[Grammar] twice as often

[Kotfor]

What does "twice as often" mean? For example.

Please, pay him your visits twice as often.

Does it mean:

1) two times less frequently
2) two times more frequently

 

[Grumpy]

It means two times more frequently. In other words, if you used to visit him three times a week, you are being asked to visit him six times a week.

 

[Kotfor]

So, if I want to say the opposite I should say "twice as rare", right?

 

[Grumpy]

No. Say "less often" or - more precisely - "half as often".

 

[emsr2d2]

"Pay him your visits" isn't natural for me.

"Pay him a visit twice/half as often".

 

[MikeNewYork]

Also, "visit him twice/half as often".

 

[MikeNewYork]

It means two times more frequently. In other words, if you used to visit him three times a week, you are being asked to visit him six times a week.

Technically, "two times more" is not the same as "twice as much".

"Twice as much as" = 2 times the base. If the base is 3, it is 6
"Two times more than" means 2 times the base plus the base. If the base is 3, it is 9.

That said, usage of the two forms is often meant to be the same.

 

[Raymott]

That said, usage of the two forms is often meant to be the same.

Yes; to be specific "two times more" is often used for "twice as much", not vice versa.
I think that battle's been lost. If only we could draw the line at "two times less", which apparently means "half as much" to some people.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm the first to admit I was rubbish at maths at school but if you said to me "He visits his father three times a week. I want him to visit twice as often", I would assume you wanted him to visit six times a week. If you said to me "He visits his father three times a week. I want him to visit two times more than that", I would assume you wanted him to visit five times a week. I read "times" as "visits" in that context, so "two times more than three" is five.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes; to be specific "two times more" is often used for "twice as much", not vice versa.
I think that battle's been lost. If only we could draw the line at "two times less", which apparently means "half as much" to some people.

The problem is not the lost battle. It is the ambiguity that is created by "two times more/less". People with a background in mathematics, statistics, the sciences, finance, etc. will hear a number different from those who use the term incorrectly. Perhaps we should just lose the phrases.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I'm the first to admit I was rubbish at maths at school but if you said to me "He visits his father three times a week. I want him to visit twice as often", I would assume you wanted him to visit six times a week. If you said to me "He visits his father three times a week. I want him to visit two times more than that", I would assume you wanted him to visit five times a week. I read "times" as "visits" in that context, so "two times more than three" is five.

Yes, that is another possible ambiguity. Good point.

 

[Tdol]

That said, usage of the two forms is often meant to be the same.

That is the problem- it's not always clear which system the speaker is using.

 

[Raymott]

The problem is not the lost battle. It is the ambiguity that is created by "two times more/less". People with a background in mathematics, statistics, the sciences, finance, etc. will hear a number different from those who use the term incorrectly. Perhaps we should just lose the phrases.

Well, of course that's the problem. But your solution wouldn't work (we don't have an Academy). What is the usual response to teachers informing the world that a certain usage is wrong, ambiguous or confusing, and that we shouldn't use it?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Well, of course that's the problem. But your solution wouldn't work (we don't have an Academy). What is the usual response to teachers informing the world that a certain usage is wrong, ambiguous or confusing, and that we shouldn't use it?

Some listen; some don't. But if a phrase communicates its correct meaning to only a sector of the population, it is not very useful.

 

[Raymott]

Some listen; some don't. But if a phrase communicates its correct meaning to only a sector of the population, it is not very useful.

I know; you're preaching to the converted. But a solution that won't work is not very useful either. Conceding defeat to the mediocratic nature of language doesn't imply agreeing with the results. Am I wrong to consider some battles lost?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I know; you're preaching to the converted. But a solution that won't work is not very useful either. Conceding defeat to the mediocratic nature of language doesn't imply agreeing with the results. Am I wrong to consider some battles lost?

No, not wrong at all!