Understandable Sentence?

Question

Before the earthquake of 1959, ’s eruptions came almost like clockwork, every 60 to 65 minutes. Since that earthquake, eruptions have been as few as 30 minutes apart or as long as 120 minutes apart.

*********

Is this sentence understandable? If the eruptions became 30 minutes apart from 60 minutes apart, then isn’t it more frequent? Then, why “as few as 30 minutes apart” is being used here?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

As you have readily seen, the number of minutes between eruptions measures the frequency inversely.

"As few [minutes apart] as 30 minutes apart" does not mean fewer eruptions per unit time (eg., fewer per week).

People generally understand that if you put thing closer together, you can pack more of them in. Shorter wave length results in higher frequency.

There are surely other ways to say the same thing, if you find that people are misunderstanding it.

Best wishes, - A.

Pructus · Answer

I see....

Then, "Since that earthquake, eruptions have been as short as 30 minutes apart or as long as 120 minutes apart" makes better sentence?

Avangi · Answer

I would not say so. Even though you use the word "apart," it's more misleading than the original, because it begins by seeming to describe the duration of the eruption, rather than the duration of the interval between eruptions.

The geyser has lost its relative regularity, with the long intervals now being four times the short ones in length. You have to say something like, "Eruptions are now occurring every 30 to 120 minutes."

If we had the data, we could calculate an average, and say, "Eruptions occur on average every 85 minutes," or however it works out. "Eruptions occur on average about sixteen times a day."

But the fact remains that this information, while interesting to seizemologists, would not be useful to visitors to the attraction. They want to know two things: "How soon might it happen?", and "How long might I have to wait?"

Pructus · Answer

I see...

Your explanation is really to the point... Thanks a lot.....

But, according to your explanation, "as long as 120 minutes apart" seems to be awkward.

To me, it seems that the match has to be, short - long, few - many.....

Could I expect some more explanation?

Avangi · Answer

I believe I understand your point, but you can't change your facts to suit the grammar.

Where inverse relationships exist in nature, we have to bite the bullet and describe them as they are, parallelism be danged.

I used to buy candy for my kindergarten class of 20 students (nonexistent) so that each student would have five candies. (100 candies is all I can afford.) Now, suddenly they give me 25 students, but I can only afford 100 candies, so each student gets only four. Next year, because of the economy, they're giving me 50 students, so each student will get only two candies. C'est la vie. Not everything in life is parallel. In this case the students go up and the candy goes down.

small class - big class, many candies - few candies This is an inverse relationship.

In your original sentence, "few" describes the number of minutes between eruptions, not the number of eruptions per day.

few min. between - many min. between, more eruptions - less eruptions

This in an inverse relationship.

I think perhaps what bothers you is the phrase, "Eruptions have been as few as" - which you take intuitively as "fewer eruptions." Finish the sentence!!! - "as few as 20 min. apart" (down from 60!) More eruptions!

Pructus · Answer

Your explanations came across to me so clear..............

Thanks again.....

Understandable Sentence?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions