[tmoertel]

> Does that logic apply only when the claimed cut is over 100%?

Yes, I’d say.

It’s the same as the informal usage of “X times smaller” to describe scaling by 1/X. The idiom generally isn’t used unless X > 1. (The exception might be when several values of X are reported together. Then one might say “0.74 times smaller” to maintain parallel form with nearby “4 times smaller” and similar claims.)

[DrammBA]

You ignored the 2nd part of their message, imagine this:

> We cut prices by 50%! Before $30, now $20

Would it be pedantic to call that price cut bullshit?

[tmoertel]

Sorry, I thought that my answer to the second question was implied by my answer to the first question.

To answer your question, no, it would not be pedantic to question that claim. It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of.

[DrammBA]

> It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of.

It conforms to:

> “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.”

which I agree is no common usage that I am aware of

[tmoertel]

No, it does not conform. As I wrote earlier, I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not.

That is, expressions like "twice as slow/thin/short/..." or "2x as slow/thin/short/..." or "200% as slow/thin/short/..." have a well-established usage that is understood to mean "half as fast/thick/tall/..."

But "50% as slow/thin/short/..." or "half as slow/thin/short/..." have no such established usage.

For some evidence to support my claim, please see this 2008 discussion on Language Log:

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20fur...

Since HN has a tendency to trim URLs and might prevent this link from taking you to the relevant portion of a rather lengthy article, I'll quote the salent bits:

"A further complexity: in addition to the N times more/larger than usage, there is also a N times less/lower than [to mean] '1/Nth as much as' usage"

"[About this usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage reports that] times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood."

[DrammBA]

> I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not.

> For some evidence to support my claim

Please note that the 2008 discussion you linked does not support your claim in any way, so 50% does conform.

[tmoertel]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I believe that the history of English language usage is replete with examples such as "X times less than" when X > 1, but similar constructions for X <= 1 do not appear with appreciable frequency.

In any case, I think that continuing our conversation is unlikely to be productive, so this will be my last reply.

I will just say in closing that our conversation is a good example of why the MAGA folks have probably chosen phrasing such as this.