Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 December 24

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.

December 24

up to at least

Why do you say 'that can type up to at least 70 wpm'? Why not 'that can type at least 70 wpm'? 'up to' seems to be residual. 217.168.4.171 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't say it that way. Whoever wrote that was at least careless. They meant to write either "that can type at least 70 wpm" or "that can type up to 70 wpm" depending on the context. If you would like to know which one they meant, please provide the context. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More examples: "Apple has fessed up to at least three serious design weaknesses in the new application-based firewall that ships with Mac OS X Leopard." "The fund is backed with the full faith and credit of the United States Government up to at least $100000 per member share account."217.168.3.246 (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The first example doesn't illustrate this usage: it should be parsed as Apple has [fessed up] to [at least three...] AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

True. The term "fessed up to" is slang for "confessed to." — Michael J 11:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the last sentence is an analogous case. I would parse it like "The fund is [backed with...up] [to at least...]".Mr.K. (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the segment "[backed with...up]" does not make sense as a grammatical phrase.  --Lambiam 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Although somewhat redundant, I don't see something seriously wrong with these sentences. You want to say something like someone "can type up to ? wpm". By the time you reach the "?" you realize that you don't actually know the typist's top speed, only that they have shown to be able to type, under ideal circumstances, at a speed of 70 wpm. If you finish by saying they "can type up to 70 wpm", you create the false impression that that is known to be the top speed. But all you know is that the top speed is at least 70 wpm. So, instead, you complete the sentence by "can type up to at least 70 wpm". This is subtly different from "can type at least 70 wpm", since the latter suggests that 70 wpm is a normal speed that can be maintained over longer periods in most circumstances, and that quite likely larger speeds are possible.  --Lambiam 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If they had wanted to say "a minimum of 70 wpm" is required, they would have used "at least...".

Had they wanted to say "a maximum of 70 wpm" is required, they would have written "up to...".

Maybe the advertiser for the position is not up to, at least, a clear syntax. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. As Lambiam indicated, 'up to at least' is setting a lower limit for the (unknown or unspecified) maximum. Perfectly reasonable. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, that's right, but we shouldn't set the reader a puzzle to solve when all we're trying to do is communicate. It's a poor way of putting that. It's interesting how almost any sequence of words can make sense in a certain context. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How, then, would you communicate the intended meaning to the reader? What would you write, without subtly changing the meaning, instead of "The fund is backed with the full faith and credit of the United States Government up to at least $100000 per member share account."?  --Lambiam 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to rewrite it without knowing further information. The "up to" part means that that the amount could be somewhere between $0 and $100,000. The "at least" part means that the amount could also be somewhere between $100,001 and some other higher maximum. Let's assume there is a higher maximum, otherwise what's to prevent the US Govt being committed to paying 27 trillion dollars per member. In the absence of further info, I'd have a crack at "The fund is backed with the full faith and credit of the United States Government up to $100,000 per member share account. A higher amount may be paid in certain (undefined special) circumstances." -- JackofOz (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are the (fictitious) rules. There is an ample amount of earmarked back-up money for covering any deficits that may arise. If the deficit does not exceed the amount of the back-up money, the deficit will be fully covered. In the rather unlikely circumstance that the deficit exceeds the available amount, only part of the deficit may be covered, by assigning the total amount of the back-up money pro rata to the member share accounts. However, in no case shall that coverage for any given member share account be less than the minimum of: (1) the prorated deficit of said member share account, and (2) $100,000. This means that the extra deficit coverage, in case of insufficiency of the back-up money to cover the prorated deficit, may need to come from the Treasury. So the fund is backed up to some hard to specify maximum; however, it is known that that maximum is guaranteed to be at least $100,000 for each member share account. A higher amount will normally be shelled out as needed, but may be topped off at $100,000 in certain circumstances that may be deemed unlikely.  --Lambiam 09:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth

Hello. In Shakespeare's Macbeth, why is there no Duncan ghost whereas there was one for Banquo? Having said that, why were there no Lady Macduff or Young Macduff ghosts? Thanks in advance and have a merry Christmas. --Mayfare (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume that the ghosts only appeared when he was feeling guilty about the murder (if you want, you can take the ghost as a figment of Macbeth's imagination). Banquo was Macbeth's friend, whereas Duncan was not such a good acquaintance. Daniel (‽) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As a former Banquo actor, I can hasard also that Duncan, Lady Macduff and her son went straight to Heaven. Banquo was as murderous and bloodthirsty as Macbeth-- see the Bloody Sergeant's speech. Banquo also had his ambition stoked by the Weird Sisters' speech:

Hail!
Hail!
Hail!
--Lesser than Macbeth, yet greater.
--Not so happy, yet much happier;
--Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none.
--So, all Hail Macbeth and Banquo!
--Banquo and Macbeth, all hail.'''

Banquo helped cover up Duncan's murder, and collaborated fully in Macbeth's murderous usurpation; alas, this did not save him.

Violently murdered, yet barred from salvation by his own bloodiness and treachery, Banquo might well be earthbound as a revenant!

It's interesting to compare Banquo's ghost to that of Hamlet's father. Both seem to indicate a belief in Purgatory, whence minatory phantoms might issue... a 'Papist' notion if ever there was! Rhinoracer (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Banquo did either help cover up the murder or collaborate. He (privately) voiced his misgivings, and we simply don't know what he intended to do - for all we know, he was going to challenge Macbeth at the dinner. I cannot see any grounds for describing him as treacherous. Which doesn't answer the original question, of course ... --ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Banquo is Macbeth's "twin" in a sense. He met the witches with Macbeth and so is linked to Macbeth's actions as a result of their prophesy to him. He is part of Macbeth's "supernatural" world. SaundersW (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay, you perfect speakers, tell me more. --Mayfare (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet's father's ghost is supposedly the first ghost in a modern play, so the ghosts in MacBeth would have been a pretty recent theatrical phenomenon. Maybe it would have been too weird for the audience to have ghosts everywhere (also, if I remember correctly, there is only one ghost in all of ancient Greek theatre, Darius's ghost in The Persians). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)