# I have as many apples as oranges.



## shorty1

Hello everyone.

I'm learning comparative nowadays.


Source : I made it up.

"I have as many apples as oranges."

This is natural, right?

I intend to mean I have the same number of apples as that of oranges.


Thank you so much.


----------



## papakapp

Sure, the sentence works great grammatically.  But I should tell you that "apples and oranges" is a set phrase with it's own unique meaning.  Your sentence structure is fine, but when you use apples and oranges in particular, a native speaker (such as myself) will assume you are speaking metaphorically.

_Apples and oranges_ is an idiomatic way to say _deceptively unlike comparison_.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you so much, papakapp. 

But I don’t surely understand why people compare the same number.
I think the same number is just the same number, isn’t it?


----------



## papakapp

The set phrase we use is "You are comparing apples and oranges".

We use that when we want to accuse a person of making an invalid argument.

The implication is that a person is not considering all the relevant data.  For example, both are edible fruit, both are round, but one is citrus and one is not, one has a peel and one has a core...  The similarities and the differences can go on and on.

Thus, the implication is that you are accusing a person of ignoring relevant data in order to make their case.

If you say "I have as many cars as houses" or "bananas as pears" or "fingers as toes", or absolutely anything else except for _apples and oranges_ your sentence works perfectly.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you for your detail explanation.


----------



## papakapp

When I first read the title of this thread, but before I opened it, I made the [incorrect] assumption that the original poster found an essay where the author was arguing that they found an equal number of supporting arguments as defeating arguments for whatever the topic being discussed was.  I would be very interested to learn if any other native speakers made the same assumption when they found "apples" and "oranges" juxtaposed thus.


----------



## Forero

shorty1 said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> I'm learning comparative nowadays.
> 
> 
> Source : I made it up.
> 
> "I have as many apples as oranges."
> 
> This is natural, right?
> 
> I intend to mean I have the same number of apples as that of oranges.
> 
> 
> Thank you so much.


Yes, it is natural, and I would never think it had anything to do with invalid arguments.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

In BE it would be entirely natural too.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you, papakapp, Forero and Thomas. 
#3. I have as many bananas as pears.
#4. The number of bananas I have is equal to that of pears I have.

Do you happen to feel the difference in nuance between #3 and #4?


----------



## PaulQ

#4. The number of bananas I have is equal to that of the pears [that I have]. -> this sounds formal, almost over-complex and excessively precise. It is probably because of "that of", which is formal.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you PaulQ. 

When someone says #3, do they feel the number of the bananas and the pears they have is a lot?


----------



## PaulQ

shorty1 said:


> Thank you PaulQ.
> 
> When someone says #3, do they feel the number of the bananas and the pears they have is a lot?


No. If I have no bananas and no pears, I can still say #3.


----------



## shorty1

PaulQ said:


> No. If I have no bananas and no pears, I can still say #3.



‘Many’ in a comparative sentence doesn't mean ‘a lot’.


If my understanding is wrong, correct me please.


Thank you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

*I have as many bananas as pears* means you don't have fewer bananas but you may have more.

*I have the same number of bananas as pears* means the number you have of both fruits is the same.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It would be disingenuous to talk of having bananas or pears if you have none at all of either.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> *I have as many bananas as pears* means you don't have fewer bananas but you may have more.
> 
> *I have the same number of bananas as pears* means the number you have of both fruits is the same.




Thank you Thomas. 

What PaulQ said must mean the logic of comparison.


----------



## shorty1

Let’s suppose I have two bananas and two pears.
In this case, I can say “I have as many bananas as pears.”, Can’t I? 
Or a little bit awkward?


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> It would be disingenuous to talk of having bananas or pears if you have none at all of either.


I disagree.

A: "I want a banana!"
B: "I have none."
A: "Then I'll have a pear!"
B: "I have the same number of pears as I have bananas."

No disingenuity there!



shorty1 said:


> Let’s suppose I have two bananas and two pears.
> In this case, I can say “I have as many bananas as pears.”, Can’t I?
> Or a little bit awkward?


As I said, you can say it with *any *number.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We'll have to disagree.

If you have none of either, I wouldn't expect you, a polite person, to say you have the same number of each.  I'd expect you to say you had none of either.


----------



## shorty1

Thanks all of you.


----------



## Forero

shorty1 said:


> I intend to mean I have the same number of apples as that of oranges.





shorty1 said:


> Thank you, papakapp, Forero and Thomas.
> #3. I have as many bananas as pears.
> #4. The number of bananas I have is equal to that of pears I have.
> 
> Do you happen to feel the difference in nuance between #3 and #4?


"That of" does not work as a replacement for "number of" or "the number of".

The sentence in your first post can be corrected by omitting _that of_: _I mean to say I have the same number of apples as oranges._

Sentence #4 can be corrected by repeating _the number of_: _. The number of bananas I have is equal to the number of pears I have._

(This would be a good topic for a separate thread.)





shorty1 said:


> ‘Many’ in a comparative sentence doesn't mean ‘a lot’.
> 
> 
> If my understanding is wrong, correct me please.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


Yes, "as many" means "the same number of" whether that number is large or small. "As many" is tied to the concept of "number" ("how many") as a quantity just as "as high" is tied to the concept of "height". These terms refer to quantities both great and small.

Note that "a number of" normally refers to more than one of something, and in this sense it has a long history in English, but the meaning of "number" in modern times has been widened to include one, zero, and even fractions.

So, though the phrase "the same number of apples" is most natural when applied to a whole number greater than one, it is correct to use it with other types of "number". If I have one apple and one orange, I have the same number of apples as oranges because 1 = 1; if I have no apples and no oranges, I have the same number of apples as oranges because 0 = 0; if I have two and a half apples but only two and a quarter oranges, I have about, but not exactly, the same number of apples as oranges.

Context can make a big difference. Shakespeare would never have said your sentence unless he had at least two of each.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> *I have as many bananas as pears* means you don't have fewer bananas but you may have more.


Not to me it doesn't. In that situation I'd expect *I have at least as many bananas as pears.*


----------



## london calling

Thomas, you will have to agree to disagree with me as well.

_I have as many apples as (I have) pears_ to me means I have an equal number of apples and pears. More examples of the same concept:

_My father  has as many brothers (as he has) sisters_ i.e 3+3
_I have as much right to express my opinion as you do _i.e we have equal rights

etc.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

So neither of you could say:* I've as many bananas as pears; in fact, I've got more bananas than pears*?

Is Edinburgh as far from Southampton as London?  Yes, it's certainly as far; it's actually further.

Maybe I was rather strictly brought up.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> So neither of you could say:* I've as many bananas as pears; in fact, I've got more bananas than pears*?


 I certainly could say that, but to my head would have to be being held a gun.  I wouldn't say it voluntarily.


> Is Edinburgh as far from Southampton as London?  Yes, it's certainly as far; it's actually further.


 I would puzzle for ages over whether the question meant "as from London" or "as London is".  If I opted for the former, I would need to decide whether the difference in the distances was significant or negligible, in context.  If significant, I'd say "No, it's quite a bit further".  Otherwise I might say "Yes it is, more or less, but in fact it's a wee bit further".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I continue to be surprised: _as adjective as..._ usually means _no less adjective than_, rather_ than equally adjective to_, doesn't it?

The example given - *my father has as many brothers as he has sisters* - means he has no fewer brothers, not that he necessarily has the same number.

I know there are people who use the expression to mean that the numbers are equal but I think they are using language loosely.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> I continue to be surprised: _..._ usually means _no less adjective than_, rather_ than _, doesn't it?


I find that surprising. Do you have any references?

I always looked on the two 'as's in *as adjective as *as _equally adjective as:_ "He was as rich as Croesus." i.e. He and Croesus possessed the same amount of wealth. 

If we look at _quantifiers_, it is almost as you propose, "As many as 1000 people came." "As few as 60 rhinos remain." In the former case, the maximum is described and in the latter the minimum.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> I continue to be surprised: _as adjective as..._ usually means _no less adjective than_, rather_ than equally adjective to_, doesn't it?


 It doesn't;  I've never knowingly been aware, before now, of anyone using it with your meaning.  Of course you could say that's just my opinion, but WR dictionary agrees in its definition of *as*: "used  correlatively before an adjective or adverb and before a noun phrase or a  clause to indicate *identity of* extent, amount, etc: she is as heavy as her sister,  she is as heavy now as she used to be".


> If we are to accept this, to my mind heterodox, view then the expression 'as bad as, or even worse than...' is illogical.  I couldn't accede to that.


 I don't follow your logic.  If you offer the two alternatives, that "as X as" either means (1) "no less X than" (or equivalently "at least as X as"), or else it means (2) "equally (as) X as" ("to" doesn't do it for me here), then the expression "as bad as, or even worse than" is never illogical, neither in case (1) nor in case (2).
In case (1) it would merely be tautological, in case (2) on the other hand, we would get "equally as bad or worse", which is a perfectly good way of changing the meaning from "equally bad" to "at least as bad".

Incidentally, Fowler condemns the use of "equally as" as an "illiterate tautology" which "should be corrected by [...] using *as* alone."  From this I conclude that he considers "as X as" to imply equal X-ness. The example given: "The opposition are equally as guilty as the government" and the recommended fix is to delete "equally".

To be fair, he does go on to say that where "equally as" is used to signify precise numerical equality (presumably as distinct from approximate equality), then more radical alteration may be needed, even going so far as to delete the adjective in question; the example given is "The expansion ... will be *equally as large* as in the last five years", and the change suggested is to "will be *the same* as in".


----------



## shorty1

Forero said:


> "That of" does not work as a replacement for "number of" or "the number of".
> 
> The sentence in your first post can be corrected by omitting _that of_: _I mean to say I have the same number of apples as oranges._
> 
> Sentence #4 can be corrected by repeating _the number of_: _. The number of bananas I have is equal to the number of pears I have._
> 
> (This would be a good topic for a separate thread.)Yes, "as many" means "the same number of" whether that number is large or small. "As many" is tied to the concept of "number" ("how many") as a quantity just as "as high" is tied to the concept of "height". These terms refer to quantities both great and small.
> 
> Note that "a number of" normally refers to more than one of something, and in this sense it has a long history in English, but the meaning of "number" in modern times has been widened to include one, zero, and even fractions.
> 
> So, though the phrase "the same number of apples" is most natural when applied to a whole number greater than one, it is correct to use it with other types of "number". If I have one apple and one orange, I have the same number of apples as oranges because 1 = 1; if I have no apples and no oranges, I have the same number of apples as oranges because 0 = 0; if I have two and a half apples but only two and a quarter oranges, I have about, but not exactly, the same number of apples as oranges.
> 
> Context can make a big difference. Shakespeare would never have said your sentence unless he had at least two of each.




Thank you so much for your detail explanation and tolerance for my poor English.

Great answer.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> I continue to be surprised: _as adjective as..._ usually means _no less adjective than_, rather_ than equally adjective to_, doesn't it?
> 
> If we are to accept this, to my mind heterodox, view then the expression 'as bad as, or even worse than...' is illogical. I couldn't accede to that.
> 
> The example given - *my father has as many brothers as he has sisters* - means he has no fewer brothers, not that he necessarily has the same number.
> 
> I know there are people who use the expression to mean that the numbers are equal but I think they are using language loosely.




Thomas’ opinion seems to be acceptable in a way for me.
Why would people compare the same number that one person has of two objects?
I think that logic-wise, it could be a contradiction.


----------



## Forero

If I say "I have three apples", it does not have to mean I don't have four. Similarly, I can see someone saying "I have as many apples as oranges" without having to imply they can't have more apples than oranges.

But if I say "I have exactly three apples" or "I have exactly as many apples as oranges", this "wiggle room" disappears. If someone means "exactly" but doesn't say it, I would never say they are using the language loosely. To the contrary, I would say that saying "three" when meaning "four" or "as many as" when meaning "no fewer than" is using the language loosely but, at least in the latter case, not egregiously loosely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Edinburgher said:


> [...]
> I don't follow your logic.


You're right not to.  My mistake: clearly X can be equal to Y, *or* different to Y.  I should have said *and*, because, as clearly, X cannot be equal to Y and different to Y.

You seem near to accepting my point about London and Edinburgh.

Note that I'm not saying that* X is as big as Y* doesn't include the possibility that X and Y are as big as each other - which certainly means they are equal is size - just that it also includes the possibility of X being bigger then Y.  This is where we disagree, I think.

Incidentally, if everyone understood *X is as big as Y* to mean that they were equally big, then we wouldn't need to say *they are as big as each other* to get the idea over, would we?

Suppose you have two sons, Adam (5ft tall) and Bert (4ft tall), and we are asked if Adam is as tall as Bert.  You would answer *No, he's taller*, and I'd answer *Yes, he's taller*.  Would you agree to that?

I remember a similar argument on the forum several years ago: several people agreed with your view, and several with mine.  I'll try to find it.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> You seem near to accepting my point about London and Edinburgh.


 Yes, to a limited extent.  In the absence of further qualification, I would not expect "as ... as" necessarily to indicate exact equality, I'd expect it to indicate they were roughly the same.


> Note that I'm not saying that* X is as big as Y* doesn't include the possibility that X and Y are as big as each other - which certainly means they are equal is size - just that it also includes the possibility of X being bigger then Y.  This is where we disagree, I think.


 Indeed.  For me it would include both the possibilities of X being bigger than Y, and of it being smaller, provided in both cases that the differences were negligible.


> Suppose you have two sons, Adam (5ft tall) and Bert (4ft tall),  and we are asked if Adam is as tall as Bert.  You would answer *No, he's taller*, and I'd answer *Yes, he's taller*.  Would you agree to that?


 Yes, I would agree.  But if Bert were 4ft 11in, I'd be inclined to change my *No* to a qualified *Yes, but he's slightly taller.*


> Incidentally, if everyone understood *X is as big as Y* to mean that they were equally big, then we wouldn't need to say *they are as big as each other* to get the idea over, would we?


 Indeed not, but you make a very interesting point.

I can see how a strict analysis of that construction could lead one to deduce that "as big as" means what you say it means, but this construction feels somewhat untypical.  I would not expect to see it used when merely making a neutral statement that they are equally big.  I find the notion a bit far-fetched that language should borrow from mathematics the concept of "greater or equal", and the result that *X>=Y and Y>=X implies that X=Y*, simply to make a point that two boys are equally tall.  I would buy it as an emphasis, but I imagine there are likelier alternative ways of expressing that emphasis.

A slightly more typical usage would tend to include the word "both", if not explicitly then as an implied elision.  Adam and Bert have been fighting again, and when rebuked they each offer as excuse for their behaviour the claim that the other started it.  "Stop it, you two, you are [both] as bad as each other".  For the analysis of this, I do not require to appeal to the concept of "greater or equal", I view it simply as addressing both culprits in parallel, but intending to convey to each of them individually that "you are [equally] as bad as the other".

Even if "as big as" can take on the meaning of "not smaller than" in this kind of context, that is, if a strict analysis of a particular usage leads to a certain interpretation of the phrase, it is still a leap too far to deduce that this is the strict meaning of the phrase in general.  Words and expressions mean different things in different contexts, and while I might be persuaded to accept your meaning in this symmetrical type of context, I maintain that my meaning is likely to be the more usual in simple comparison contexts.


----------



## london calling

Edinburgher said:


> Even if "as big as" can take on the meaning of "not smaller than" in this kind of context, that is, if a strict analysis of a particular usage leads to a certain interpretation of the phrase, it is still a leap too far to deduce that this is the strict meaning of the phrase in general.  Words and expressions mean different things in different contexts, and while I might be persuaded to accept your meaning in this symmetrical type of context, I maintain that my meaning is likely to be the more usual in simple comparison contexts.


And I agree with you. I also feel it unnecessary to add any more to this interesting thread so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

When you walk from Land's End to John O'Groats, do you go as far as Manchester?  I think you clearly do.

When you drink a 75ml bottle of wine, do you drink as much as a person who drinks a 50ml bottle?  I'd have to say you do, but, in my view, the other person doesn't drink as much as you.

Why should we present this idiom in less than its true colours?


----------



## Edinburgher

Say you're hitch-hiking to John O'Groats.  I've been to Manchester and am driving back home, and I pick you up.  I tell you I can take you as far as Edinburgh.  Surely you would understand that to mean I had no intention of taking you any further than Edinburgh.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> When you walk from Land's End to John O'Groats, do you go as far as Manchester?


But this would make the *"as adj as"* completely useless, On such a walk you go as far as each and every place of habitation and landmark. It would be inconceivable for anyone to ask that question. It would be "Do you pass through Manchester?"

This reminds me of the old chestnut:
A: "How many months have 28 days?"
B: "One, February."
A: "No they all have at least 28 days."

Christmas cracker humour.

He is as tall as John = He is as tall as John is tall = they are the same height.

I have as many apples as oranges = I have as many apples as I have oranges. -> X apples and X oranges.

The essence is to provide information to someone else and as adj. as does this. 



> Why should we present this idiom in less than its true colours?


I wonder. 

Could I ask you again (see #27) if you had any references to support your view?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Edinburgher said:


> Say you're hitch-hiking to John O'Groats.  I've been to Manchester and am driving back home, and I pick you up.  I tell you I can take you as far as Edinburgh.  Surely you would understand that to mean I had no intention of taking you any further than Edinburgh.


Hi Edinburgher,

Thank you for your latest post.

My answer would be "Yes, indeed I would", but I don't see the fact as germane to our discussion.

We are considering whether "I have as many apples as oranges" means necessarily that I have the same number of each (your view, I think), or that the number of apples that I have is at least as many as the number of oranges (my view).  Your view implies a compatibility of the subject statement with "I have as many oranges as apples", something which my view rejects.  I think it's possible for someone to have as many apples as oranges, without having as many oranges as apples.

One key point is that we are making a comparison between the number of apples that I have and the number of oranges that I have.

In your latest question (in post #36) the point of comparison is missing. _ I will take you as far as Edinburgh_ is not making a comparison with how far someone else will take you, yet use of the expression to point a comparison is the issue under discussion.

It's as if you had shifted the point to asking about the meaning of "I have as many as three apples".  This issue doesn't have any direct relevance that I can see to the use of the expression to draw comparisons.

It may be that our views of the meaning of "I have as many as three apples" differ, and that this is at the heart of our disagreement over the other matter.  Do you think that's worth considering?


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> When you walk from Land's End to John O'Groats, do you go as far as Manchester?  I think you clearly do.
> 
> When you drink a 75ml bottle of wine, do you drink as much as a person who drinks a 50ml bottle?  I'd have to say you do, but, in my view, the other person doesn't drink as much as you.
> 
> Why should we present this idiom in less than its true colours?


I think you're pushing it a little in order to try and prove your point, quite honestly. 

Why on earth would you say you go_ as far as Manchester_ if you're going from Land's End to John O'Groats? You'd maybe pass through Manchester. Why say _as far as Manchester_ if it isn't your final destination? And if I were to drink 75ml of wine I wouldn't say I had drunk as much as somone who's only downed 50ml of wine: I'd say I had drunk more that he/she had.

True colours? In whose opinion? I'm not a grammar Nazi, but at this stage I think you're going to have to throw the grammar book at me (and a good one at that, not one of these Mickey Mouse Internet jobs) in order to convince me of what you are attempting to sustain here.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion,





PaulQ said:


> I find that surprising. Do you have any references?





PaulQ said:


> Could I ask you again (see #27) if you had any references to support your view?





london calling said:


> I think you're pushing it a little in order to try and prove your point, quite honestly. [...] at this stage I think you're having to throw the grammar book at me (and a good one at that, not one of these Mickey Mouse Internet jobs) in order to convince me of what you are attempting to sustain here.


Do you have any authorities for your claim?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> I think you're pushing it a little in order to try and prove your point, quite honestly.
> 
> Why on earth would you say you go_ as far as Manchester_ if you're going from Land's End to John O'Groats? You'd maybe pass through Manchester. Why say _as far as Manchester_ if it isn't your final destination? And if I were to drink 75ml of wine I wouldn't say I had drunk as much as somone who's only downed 50ml of wine: I'd say I had drunk more that he/she had.
> 
> True colours? In whose opinion? I'm not a grammar Nazi, but at this stage I think you're going to have to throw the grammar book at me (and a good one at that, not one of these Mickey Mouse Internet jobs) in order to convince me of what you are attempting to sustain here.


Try it this way: if* I have as many apples as oranges* means *I have the same number of apples as oranges* (your view, I think), then does* I don't have as many apples as oranges* mean *I don't have the same number of apples as oranges*?  If so, of which have you fewer? Following your interpretation, the statement is neutral on the point - it's just saying that the numbers are not the same.  Yet everyone knows that *I don't have as many apples as oranges* means that you have fewer apples.  If not, why not? And what does it mean?

By the same token the fact that Everest and Ben Nevis are not the same height can be happily represented, using the 'equality formula' by the obviously untruthful* Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis*.

If you remove the_ a fortiori_ element from the expression, you castrate it severely: I'm mixing my metaphors now; earlier I spoke of 'true colours'.

Don't you think it's possible that there are actually, in common use, two meanings of the expression: a 'hard' meaning which I'm talking about, in which* as many as *means* at least as many as*, and a 'soft' meaning where it means* the same number as*? I suspect I'm as surprised at the refusal of some members to see the obvious nonsenses following from exclusive use of the 'soft' meaning, as others are at my insistence on the existence of the 'hard' one.


----------



## london calling

Thomas, please reference your claims. If you can do that, I will defer to your opinion. Not otherwise.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> Thomas, please reference your claims. If you can do that, I will defer to your opinion. Not otherwise.


I've given you several arguments.  I think you should at least address them.  I'm not asking you to defer to anything, but simply to engage with what I'm saying.  My latest post pointed out one or two obvious nonsenses following from the 'equality formula', yet you didn't respond.  It also suggested that we are arguing from different premises, which would explain why we don't seem to agree.

You see I don't believe that if you'd drunk the 750ml bottle you'd deny that you'd drunk as much as the person who had drunk the 500ml one.  I think we'd both regard that as disingenuous.  As a UK English speaker can you really not be familiar with that usage?


----------



## Loob

TT, I think you're out on a limb here

_Loob is as beautiful as Marilyn Monroe_ means, to me, _Loob and Marilyn Monroe are equal in beauty._ Whereas _Loob is not as beautiful as Marilyn Monroe_ means _Loob is less beautiful than Marilyn Monroe.
_
(The latter is, sadly, the case....)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Loob,

Characteristically you have hit upon the key point.

Let's not be personal, so we'll consider the statement *X is as beautiful as MM*.  If it simply means they are equal in beauty (what I've been calling the 'soft' meaning), how can *X is not as beautiful as MM* mean *X is less beautiful than MM*?  It just means they are not equally beautiful - it's neutral on who is less beautiful.

It's only when you accept the _a fortiori _element, what I've been calling the 'hard' meaning (*as beautiful as* to mean *at least as beautiful as*), that your second statement (*X is not as beautiful as MM*) gives an indication of which is the less beautiful.  

I entirely agree with you that *X is not as beautiful as MM *means* X is less beautiful than MM*.  Your post supports my point most eloquently.

If I'm out on a limb here, you're out here with me.  Why did you post as though we were in disagreement?


----------



## Loob

I think we _do_ disagree, TT.

I see_ as ... as _as implying equality: = rather than ≥ ....


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> We are considering whether "I have as many apples as oranges" means necessarily that I have the same number of each (your view, I think), or that the number of apples that I have is at least as many as the number of oranges (my view).  Your view implies a compatibility of the subject statement with "I have as many oranges as apples", something which my view rejects.  I think it's possible for someone to have as many apples as oranges, without having as many oranges as apples.


 I thought we had gone beyond "necessarily".  The statement can take on either the "your view" meaning or the "my view" meaning depending on context and on, er, well, what the speaker wants it to mean , and on what chance there is that the listener might misunderstand.  It boils down not to which view is correct to the exclusion of the other, for none should be excluded, but to which meaning the plebs are more likely to read into it when they hear it, or to mean when they say it.  What several of us seem to be concluding is that yours is the minority view.  Perhaps that puts you in the elite and makes us plebs.  That's OK, I don't mind being a pleb.


> It may be that our views of the meaning of "I have as many as three apples" differ, and that this is at the heart of our disagreement over the other matter.  Do you think that's worth considering?


 Probably not, because I don't think our views would differ.  But I can't explain why not.   Structurally, "I have as many as three apples" is pretty similar to "I can take you as far as Edinburgh", in the sense that no additional named quantity takes part in the comparison.  On that basis it ought to mean the same as "I have exactly three apples", and yet it doesn't.  Perhaps the verb "have" is part of the problem.  No, "give" or "sell" works the same:  If I were a greengrocer and I had just five apple's left under the counter, and you asked me whether I could sell you as many as three, I'd say that I could; but that might just be because I'd know that I could, indeed, sell you exactly three.  Perhaps the problem is just that "I have as many as three apples" is something no-one would actually ever say, irrespective of whether they had 3 or 4 or 15, they would instead just say how many they had.

Loob's idea introduces a most interesting concept, and you're on a hiding to nothing if think you can defeat it with simple logic.  The notion that the negation of the statement "X is as Y as Z" might not mean the same thing as "X is not as Y as Z" may at first seem absurd, but then so did the notion that you could find a number which, multiplied by itself, would yield a negative answer, before imaginary and complex numbers were discovered (or should that be invented?).  Perhaps we need to invent a similar extra dimension here which could explain the curious property of the "as..as" relation, that putting a "not" in front of it isn't the same as putting one inside it.  Or perhaps it's just too fanciful.  "It means what I want it to mean" is much simpler,


----------



## Wordsmyth

TT, usually I'm a great supporter of logic in language (and sometimes my arguments are met with "Yeah, but it just ain't like that, 'cos it ain't").

Mathematically (without considering Edinburgher's extra dimension), I have to admire your use of the negative "I don't have as many X as Y" (X<Y) to prove that "I have as many X as Y" means X≥Y. However, I have to join the merry gang who disagree with that, simply because I've *never* heard "as many X as Y" used to mean anything other than X=Y. Consider it a sort of linguistic Fermi paradox! — but I really think this is one of those occasions where usage wins over theory. 

Actually we could look at it with a different logic. If "as many X as Y" could mean X≥Y, then why would we need the expressions "at least as many as", "as many as ... or more" and "as many as ..., if not more"? The very existence of these widely used expressions suggests that "as many as" alone means "the same value as".

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> Let's not be personal, so we'll consider the statement *X is as beautiful as MM*.  If it simply means they are equal in beauty (what I've been calling the 'soft' meaning), how can *X is not as beautiful as MM* mean *X is less beautiful than MM*?  It just means they are not equally beautiful - it's neutral on who is less beautiful.


Nobody has disputed the negative version of *as adj. as*.

If we say X is not Y, it doesn’t prevent (i) not-X being Y or, trivially, (ii) X being not-Y. 
However, if we say X is Y, then X = Y.

I cannot see these "hard" and "soft" meanings.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I think we _do_ disagree, TT.
> 
> I see_ as ... as _as implying equality: = rather than ≥ ....


But I'll be surprised if you think it can  imply only equality - how do you get round the Everest paradox?

And you've just shown that it includes the _a fortiori _concept for you, which the 'equality' formula excludes.

I think you are with me on that limb.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

PaulQ said:


> Nobody has disputed the negative version of *as adj. as*.


Nobody has addressed that part of my argument, I think.


PaulQ said:


> If we say X is not Y, it doesn’t prevent (i) not-X being Y or, trivially, (ii) X being not-Y.
> However, if we say X is Y, then X = Y.
> 
> I cannot see these "hard" and "soft" meanings.


We aren't talking about_ X being Y_, but about _X being as adjective as Y_.

How do you get round the Everest paradox, Paul?

If you are going to argue that X is as big as Y means only that X and Y are equally big, how do you understand its negation?  I have given my explanation of what it means, and it would be good to hear how you understand it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Wordsmyth said:


> TT, usually I'm a great supporter of logic in language (and sometimes my arguments are met with "Yeah, but it just ain't like that, 'cos it ain't").
> 
> Mathematically (without considering Edinburgher's extra dimension), I have to admire your use of the negative "I don't have as many X as Y" (X<Y) to prove that "I have as many X as Y" means X≥Y. However, I have to join the merry gang who disagree with that, simply because I've *never* heard "as many X as Y" used to mean anything other than X=Y. Consider it a sort of linguistic Fermi paradox! — but I really think this is one of those occasions where usage wins over theory.
> 
> Actually we could look at it with a different logic. If "as many X as Y" could mean X≥Y, then why would we need the expressions "at least as many as", "as many as ... or more" and "as many as ..., if not more"? The very existence of these widely used expressions suggests that "as many as" alone means "the same value as".
> 
> Ws


Hello Wordsmyth,

Thank you very much for engaging with one of the arguments, but what about one of the others?  If we are to say that* I have as many apples as oranges* means only that the numbers are the same, then it is identical in meaning to* I have as many oranges as apples*.  But the two statements are clearly distinct.

If I have 5 oranges and 10 apples, I have as many apples as oranges but not as many oranges as apples, using the 'hard' meaning.

If you really have only heard the 'soft' meaning, how do you get round the Everest paradox?  I would say that Everest was certainly as high as Ben Nevis, and that it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

ps. Forgive me for not answering your last point.  There are alternative explanations to the one you suggest:

1.  For emphasis.
2.  Because the speaker is conscious that some people don't use the 'hard' meaning, and, therefore, to avoid misunderstanding.
3.  Because some people can't resist the temptation to be pleonastic.


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> I've given you several arguments.  I think you should at least address them.


I did address them initially. You're out on a limb, Thomas. Logic cannot and does not explain everything. And I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that _as...as_ does not mean equality. Are you unable to do so? 

Have you ever heard of comparison of equality? That's what _as...as_ is to grammarians. The opposite is known as comparison of inequality: _not so/as...as_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> I did address them initially. You're out on a limb, Thomas. Logic cannot and does not explain everything. And I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that _as...as_ does not mean equality. Are you unable to do so?
> 
> Have you ever heard of comparison of equality? That's what _as...as_ is to grammarians. The opposite is known as comparison of inequality: _not so/as...as_.


Hello London Calling,

I'm not saying that *as adjective as* does not imply that one of the two objects compared does not share the degree of the quality with the other.  That is, of course, not to say they are necessarily equal.

You must have seen now that I'm not interested in names but in the ideas behind them - people are famous for understanding different things from the same grammatical tag.

I think we mustn't try to take short cuts, but need to continue to discuss things with each other.

For instance, I wish you'd explain to me how you answer the Everest paradox.  Can you really think that Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis?  That seems to me so inadmissible that I think I must have understood your point of view.

Also, are you really saying that *I have as many apples as oranges* means the same as* I have as many oranges as apples?   *That seems to follow from your use of the word equality, yet, for me, that's clearly just wrong.

For me, and, I think, for the millions of native speakers out on the limb with me, the* as adjective as *expression has an incremental element (what I've also called the _a fortiori_ element) which makes* I have not as many apples as oranges* mean NOT just that the numbers of the two fruits are unequal, but that I have fewer apples than oranges.  If you think I am wrong about that, I need persuading, I need to be presented with arguments saying why, and in what particular.  I'm only interested in getting to the truth here.  I have no secondary agenda at all.


----------



## Edinburgher

I think, TT, that the "Everest paradox" exists more in your mind than it does in our minds.  To us, "Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis" is *not necessarily* "obviously untruthful".  It *can* (but need not always) simply mean they are not equally high, and which interpretation should apply will be affected by context, speaker, and listener.

That said, I find Loob's idea illuminating.  It suggests that, if sometimes the "hard" interpretation (>=) and sometimes the "soft" interpretation (=) applies, then the balance between how often these respective opposing interpretations would be made need not match the balance between how often the soft and hard interpretations apply to the negated version.

In other words, *as beautiful as MM* might more often be intended or understood to mean *of beauty equal to MM's* than *of beauty at least equal to MM's*, even though *not as beautiful as MM* might more often be intended or understood to mean *of beauty less than MM's* than *of beauty different from MM's*.  Not every speaker will always intend or understand *not as beautiful as MM* to mean the exact opposite of _*as beautiful as MM*_.  "To be not as beautiful" is not always the same as "not to be as beautiful".  Language defies logic.  Live with it.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> *I have as many bananas as pears* means you don't have fewer bananas but you may have more.
> *I have the same number of bananas as pears* means the number you have of both fruits is the same.


This has sparked a lengthy discussion, but need it be endless? I would suggest there is a way to resolve it, using the distinction between entailment and implicature raised in another thread. 

_Entailment is about the *logically necessary consequence* of a statement._

If we say 'I have as many bananas as pears' does it follow as a logically necessary consequence that I have the same number of both? No, obviously not. If I have a greater number of bananas, it is necessarily true that I possess a number of bananas equal to the number of pears, because we can match them off in a one-to-one correspondence. The fact that there are some bananas left over does not detract from the truth of the statement.

_Implicature is about what a statement *normally, or optionally, means in context*._

When we say 'I have as many bananas as pears' do we normally mean that we have the same number of both? Answer, Yes. Is it possible for this statement to be used in a context which makes it unambiguously clear that the same number is meant? Again, Yes.

Both these points of view and methods of analysis are valid: neither precludes the other.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Edinburgher said:


> I think, TT, that the "Everest paradox" exists more in your mind than it does in our minds.  To us, "Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis" is *not necessarily* "obviously untruthful".  It *can* (but need not always) simply mean they are not equally high, and which interpretation should apply will be affected by context, speaker, and listener.[...]


I'm surprised again, Edinburgher.

Would you happily tell a child that Everest was not as high as Ben Nevis?  If I heard that a teacher had told my child this, I'd go to the school and ask him what he was playing at.

I think the reluctance of so many of the equality-only people to answer the Everest question (_Is Everest as high as Ben Nevis_?) is that it puts them in a bind:

If they answer* No it isn't*, they are being true to their definition but saying something which their linguistic sense tells them is false.  By the same token, if in the witness box you are asked if you've drunk as much as 500 ml of wine and you say *No*, and when questioned admit that you've drunk 750 ml, you are guilty of perjury, and the police would not take your case lightly - you've not used language truly.  This is why I think the matter is important.

If they answer _*Yes, of course it is; it's much higher*_, they are abandoning their definition but using language normally and joining me on the limb.

In the circumstances it's disappointing that you're alone, so far, in facing up to the problem.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ If we are to say that* I have as many apples as oranges* means only that the numbers are the same, then it is identical in meaning to* I have as many oranges as apples*.  But the two statements are clearly distinct. _[...]_


 For me, those two statements are saying the same thing, numerically speaking. The only distinction is the datum for the comparison of equality: 
- (1) "I have X oranges. I have the same number of apples". 
- (2) "I have X apples. I have the same number of oranges".



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ If I have 5 oranges and 10 apples, I have as many apples as oranges but not as many oranges as apples, using the 'hard' meaning. _[...]_


 For that to be true, the 'hard' meaning would have to exist, which isn't supported by the evidence in this thread. Using what everyone else seems to consider as 'the' meaning, I'd rewrite your sentence as "If I have 5 oranges and 10 apples, I have more apples than oranges and not as many oranges as apples".



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ how do you get round the Everest paradox? _[...]_


 Your 'Everest paradox' is a paradox only if you see "not as high as" as being a simple mathematical negation of "as high as", in a world where people don't generally see it that way. 

There are two possible ways of understanding the "not" ...
- Everest is NOT _as-high-as_ Ben Nevis = Everest is NOT _equal in height to_ Ben Nevis.
- Everest is _NOT-as-high_ _as_ Ben Nevis = Everest is _lower than_ Ben Nevis.

In you interpreted "not" as in the first case (the mathematical negation), "Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis" would be perfectly correct.
However, in reality it's the second interpretation that is commonly used. As others have pointed out, "not as high as" is commonly used to mean "lower than". That doesn't mean that "as high as" is commonly used to mean "higher than". (It seems to me, TT, that your main argument is based on that reverse logic being undeniably valid, but the truth is that linguistic usage doesn't follow that logic).



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ I would say that Everest was certainly as high as Ben Nevis, and that it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. _[...]_


  I would say that Everest was certainly higher than Ben Nevis, and that it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ There are alternative explanations to the one you suggest:
> 
> 1. For emphasis.
> 2. Because the speaker is conscious that some people don't use the 'hard' meaning, and, therefore, to avoid misunderstanding.
> 3. Because some people can't resist the temptation to be pleonastic.


 I see Occam's Razor coming into play here!

1 and 2 both suggest, since the terms I mentioned are very widely used, that a majority of people are aware of your 'hard' meaning. The opinions in this thread alone suggest that that's not so.

3 seems somewhat self-fulfilling. If "as many as" means "the same number as", there's no pleonasm. It's unlikely that those very common terms would be invented, or evolve, just to satisfy the desires of some people to be pleonastic.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _ [...]_ For me, and, I think, for the millions of native speakers out on the limb with me, _[...]_


 Now we're really into Fermi territory: "Where are they?" 

Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If you have a child over five, Wordsmyth, ask him or her if Everest is as high as Ben Nevis.  I think you'd only get one answer, if the child could be persuaded it was as serious question.

Thanks for having a go at the paradox.  I think you are stretching language beyond breaking point, of course.

I've been asking myself if there are cases where I would use the 'soft' meaning.  I think low numbers would be necessary. * I have as many brothers as sisters* was suggested earlier; I'd be near to accepting that most people would understand that to mean that the numbers were the same.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ I think the reluctance of so many of the equality-only people to answer the Everest question (_Is Everest as high as Ben Nevis_?) is that it puts them in a bind:
> 
> If they answer* No it isn't*, they are being true to their definition but saying something which their linguistic sense tells them is false. _[...]_
> If they answer _*Yes, of course it is; it's much higher*_, they are abandoning their definition but using language normally and joining me on the limb. _[...] _


 There's no bind, TT. You're overlooking another possible answer, and it's the one I'd naturally use ...

If you asked me "*Is Everest as high as Ben Nevis?*", I'd answer "*No, it's much higher*". I'm not abandoning the definition, and my linguistic sense doesn't tell me at all that I'm saying something false.


Thomas Tompion said:


> If you have a child over five, Wordsmyth, ask him or her if Everest is as high as Ben Nevis. _[...] _


 I do, and I just did. No background explanation, no prompting. I just asked "Is Everest as high as Ben Nevis?" (he knows of Ben Nevis since we walked up the lower slopes). His exact answer was "No. Don't be silly. It's a lot higher!".


Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ I think low numbers would be necessary. *I have as many brothers as sisters* was suggested earlier; I'd be near to accepting that most people would understand that to mean that the numbers were the same.


 5 oranges is a pretty low number (or even 10 apples).

Ws


----------



## Loob

TT, if I've understood you correctly, your argument is:

~_* if* Tom is as tall as John means "Tom is the same height as John", *then* Tom isn't as tall as John must mean "Tom might be shorter than John or he might be taller, but he's just not the same height";_
~ _conversely, *if* Tom isn't as tall as John means "Tom is shorter than John", *then* Tom is as tall as John must mean "Tom might be the same height as John or he might be taller, but he's just not shorter".
_
I can see the logic, but all I can say is that it doesn't reflect my usage.  For me, it is true that _Tom is as tall as John_ means "Tom is the same height as John" and it is also true that _Tom isn't as tall as John_ means "Tom is shorter than John".

This may indeed be paradoxical, but it's how things work for me.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Nicely put, Loob. I really must practise explaining things as concisely as that.

I've been trying (in my mind) to reconcile the language usage aspect with the arithmetic logic. I see it like this:

- The answer is 42 ......................... X = 42
- The answer is as high as 42 ........... X = 42 and that's high (/ surprisingly high / more than was expected)
- The answer may be as high as 42 .... X ≤ 42  
- The answer is not as high as 42 ...... X < 42
- The answer is not 42 .................... X ≠ 42

I believe those mathematical definitions would correspond (in anyone's book) to the normally understood meanings of the words — and *not one of them represents a value higher than 42*. I can't see anyone using the second one ("is as high as 42") to include values above 42. For that, you'd need a different sentence:
- The answer is higher than 42 ......... X > 42

So if "The answer is as high as 42" doesn't allow for the answer to be higher than 42, then I don't see why "Everest is as high as Ben Nevis" should allow for Everest being higher than Ben Nevis, or why "Tom is as tall as John" should allow for Tom being taller than John" — or why "I have as many apples as oranges" should allow for there being more apples than oranges.

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Loob,
> 
> Characteristically you have hit upon the key point.
> 
> Let's not be personal, so we'll consider the statement *X is as beautiful as MM*.  If it simply means they are equal in beauty (what I've been calling the 'soft' meaning), how can *X is not as beautiful as MM* mean *X is less beautiful than MM*?  It just means they are not equally beautiful - it's neutral on who is less beautiful.
> 
> It's only when you accept the _a fortiori _element, what I've been calling the 'hard' meaning (*as beautiful as* to mean *at least as beautiful as*), that your second statement (*X is not as beautiful as MM*) gives an indication of which is the less beautiful.
> 
> I entirely agree with you that *X is not as beautiful as MM *means* X is less beautiful than MM*.  Your post supports my point most eloquently.
> 
> If I'm out on a limb here, you're out here with me.  Why did you post as though we were in disagreement?



You are not as smart as I thought you were


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> TT, if I've understood you correctly, your argument is:
> 
> ~_* if* Tom is as tall as John means "Tom is the same height as John", *then* Tom isn't as tall as John must mean "Tom might be shorter than John or he might be taller, but he's just not the same height";_
> ~ _conversely, *if* Tom isn't as tall as John means "Tom is shorter than John", *then* Tom is as tall as John must mean "Tom might be the same height as John or he might be taller, but he's just not shorter".
> _
> I can see the logic, but all I can say is that it doesn't reflect my usage.  For me, it is true that _Tom is as tall as John_ means "Tom is the same height as John" and it is also true that _Tom isn't as tall as John_ means "Tom is shorter than John".
> 
> This may indeed be paradoxical, but it's how things work for me.


That's it, Loob.

We agree that *Tom isn't as tall as John* means that Tom is shorter.  So it matters who is as tall as whom: *T isn't as tall as J* isn't saying the same thing as *J isn't as tall as T*.

It was the fact that you agreed with me on this point which made me say earlier that you were out on the limb with me.

If *T is as tall as J* only meant that they were equal in height, then it wouldn't matter who was as tall as whom, but, as we've just agreed, it does matter, so the sentence can't only mean that they are equal in height.  That's the issue which the 'equal-only' school needs to explain.

I'm glad you agree that your view is paradoxical.  I don't know how you set about living with the paradox.  My suggestion would be that you are simultaneously using the 'hard' and 'soft' meanings.

I suppose many people take the obvious way out, and that keeps them out of trouble with the police, for instance, by stopping them from denying they've drunk as much as 500ml when they've drunk 750ml.  After all that is a classic _a fortiori _argument.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> Nobody has addressed that part of my argument, I think.
> 
> We aren't talking about_ X being Y_, but about _X being as adjective as Y_.


I can see why you might think that but, in fact we _*are *_saying that X = Y *in a particular attribute.* The fact that we restrict our comparison makes no difference to the logic.





> How do you get round the Everest paradox, Paul?


It is not a paradox. 





> *You:* By the same token the fact that Everest and Ben Nevis are not the same height can be happily represented, using the 'equality formula' by the obviously untruthful *Everest is not as high as Ben Nevis*.


 It is not “untruthful”, it is misusing words. You start by saying not the same height but you then change it to “high” You really meant to say, *“Everest is  not the same height as Ben Nevis.”* with which we will all agree. “Not the same height” and “high” are not the same. 





> If you are going to argue that X is as big as Y means only that X and Y are equally big, how do you understand its negation? I have given my explanation of what it means, and it would be good to hear how you understand it.


You will find my answer to the negation at #49


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ If *T is as tall as J* (or vice versa) only meant that they were equal in height, then it wouldn't matter who was or wasn't as tall as whom.  That's the issue which the 'equal-only' school needs to explain. _[...]_


 I'd say it's already been explained (in my #58 amongst others). If you mean that which way round you say it doesn't affect the height comparison, then we agree:
 "T is as tall as J" and "J is as tall as T" are both saying that they're the same height. What *is* different between the two sentences is that in the first one J is the reference (the control case) and T's height is being measured against it. Consider "T has grown a lot lately. He's as tall as J now". Whereas in the second case, T's height is the reference and J's is measured against it. So from both a linguistic and a logical point of view, it can matter which way round you say it.

By my count, in this discussion the 'equal-only (in the affirmative statement)' school numbers six people, whereas the 'equal-or-more' school contains one.
So would you say, TT, that the 'equal-only' school has as many members as the 'equal-or-more' school (when in fact it has six times the number)*? *
Actually there's another problem there, because the plural "members" can't apply to one member, but even if it were 6 to 2, I still wouldn't say that the group with six has as many as the group with two.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _I'm glad you agree that your view is paradoxical._ [...]_


 That sounds like an insurance salesman's 'close'. Loob actually said "This may indeed be paradoxical". Where I come from, "may" doesn't mean "is": in this kind of construction it indicates a non-committal point of view. If you look back to my comments about "not as-high-as" and "not-as-high as", you'll see that there doesn't have to be a paradox.

Ws


----------



## RM1(SS)

Thomas Tompion said:


> If *T is as tall as J* only meant that they were equal in height, then it wouldn't matter who was as tall as whom, but, as we've just agreed, it does matter, so the sentence can't only mean that they are equal in height.  That's the issue which the 'equal-only' school needs to explain.
> 
> I'm glad you agree that your view is paradoxical.  I don't know how you set about living with the paradox.



There is no paradox, because *T is not as tall as J* (= *T is shorter than J*) and *T is as tall is J* are not the only options.  There is also *T is taller than J*.



Wordsmyth said:


> By my count, in this discussion the 'equal-only (in the affirmative statement)' school numbers six people



Make that seven.


----------



## Wordsmyth

RM1(SS) said:


> _[...] _There is also *T is taller than J*. _[...]
> _
> Make that seven.


 Welcome, member number 7. And thanks, RM1, for reinforcing my #62:


Wordsmyth said:


> _[...] _I can't see anyone using the second one ("is as high as 42") to include values above 42. For that, you'd need a different sentence:
> - The answer *is higher than* 42 ......... X > 42 _[...] _



Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Wordsmyth,

I'm interested in your son's answer to that question.  How do you think he would react to the suggestion that he was not as old as his younger brother or sister?

And how would you answer the following questions in the witness box? - Counsel has enjoined you to answer yes or no:

The fact is that you drank a 750 ml bottle of wine.

1.  Did you drink as much as 1000 ml?
2.  Did you drink as much as 500 ml?


----------



## Ёж!

What a thread…

Hi, Thomas, how do you consider this statement: the negation in language is not the same as the mathematical (Boolean) negation. That is, if I have an expression "X does Y", encoded by the proposition "A", then it does not follow that "X does not Y" can be reasonably encoded by the proposition "not A". _Non sequitur_. Why do you think it must follow? Language does not have to always listen to Boole.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ёж! said:


> What a thread…
> 
> Hi, Thomas, how do you consider this statement: the negation in language is not the same as the mathematical (Boolean) negation. That is, if I have an expression "X does Y", encoded by the proposition "A", then it does not follow that "X does not Y" can be reasonably encoded by the proposition "not A". _Non sequitur_. Why do you think it must follow? Language does not have to always listen to Boole.


Hi Ёж! and Welcome!

I'll answer your question when you say how you'd answer those two questions in the witness box.  As you may have gathered, I'm keen to keep things simple.


----------



## Ёж!

In the witness box, I'm afraid I'd ask for a translator.  Outside it, and if not _really_ forced to reply either yes or no, then I'd say _no_ to both. And if I was forced, then I'd say _yes_ to the second.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ёж! said:


> In the witness box, I'm afraid I'd ask for a translator. Outside it, and if not _really_ forced to reply either yes or no, then I'd say _no_ to both. And if I was forced, then I'd say _yes_ to the second.


Thank you.

You are forced by your moral and civic obligation to tell the truth.

The answer to your question is that I wouldn't consider it in this thread, because it's a general question, and couched in academic language.

We are trying to give advice to learners on the way this expression is used in English.


----------



## Ёж!

The fact is that such conditions don't seem to leave me chance to tell the truth precisely, that is, they make me lie whatever answer I choose. The question is which answer is the lesser lie, and which answer is which kind of lie. This is why I would not answer this question _in English_ in the witness box: I would not know which lie is lesser in the specific situation…


----------



## Thomas Tompion

That's interesting, Ёж!.

The fact is that people are asked such questions in the witness box, and are expected to understand expressions like 'as much as 500ml', and there are severe penalties for lying under such circumstances.

I'm only interested here in how we use this expression, and that means giving what would be regarded as the truthful answer in the witness box in these circumstances.


----------



## Ёж!

I think the witness box can make a special kind of context for such expressions, different from other contexts. Here we have the word, 'context'! 
Anyway: I cannot, as I note, tell anything of English idiomatical usage, that's right, but you gave a reasoning in support for the use of expressions with the word 'as', that you find to be the right use but other people didn't agree with you, and I meant to say that your resoning appears to be false, so it does not count by itself.


----------



## london calling

I tried the Everest question on my son as well. His answer (in Italian, as is often his wont) was _Mum, are you becoming senile or something_? And he's only got older sisters, so that's that as far as the other suggestion you mention.

Thomas, I find your witness box questions decidedly forced (and unnatural to boot), quite apart from the fact this is also a different usage of _as...as_. This is not comparison of equality (= I drank as much beer as John on Friday evening, i.e. I drank the same amount of beer as John). Here _as much as_ means 'up to', it is not a comparison, which is what we have been talking about up to now.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you, London Calling.  I'm amused at the boy's reaction.  

Try him on something less extreme, such as whether or not the younger of his sisters is as old as he is.  I can see that he may be sensitised to the whole matter now, so you may have to wait a year or two.

I'm sorry you won't have a go at the witness box example.  People are regularly asked such questions in the witness box, and we both know, I think, what the truthful answer to the second question would have to be, and what would seem to follow.


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> Try him on something less extreme, such as whether or not the younger of his sisters is as old as he is.  I can see that he may be sensitised to the whole matter now, so you may have to wait a year or two. *I'd get a similar reaction to that question as well: he's 20 years old, not 8 or 9.*
> 
> I'm sorry you won't have a go at the witness box example.  People are regularly asked such questions in the witness box, and we both know, I think, what the truthful answer to the second question would have to be, and what would seem to follow.


From a purely logical viewpoint (and solely as an academic exercise) I'll have a go at answering your witness box questions.  I am however still persuaded  that a) this is a different usage of _as...as_ (here it means "up to a certain amount" and that b) both questions as put by you are unnatural. I would also qualify my replies.

1. Did you drink as much as 1000 ml? _No, I drank less_
2. Did you drink as much as 500 ml? _No, I drank more_


----------



## Ёж!

By the way, just out of curiousity: can the answer depend on intonation? I mean either the stress on "did" or the stress on "as much as".


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Wordsmyth,
> 
> I'm interested in your son's answer to that question.  How do you think he would react to the suggestion that he was not as old as his younger brother or sister?
> 
> And how would you answer the following questions in the witness box? - Counsel has enjoined you to answer yes or no:
> 
> The fact is that you drank a 750 ml bottle of wine.
> 
> 1.  Did you drink as much as 1000 ml?
> 2.  Did you drink as much as 500 ml?



As I explained:



PaulQ said:


> I find that surprising. Do you have any references?
> 
> I always looked on the two 'as's in *as adjective as *as _equally adjective as:_ "He was as rich as Croesus." i.e. He and Croesus possessed the same amount of wealth.
> 
> If we look at *quantifiers*, [my emphasis] it is almost as you propose, "As many as 1000 people came." "As few as 60 rhinos remain." In the former case, the maximum is described and in the latter the minimum.


The distinction between adjectives and quantifiers is there to be made.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> From a purely logical viewpoint (and solely as an academic exercise) I'll have a go at answering your witness box questions.  I am however still persuaded  that a) this is a different usage of _as...as_ (here it means "up to a certain amount" and that b) both questions as put by you are unnatural. I would also qualify my replies.
> 
> 1. Did you drink as much as 1000 ml? _No, I drank less_
> 2. Did you drink as much as 500 ml? _No, I drank more_


You've broken Counsel's rules, of course.

I'm a nature photographer (I'm not joking), and yesterday found 20 examples of _Ophrys lutea_, the rare Yellow Orchid.  Did I find 3?  Certainly I found 3; in finding 20 I found 3.

Would you accept that reasoning?  If so, why not the other?


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> And how would you answer the following questions in the witness box?


 If opposing counsel failed to interrupt with the objection that the question is poorly-phrased and ambiguous, and if I were forced to give unqualified one-word yes-or-no answers (which is unthinkable, by the way), I would have no qualms about answering No to both.  I would be 100% confident that there would be no chance of a perjury conviction, because the prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I knowingly told an untruth.  For that to succeed, they would need to prove that at that particular moment in the box I had understood "as much as" to mean "at least as much as".  That they could not do.

You mentioned earlier, TT, that if your child had been taught that "as much as" does not mean the same as what you believe it means, you would go round to the school asking them what they were playing at.  But of course your quiet word with the teacher would turn into an argument because your differences would be irreconcilable.  "We'd better take it to the headmaster" one of you would be bound to suggest sooner or later, to which the other would happily agree.  As you entered the head's office, the teacher might whisper to the secretary:  "Looks like we've got a troublemaker here, you'd best send for the police".  Anyway, you would look a fool trying to make your point by simply asserting that it means what you belive it to mean because, well, because you believe it.  So naturally you would have had the foresight to come armed with evidence which shows conclusively that your interpretation is either the only correct one or that the opposing view is held by only a niche minority of seven.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## Ёж!

Thomas Tompion said:
			
		

> I'm a nature photographer (I'm not joking), and yesterday found 20 examples of _Ophrys lutea_, the rare Yellow Orchid.  Did I find 3?  Certainly I found 3; in finding 20 I found 3.
> 
> Would you accept that reasoning?  If so, why not the other?


Yes, you found three, but do you have reasons to say that you found three? Is it not like saying that people on Mars don't watch television when you really mean there's nobody there?


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> You've broken Counsel's rules, of course.


And you seem to have broken the rule about a lawyer defending himself. 



> yesterday found 20 examples of _Ophrys lutea_, the rare Yellow Orchid.  Did I find 3?


No, you found 20. You have just told us that.

PaulQ: "Yesterday I went looking for _Ophrys lutea."
_TomT: "Did you find three?"
PaulQ(i), "Not only did I find three, but I found 17 further specimens!" 
PaulQ: "No. I found 20." 
PaulQ(ii): "Yes." 

(i) The idea of language is to communicate accurately. (ii) The idea of "Counsel has enjoined you to answer yes or no:" is unreal and should not be done. We have to admit that there are some questions that are badly phrase and/or cannot be answered with a yes or no.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

A philosopher friend once told me that some people had trouble accepting _a fortiori_ arguments.  I didn't believe him until now.


----------



## Ёж!

I think we should not mix life and logic. In life, a person is not going to make every claim that is true, and is not expected to, we're not computers or logical machines. Instead, a person is expected to say things only for a certain reason of telling something or doing something — for example, telling how many books he or she sold, or whether he or she was able to accomlish a certain task of selling so much books, and why. We don't make universally valid statements, that's not the way communication works, we tell things of situations. No logic, life only. No truths.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> A philosopher friend once told me that some people had trouble accepting _a fortiori_ arguments.  I didn't believe him until now.


He was probably speaking about real arguments with real evidence. As it stands, TT, I can't quite see that you have established that *X is as <attribute> as Y* means anything other than* "When comparing the particular attribute of X and the same attribute of Y, we find them to be equal."*


----------



## wandle

We do not have to choose between life and logic. 

Normal everyday communication does not depend upon a strict logical interpretation of what we say. That would not be possible in practice.
On the other hand, there are times when we do need to use logic and observe the strict consequences of a statement.

Both aspects are important. To say 'I found twenty orchids' entails logically that I found three. By the same token, 'I found three orchids' does not exclude that I found twenty. These are examples of entailment and non-entailment. This is a matter of logic and is not disputable in terms of such analysis.

However, in normal conversation the statement 'I found twenty orchids' and the statement 'I found three orchids' convey two different messages, which are perfectly clear and we accept them and move on. That is what is meant by 'implicature': the message conveyed in practice by an utterance in its context.

Both these ways of looking at the matter are valid.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hi TT,

This thread is starting to bring to mind expressions involving flogging dead horses and dogs worrying bones. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _We are trying to give advice to learners on the way this expression is used in English.


I think by now that the OP and any other readers will have worked out that almost all the contributors to the discussion understand "as many apples as oranges" to mean "the same number of apples as oranges" — and that one person thinks otherwise.

 However, you've asked more questions, so I'll answer them — even though my answers will echo the views so eloquently put by others (particularly london calling's #77 and #79, Edinburgher's #83 and Paul's #85)



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _I'm interested in your son's answer to that question. How do you think he would react to the suggestion that he was not as old as his younger brother or sister? _[...] _


 No idea, he doesn't have one.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _And how would you answer the following questions in the witness box? - Counsel has enjoined you to answer yes or no:
> 
> The fact is that you drank a 750 ml bottle of wine.
> 
> 1. Did you drink as much as 1000 ml?
> 2. Did you drink as much as 500 ml?



First I have to say (to you, not to Counsel) that this example has no bearing on the "as many apples as oranges" question, because ...

(a) it's not at all the same construction; in your example "as much as" could be omitted without fundamentally changing the meaning: "Did you drink 1000 ml?". The "as much as" just indicates to me that the questioner thinks that 1000ml is quite a lot. In the "as many X as Y" case, omitting "as many ... as" would produce nonsense: "I have apples oranges".

(b) the question relates to the past; I could perfectly correctly reply "Yes" to "Did you drink as much as 500 ml?" (with "as much as" meaning 'an amount equal to'), because I did drink 500 ml. I then drank a further 250 ml. That doesn't apply to the apples-and-oranges case, in which "I have" relates to a given moment (now).

So now back to the courtroom ...

Bullying a witness (or the accused) is not allowed. Counsel may enjoin me to answer yes or no, but if I cannot accurately answer by 'yes' or 'no', I can request permission to answer with a sentence. It would be "I drank 750 ml". 

If the trial were an Alice-esque affair, with the judge insisting that I answer yes or no (between demented cries of "Off with his head"), I might answer "Yes" to the 500 ml question (for reason (b) above). I might equally ask for the question to be rephrased to avoid misunderstanding; and if challenged as to why, I might explain that whilst most people would understand "as much as" to mean "the amount of", I have come across one person in the world who thinks otherwise, and that I can't overlook the possibility that there may be two such people, and that the second one might be present in the court.

Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

So we really have here people who think one can drink 750 mil without drinking 500 ml.  I wonder how they think this feat can be achieved.

If one thinks it possible, then I don't see how one can understand the expression we are discussing, because the expression_ as many as_ involves application of the _a fortiori_ principle.  Let me explain why:

Suppose coming back from finding my 20 Yellow Orchids yesterday, I had met a friend who bet me 10 euros I hadn't found_ *as many*_ Yellow Orchids *as* he had.

He had found 3 and I had found 20.  The equal-only school would say they couldn't tell who had won the bet because for them 20 is not as many as 3, and 3 not as many as 20.

In a normal world I win my bet, because 3 is not as many as 20.


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> Suppose coming back from finding my 20 Yellow Orchids yesterday, I had met a friend who bet me 10 euros I hadn't found_ *as many*_ Yellow Orchids *as* he had.
> 
> The equal-only school would say they couldn't tell because for them 20 is not as many as 3, and 3 not as many as 20..


Rubbish, Thomas, of course we wouldn't say that.

The negative construction _not as...as _is not a comparison of equality, as I believe I mentioned above somewhere (can't remember where...all those dead horses obscure the view), it is merely a comparison. In negative sentences such as this it is perfectly obvious that you are comparing amounts and that one amount is necessarily bigger/smaller than the other. Call it a comparison of inequality, if you will.

'Nuff said, at least as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> So we really have here people who think one can drink 750 mil without drinking 500 ml.


 Not so. These people merely think that "did you drink as much as 500ml" means "is 500ml the amount that you drank".


> Suppose coming back from finding my 20 Yellow Orchids yesterday, I had met a friend who bet me 10 euros I hadn't found_ *as many*_ Yellow Orchids *as* he had.
> He had found 3 and I had found 20.  The equal-only school would say they couldn't tell because for them 20 is not as many as 3, and 3 not as many as 20.


 This is confused by the negation.  In this case "that I had*n't* found *as many* orchids as he" should be taken to mean "that I had found *not as many* orchids as he".  That, in turn, we are all agreed (I think), means that you had found fewer orchids than he.  You'd still win your bet, but by different reasoning.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> Rubbish, Thomas, of course we wouldn't say that.[...]


It seems to me on a par with many things that have been said by the equal-only school.  It would be easy but invidious to give examples.

My example of the bet was really to discover whether some of them were as unclear about how the expression is used as they seem.

I'm glad we are agreed it's rubbish.  I was only pointing out the logical consequence of refusing to admit that 20 is as many as 3.

So you at least, London Calling, would admit that in finding 20 I had found as many as my friend?


----------



## london calling

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm glad we are agreed it's rubbish.  I was only pointing out the logical consequence of refusing to admit that 20 is as many as 3.


I didn't mean that, Thomas. I meant this:

'The equal-only school would say they couldn't tell because for them 20 is not as many as 3, and 3 not as many as 20'.

Of course we can tell. _ I hadn't found__ *as many* Yellow Orchids *as he *_means that you found fewer orchids than he and he found more orchids than you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm interested in your reluctance to admit that my 20 is as many as the 3 he found.  Haven't I found as many as he has, and he not as many as I have?  It's that which makes me win the bet.


----------



## PaulQ

It may be that the rest of us are interested in your reluctance to see that 20 is not the same as three and the "cunning wheeze" you used to win the bet is unlikely to be seen as gaining you friends or inducing a better and more accurate understanding of English.


----------



## Wordsmyth

.
TT, I don't think that finding other examples of the points we've already addressed will make any of us change our minds. I fully agree with Edinburgher's reply ... 





Edinburgher said:


> _[...] _In this case "that I had*n't* found *as many* orchids as he" should be taken to mean "that I had found *not as many* orchids as he".  That, in turn, we are all agreed (I think), means that you had found fewer orchids than he._  [...] _


... Well of course I agree, because it's another instance of my point about "not as-high-as" and "not-as-high as" (#58), which was when we were talking about Everest, and which I cited again in #66 when we were talking about Tom and John. Now it's orchids, but that doesn't change anything.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _So you at least, London Calling, would admit that in finding 20 I had found as many as my friend?


 Again this is no different from the many other similar examples in previous posts. Asked whether you had found as many as your friend, I guess you would reply "Yes". Then, if I knew that he had found three, I would naturally assume you had also found three (and only three)! Being proud of your 20 orchids, you might actually answer (breaking Counsel's enjoinder? ) "Yes, in fact I found 17 more", where we would say "No, I found 17 more" — but this has all been said before.

Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Wordsmyth,

So you're saying that in finding 20, I've not found 3?  People's reluctance to admit that has rather damaged my opinion of various things.  People seem very reluctant to answer this question simply.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...]_ So you're saying that in finding 20, I've not found 3?
> _[...] _People seem very reluctant to answer this question simply.


 No, I'm not saying that. I don't see any "as many as" in that sentence. But let me answer the question simply. Imagine that your friend finds his three first. Then you find one. At that moment you have less than him. You find a second: you still have less than him. You find a third: now (at this moment, not before, not after) you have as many as him. Then a fourth: now you have more than him, etc, etc. 

There, I don't think I could have made it simpler than that. Actually there were simple answers around pages 1 and 2, but they didn't seem to suffice.

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas T,

I have this idea… you lend me £1,000 and, within the day, I will repay you as much as you lent me. Of course, hoisting you with your own petard, you will receive £10 in total and we can call it quits.

I can see the court scene:

Judge: “Mr TT, do you agree that PaulQ repaid as much as you lent him – answer yes or no!”
“Yes.”
Judge: “Case dismissed!”


----------



## Nunty

This is one of those threads that are like the ring in the riddle songs: it has no end. It's gone for a pleasant one hundred posts, but all good things must eventually come to an end.

As has this thread.

Thank you, everyone.

Nunty, moderator


----------

