[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."

[ugh]

Well, the difference between sold iPhones and other iOS devices clearly is “statistically significant” and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate is also “statistically significant” (but the term does not make any sense if applied to Senate majorities). So yeah, most it is.

[shinkansen]

You're missing the point: The difference between 17 and 16 million, is not a statistically significant /majority/, please be careful when quoting, because you missed the most important piece of what I said above.

17 million as compared to 16 million is not 'a large quantity' more as compared to 16 million.

If you understand that 'most' is the superlative form of 'much' or 'many' you understand that you're saying there is a large amount (more) of iDevices being sold as compared to the number of iPhones being sold, when all things considered that number is less 10%! Hardly a supermajority and very much in the realm of "simple majority."

I brought this up on Freenode in ##English. They were absolutely appalled by your claim, "half plus one is most."

If you have further questions I highly recommend the erudite discussions they can provide. They are quite well versed in English grammar and usage, I think you will find their comments instructive.

Edit: Also I took the liberty of consecrating the discoveries made in the form of a blog post --> http://voxinfinitus.net/blog/articles/2011/01/usage-most