0
Navitasan Posted 13 years ago
Grammar

On both sides

1-There were 673 casualties on both sides.
2-The number of casualties on both sides was 673.

Do these mean that all in all there were 673 casualties?

Could they be used if the number of casualties was significantly lower on one side than on the other (say 20 vs. 653)?

Gratefully,
Navi.
  

Top answer

navitasan Do these mean that all in all there were 673 casualties? Yes, of course. navitasan Could they be used if the number of casualties was significantly lower on one side than on the other (say 20 vs.

— Mister Micawber

  • navitasan Do these mean that all in all there were 673 casualties?
  • Yes, of course.
  • navitasan Could they be used if the number of casualties was significantly lower on one side than on the other (say 20 vs.
  • 653)?
  • Yes.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
navitasanDo these mean that all in all there were 673 casualties?
Yes, of course.
navitasanCould they be used if the number of casualties was significantly lower on one side than on the other (say 20 vs. 653)?
Yes.
0
0
I thought it meant on each side. If woukd be an amazing coincidence, of course, but if "both" sides suffered a loss of X people, then there were 2X casualties in total. I think the sentence is potentially ambiguous.
0
0
BarbaraPAI think the sentence is potentially ambiguous.
Precisely because the number is 673, it is not, Barb.
0
0
Thank you both very much.

Well that number is odd and cannot be divided by two, but any number can be multiplied by two.According to Barbara's interpretation the number has to be multiplied by two if one wants to find the total number of casualties.

Gratefully,
Navi.
0
0
I agree with Barb, The sentence is potentially ambiguous to me.
0

Related Questions