up to more than one hundred million US dollars

[GoodTaste]

Is the phrase "up to more than one hundred million US dollars" natural in English?

=============
With the rapid development of economy and legal system in China, some people are still very guillable. A governor of a province was recently arrested for taking bribes up to more than one hundred million US dollars. Some hailed it as a great achievement of anticorruption by the government. What they are unaware of is that the monitoring system must have been incompetent, even corrupted itself. Because a healthy monitoring system should have been able to detect the bribes at sum of only 50,000 USD or less. Detecting it at the sum of 100 million USD is in fact a laughing stick, a ruthless ridicule for economic police of this country.

Source: English writing practice by me.

 

[SoothingDave]

No. "Up to" should be a specific number not a "more than."

 

[Tdol]

It's a bit odd- it suggests that the governor wouldn't take a higher bribe.

 

[GoodTaste]

OK. Delete "up to". Any edit will be appreciated:

With the rapid development of economy and legal system in China, some people are still very guillable. A governor of a province was recently arrested for taking bribes more than one hundred million US dollars. Some hailed it as a great achievement of anticorruption by the government. What they are unaware of is that the monitoring system must have been incompetent, even corrupted itself. Because a healthy monitoring system should have been able to detect the bribes at sum of only 50,000 USD or less. Detecting it at the sum of 100 million USD is in fact a laughing stick, a ruthless ridicule for economic police of this country.

 

[GoesStation]

Check the spelling of every word.

Check every expression.

Review every noun to see if it needs an article or other determiner.

Remove every adverb.

 

[bubbha]

Using mathematical symbols, "up to" is "<=" and "more than" is ">". So "up to more than" would mean "less than, equal to, or greater than", which is meaningless.

 

[tzfujimino]

Perhaps it should have been "... bribes worth more than ..."

 

[GoodTaste]

Perhaps it should have been "... bribes worth more than ..."

The word worth appears to be unnecessary to me.

But let's see what native English speakers will reply.


Another question:

Which is more natural? "ruthless ridicule for economic police" or "ruthless ridicule to economic police"?

Detecting it at the sum of 100 million USD is in fact a laughing stick, a ruthless ridicule for economic police of this country.

 

[GoesStation]

The word worth appears to be unnecessary to me.

But let's see what native English speakers will reply.


Another question:

Which is more natural? "ruthless ridicule for economic police" or "ruthless ridicule to economic police"?

You can say bribes of up to some amount of money.

I think your second phrase is meant to be ruthless ridicule of the government's economic policy.

 

[SoothingDave]

Was he offered more than $100 million in one transaction? It's not clear. Whether that's total or not seems important. Maybe "taking bribes totaling more than $100 million."

 

[GoodTaste]

You can say bribes of up to some amount of money.

I think your second phrase is meant to be ruthless ridicule of the government's economic policy.

No. Police who monitors and cracks down on economic crimes.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's natural. It means the bribes might have added up to more or less than a hundred million. You're not sure. Maybe they did, maybe not.

The words up to tell us you're stating the highest possible figure. Up to how much? Up to over a hundred million.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Is the phrase "up to more than one hundred million US dollars" natural in English?

=============
With the rapid development of economy and legal system in China, some people are still very gullable. A governor of a province was recently arrested for taking bribes of up to more than one hundred million US dollars. Some hailed it as a great achievement of anticorruption by the government. What they are unaware of is that the monitoring system must have been incompetent, even corrupt itself, because a healthy monitoring system should have been able to detect the bribes at sum of only $50,000 US or less. Detecting it at the sum of $100 million US is in fact a joke, [a ruthless ridicule for economic police Huh?] of this country.

Source: English writing practice by me.

It's natural. It means you're not sure whether the total is more or less than a hundred million. The phrase up to tells us that's the most it might have been.

The words "laughing stick" and "ruthless ridicule for economic police" are meaningless in English. Laughing stick must mean joke, right? Can you explain "a ruthless ridicule for economic police"?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

GoodTaste, you hit the Like button, but you didn't answer my questions. Can you tell us more about what you mean?

 

[GoodTaste]

The words "laughing stick" and "ruthless ridicule for economic police" are meaningless in English. Laughing stick must mean joke, right? Can you explain "a ruthless ridicule for economic police"?

I hit the button on my vivo phone, which was inconvenient to type.

The economic police in China are the police specialized on economic crimes. They guard governmental money and properties. Suppose a thief stole $10,000 US from an office of a municipal government, the E police investigates it for 3 days and catches the thief. That is good. But if the police fails to catch the thief in 3 months, people would begin to laugh at the police. Now suppose that every mouth in a year in a row, the government has been stolen $1 million US in average and the police still has no clue who has stolen the money. People start to ridicule the incompentence of the E police, and the ridicule is so sharp and ruthless as to call for the government to indict the police for possible corruption (the police might be bribed by the thief or, the police is the thief itself. I describe such ridicules as "ruthless ridicule")

 

[GoesStation]

"Ruthless" doesn't work well. How about biting?

 

[GoodTaste]

"Ruthless" doesn't work well. How about biting?

I don't understand you. "Ruthless ridicule" appears to be widely used:

1) The best friendships aren’t built on the basics of sacrifice, nah, they’re built on a foundation of constant unrelenting slander and ruthless ridicule. Are they even your friends if you can’t throw funny jabs at them when they act stupid or when you see their ugly faces floating across from the other side of the […]


2) The untold truth of Monica Lewinsky
https://www.thelist.com/111566/monica-lewinsky-untold-truth
Mar 01, 2018 · In an academic paper written in 2015, a student named Blake Dean explored the "deficit of empathy" in society that made the ruthless ridicule of Prynne and Lewinsky possible.


Biting ridicule, while it works, it doesn't seem as vivid as ruthless ridicule which is an alliteration.

Does "merciless mockery" work there?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't understand you. "Ruthless ridicule" appears to be widely used . . . . Does "merciless mockery" work there?

Okay, I see now. Thanks!

I didn't mean the phrase can't exist. I just don't get it — not if the joke is on the police. Merciless mockery has the same problem. Yes, they'll be subject to ridicule and mockery, but that's not what your sentence says.

I'd say something like:

- a slap in the face for the police.
- a grave oversight for the police.
- a scandal for the police.
- a painful lesson for the police.
- an embarrassment for the police.

It can be an embarrassment for the police. And people can ridicule the police.

See the difference? Embarrassment is what the police should feel, ridicule is what other people inflict on them. Because people ridicule them, the police are now a laughing stock. (Not a laughing stick.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Compare:
(1) a ruthless ridicule for economic police :cross:
(2) the ruthless ridicule of Prynne and Lewinsky :tick:

(1) doesn't work and (2) works. So I guess if (1) were written as "a ruthless ridicule of economic police", does it work? (Using "of" itself has problem: a ridicule of A can either mean "a ridicule against A" or "A's ridicule (against someone else)."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Compare:
(1) a ruthless ridicule for economic police :cross:
(2) the ruthless ridicule of Prynne and Lewinsky :tick:

(1) doesn't work and (2) works. So [STRIKE]I guess[/STRIKE] if (1) were written as "a ruthless ridicule of economic police", does it work?

It makes more sense. I still doubt you mean ruthless. Ruthless people are evil. Are evil people ridiculing the police?

Look it up again. Also:

- biting
- public
- relentless
- savage
- universal
- widespread

(Using "of" itself has problem: a ridicule of A can either mean "a ridicule against A" or "A's ridicule (against someone else)."

You're getting there.