Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 June 18
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 17 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 19 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 18
edit"The first since..."
editI started to feel that "the first since..." and "for the first time since" became sort of sensationalist buzzwords. Obviously if something is "the first since...", then it's actually second, not first, making such wordings potentially confusing, if not misleading. But can't see any previous discussion of it elsewhere in the internet. Brandmeistertalk 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- It certainly gets a lot of use in the sports world, and any other endeavor that goes nuts over numbers. Passage of time is what it's about. Sometimes it's more significant than other times. In 2016, when the Cubs won the World Series, it was their first since 1908. That's significant. In 2018, they could have said the Warriors won their first NBA title since... well, 2017. I don't think anyone said that, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I rank that expression alongside "fastest growing". With a sample of one, an addition of one gives a growth rate of 100%, whereas if I start with a million, an increase of two gives a growth rate of 0.00000002%. Which one is fastest growing? Both expressions are overused, confusing, and fairly meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- All look like journalese, not sure how common it's in the everyday speech. Brandmeistertalk 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I rank that expression alongside "fastest growing". With a sample of one, an addition of one gives a growth rate of 100%, whereas if I start with a million, an increase of two gives a growth rate of 0.00000002%. Which one is fastest growing? Both expressions are overused, confusing, and fairly meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Folks, this is not supposed to be a forum for discussion of opinions. Can we end this topic now, please? --76.69.118.94 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- User:Brandmeister, your premise - Obviously if something is "the first since...", then it's actually second, not first ... - is incorrect. Say a certain volcano has erupted many times throughout history, but it hasn't done so for the past 235 years. If it happens again today, it would be "the first since 1783". It would not be its second occurrence. The use of the expression in a context like this is unremarkable. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a clearly valid use, but I too often hear unthinking folk in the media (think commercial TV current affairs) misuse it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)