other devices selling 17m."

[ugh]

The usage of “most” was completely correct and not in any way wrong or ambiguous since the comment contained pretty exact estimates and didn’t only use “most” to describe the relationship. Context matters and it is prudent to assume that HN readers possess basic reading skills.

Take “most” for what it is and always has been, a simple description of plurality or relative majority.

(You are quite correct that I cannot just assume that the gender ratio in North America is close to 50:50 but you are at the same time also completely missing the point. Context matters and context makes “most” a useful word. It’s alright to make use of term “most” in the context of gender ratios of geographic areas because everyone knows that gender ratios are always close to 50:50. “Most” is a very broad term but if used in the right context perfectly appropriate and not confusing.)

[shinkansen]

> The usage of “most” was completely correct...

This is simply wrong.

When dealing with numbers, esp financial data, it is poor form to not make specific analysis in the descriptions of the data.

Saying 'Most iOS sales are not iPhones' is actually very misleading even if generalized sales numbers are included in the same context.

Ugh, this quarter you will receive 'most' of your bonus. Oops, I hope you didn't assume that 'most' meant 95% or even 75% because it actually meant 51%.

> Context matters and it is prudent to assume that HN readers possess basic reading skills.

There is absolutely no reason to not be more specific. You're just defending poor form at this point and it wasn't even your comment.

Lastly, it's always bad to assume. Why should we assume that this won't be quoted out of context? Assumptions lead to bad things in my experience. It's never prudent to assume.

[ugh]

Why are you inventing arbitrary rules for the usage of “most” that have never before existed? I don’t understand that at all. “Most” denotes a relative majority and always has. It’s correct to use “most” that way.

Why are you assuming that “most” must be at least a 75% or so majority? If we are talking about wrong and bad assumptions then that is the one.

You might argue that it’s not exact enough (I don’t agree at all because the comment includes specific numbers) but to say that using most in that context is wrong is just mind boggling to me.

[shinkansen]

> Why are you inventing arbitrary rules for the usage of “most” that have never before existed?

I'm not. The rules aren't arbitrary, they're based on the grammatical roots of the word.

Your consistent problem is your assumptions, which run rampant throughout your comments, as evidenced here.

The colloquial meaning and usage of a term will always trump the technical reality.

Commonly, 'most' is used to mean there is more than a simple majority, e.g. a supermajority.

"Most senators voted in favor of the bill," this isn't said when 'most' refers to 51 senators voting in favor of a bill because journalists understand that that would cause confusion. Instead something like, "The Senate was nearly split on the vote, 51 to 49," is used because it is far more descriptive of that actual situation.

The relative position of numbers matters, whether you want to accept that or not. However you sound like a fool promoting ambiguity of information and obfuscation of data.

[ugh]

I must say, I’m really not familiar with this usage of “most”. It’s the first time that I hear anybody telling me that you shouldn’t use “most” if the majority is slim.

Where does your assumption come from that colloquially, “most” means “large majority”?

[shinkansen]

Please see, quoted below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2121525

Now for a quick lesson in grammar, sorry it had to come to this but besides the colloquial instinct, the grammatical roots of 'most' will show, unequivocally, 'most' should not be used as it was.

'Most' is the superlative form of 'many' or 'much'. 'Many' is defined as 'a large number of' and 'much' is defined as 'a large amount'. This naturally implies a statistically significant large majority, not a simple majority such as 51 to 49.

When there is a close division we don't say, 'most of the Senators' we say 'just more than half of the Senators'. This is because we haven't reached a point where we can adequately say that a 'a large number' (as compared to those voting against) 'has voted for'. For this reason we reserve 'most' for situations where more than a simple majority, e.g. often a supermajority, comprises one of the two or more things we are comparing.

Actually, grammatically speaking, superlative adjectives should _only_ be used when three or more things are being compared, however this is a commonly ignored rule.

There is one final point, when one of the two or more things you are comparing reaches a point where it is greater than two thirds of the total, we begin to say 'nearly all,' "Nearly all of the Senators voted to pass the finance reform bill today, voting 89-11."