Language desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 30[edit]

"not less than" vs "at least"[edit]

In U.S. English, is there any difference between "not less than" and "at least"? When would one be used instead of the other? I am reading a document that keeps using "not less than" so I am curious if that is different than "at least". Example: "The sound must be audible at a distance of not less than 100 feet" RudolfRed (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing. Maybe one form preferred over the other in certain contexts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not less than" sounds slightly more classy and formal, to me anyway, but the meaning's the same. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, in a literal reading, 'not less than' is the same as ≥ (equal or more than), whereas 'at least' is a simple > (more than), but this is probably not a legal convention. Just illustrating that they aren't necessarily the same in all circumstances (and this is why symbols, rather than phrases should be used). Fgf10 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, "at least" also means ≥. See for example this Oxford dictionary, or Merriam-Webster here (a few lines down). --174.95.161.129 (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, when it is said that "a stool needs at least three legs to stand",^[1] this does not mean it needs more than three legs. It will stand just fine on three. Fewer than three won't do, so it should have "not fewer than" three legs. Outside the context of doing maths, the difference between ≥ and > is practically speaking only relevant for quantities that represent counts; it is meaningless to assert that the physical distance between a sound emitter and receiver is exactly 100 feet, and not a smidgen of a Planck length more. --Lambiam 13:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something of which cognisance is taken in law. For example, a speedometer must be correct to + or - 10%, so nobody will be prosecuted for driving at 33 mph in a built-up area (unless the limit has been reduced - traffic now proceeds at a glacial pace on main roads as the speed limit has been reduced to 20 mph). The 30 mph limit automatically applies (unless reduced) where the lamp posts are not more than (I think) 200 yards apart. One driver convicted of speeding appealed when he measured the distance between the lamp posts and found it was a smidgen over 200 yards. The conviction was upheld, the judge citing the maxim lex non curat de minimis (the law does not concern itself with trifles). 2A00:23C5:CD83:E500:A52F:8B4B:BEF8:C821 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not less than" is more restrictive: it is always a quantitative criterion. "At least" has a wider range of usage: it can also express meanings that aren't quantitative, or even quantifiable. The entry in Wiktionary wikt:at_least gives one example:

"You could even be discovered, become a movie star, or at least see one."

Some additional examples in book titles that aren't at all quantitative:

This more general meaning can get mixed up with quantitative information in surprising and dangerous ways:

"at least when only one wave and one column are involved" [2];
"at least no more than the bare minimum necessary to perform their required functions" [3];
"at least if only two levels are involved in the luminescence process" [4];
"The pins at the crosshead end of the arms--those which are supported at one end only, and therefore, at least only one fourth the strength of those at the other end of the arms--have failed many times in the work required of them." [5];
"The second system yields frequency resolution of at least one part per million." [6];
"also $5000 in a general stock of goods at cost price and fixtures at present worth, not exceeding $400, same being at present a stock of about $10,000, which second party is to reduce to at least $7500 by December 1, 1911, if possible, and soon as this is done first party to take charge and pay second party proceeds at cost price of goods down to $5000 worth of goods." [7]

"Not less than" doesn't have this more flexible usage. It has the same basic meaning but a more restricted range of meaning and usage, which is a very good thing (at least when you need to be precise and unambiguous). --Amble (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This variation is non-quantitative: In an Irish Rovers song intro, the lead singer says that his uncle got the best job, "with the English government, no less." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this usage of "no less" is why standards documents seem to use "not less" instead of "no less"? --Amble (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But see also "This is not Less Than Jake." [8]. I can't decide whether "not Less than Jake" means the same as "at least Jake." --Amble (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these remind me of advertisements claiming you could save "up to $100 or more" at some sale or another. It's hard to determine for sure whether this actually means something. --Amble (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising jargon doesn't necessarily bear close scrutiny. I was just reminded of what Jor-El said to the Krypton council in "Superman" (1978): "This planet will explode within 30 days, if not sooner." That sentence doesn't bear close scrutiny either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least both the inequalities are in the same direction. If the planet is still there in 31 days, he was wrong. "Up to X or more" seems to translate to "less than or equal to or greater than X". --Amble (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr Gridlock advised changing one's car's oil every 3,000 to 6,000 miles, whichever came first." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Within 30 days" encompasses everything from that moment on. The only thing "sooner" than that is in the past. Reminds me of the sloppy, illogical things people say nowadays, e.g. Alaska is bigger than any American state, or Trump has lied more than any American president. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can make an argumentum ad Shakespearum for that usage:

Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing,

more than any man in all Venice: His reasons are

as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff;

you shall seek all day ere you find them;

and, when you have them, they are not worth the search.

From The Merchant of Venice. --Amble (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone but me find the example sentence—"The sound must be audible at a distance of not less than 100 feet"—in the OP's post odd? To me, it can easily be read as saying that the sound should be audible at 100 (or more) feet but not audible from 0 to 99 feet—that is "The sound must not be audible at a distance of less than 100 feet". Perhaps I'm just having a (protracted) senior moment. Deor (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join us old geezers. The sentence sounds just fine to me; it means the sound must be loud enough to be heard at that distance. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In such a rule, the concern is that the sound must be loud enough to hear from far enough away. It's really saying that the closest distance where the sound cannot be heard must not be less than 100 feet. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to express that would be "The sound must be audible at a distance of 100 feet". The unnecessary "not less than" bit introduces the concept that the sound must be audible at 150 feet, and 200 feet, ... and 20 million miles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As written, it tells you exactly what you need to do to show that your solution meets the specification. Set up the product, have a person stand at a chosen test point ≥ 100 feet away, and if that person can hear the sound, you are done. You don't need to worry about any other distances less than or greater than 100 feet. If you are selling a product that you have tested is audible at 200 feet, you can already document that it meats a requirement specifying "not less than 100 feet", "not less than 50 feet", "not less than 200 feet", etc. On the other hand, if you set up the test at 150 feet, and the person cannot hear the sound, that only fails to show that the product does meet the 100 foot requirement (which is not the same as showing that it fails to meet the requirement). --Amble (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative adverbs[edit]

When forming the comparative of an adverb, in many cases it seems to have become standard for people to use the comparative form of the corresponding adjective.

He is driving quickly, but she is driving quicker. (rather than more quickly)

"He is driving quick" would raise most people's eyebrows, but they seem ok with "driving quicker".

I've read up on English adverbs and the formation of their conmparative and superlative forms, but nowhere have I seen "driving quicker" etc given any sort of imprimatur. So, has this become de facto acceptable? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Flat adverb. Such adverbs usually form their comparatives and superlatives merely by adding -er and -est. ("You'll need to work hard." "You'll need to work harder.") Quick can be used as a flat adverb, despite your finding "He is driving quick" eyebrow-raising. Deor (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That word "quick" has evolved over time. What it originally meant was "lively", not "fast" necessarily. You can see that usage in old poetry. "Jack be nimble / Jack be quick". And the "quick" part of your fingernails and toenails. "Quicksand" as in "living" sand. But by the 20th century it was being used to mean "fast" or "soon". Chico to Groucho in a movie, "We can't come tomorrow, that's too quick." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the quick and the dead" meant the living and the dead, not that those who were too slow were destined for death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]