|
|
|
|
|
by ugh
5636 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.