Like when people say "I am going to give it 110%" or 200% etc
It really winds me up. Does it you??
2007-02-13 22:39:31 · 13 answers · asked by Cori 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
darklydra... that's my point, you can't exceed 100%! That is the highest percentage there is!
2007-02-13 22:48:51 · update #1
You are dead on. Language has lost precision. My advice is get over it, because I don't think you can change what is happening to the English language. But it is a badge of dumbness much like tatoos on someone's face is an indication of their intelligence.
2007-02-13 22:41:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It does not annoy me at all. 100% is an efficiency rating. A machine can go most efficiently( Have the most power) for the longest time with the least wear and tear at 100%. At 110%, power increases, but part life decreases. At two hundred percent, your power might be extremely high, but the parts degrade rapidly and will most likely be destroyed by the increased stressed. That is why there is a "Red Line" on gauges like tachometers and depth gauges.
So, if a person can lift a ten pound box safely by using ten percent of his ability to lift, and decides to give it 110% effort, The box sails across the room, and the person might throw his back out.
If a coach tells you to give it 110%, he is telling you to exceed your known limits of operation slightly, in order to increase performance.
2007-02-14 07:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by bumppo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a bad use of imagery, and illogical to boot: You can't possibly give more than 100%, given that that signifies the absolute maximum you have to give!
Over-100% figures can only be used logically in maths. Even when applied to machinery, the 100% mark only denotes the maximum output mark you can achieve without causing damage/significant wear and tear. If you wanted to be precise, you'd say the engine runs at maximum power and efficiency at (for example) 85% -- Anything above that is harmful and/or inefficient.
I suppose this method of quantifying might have come into use because it's easier to remember the number 100 as the efficiency ceiling, rather than a lesser number.
It's impossible for a person to give more than their all -- 100% -- however you look at it... unless you're playing a game character and are given an artificial boost of energy!
2007-02-14 11:34:28 · answer #3 · answered by Lady Yaz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just a manner of speach, not every word should be taken literally in every context. It's similar to using 'a couple' when you mean 'a few'. Some people are very strict about that, will use the expression only when they mean '2' and if you say you'll have just a couple of peanuts they'll hand you two. Most people know that it is *intended* to mean just 'a few' in that context and give you a small handful. English isn't an exact language, that's just how it is!
Other examples:
"I'm dying to know!" (not likely)
"She's green with envy" (she must be an alien then)
"It's going to take me for ever to get that done!" (no, just a long time.)
etc, etc, etc.
2007-02-15 09:42:20 · answer #4 · answered by Sheriam 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the context. If they are talking about thing which can exceed 100% then it is relevant and correct.
However i see your point when folks say - "I am going give it >100%", than that is just rubbish. But the english language is full of oddities.
People say "Look out" when they mean "Hide"
They say "Second to None" when they mean the best (Second to none would mean you are almost as well off with nothing).
I just take it as a saying that folks will try as hard as they can.
Can't get too anal about this sort of stuff else you go mad my friend.
2007-02-14 06:44:47 · answer #5 · answered by darklydrawl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh dear... you just don't get it.
100% is working at normal speed... so 110% refers to working faster than normal, 90% slower than normal.
Such variances contribute to a Management Accountant's performance evaluation of a given activity.
Taken outside the workplace, it's just an expression...
2007-02-14 07:18:42 · answer #6 · answered by gareth_bancroft 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nothing wrong with that. It's just an archaic way of saying perfection, to the highest level.
2007-02-14 07:49:35 · answer #7 · answered by Makisig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That does not annoy me as much as reputable banks and lending institutions offering to lend you 150% of your homes worth. They are in the business of making money. How does this benefit them? It has to in some way. It scares me that my husband wants to take advantage of this.
2007-02-14 08:57:43 · answer #8 · answered by babydoll 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would be more impressed with 95% At least thet is a real amount.
2007-02-14 06:53:27 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i think that is the silliest way of stressing the point you are making.
2007-02-14 06:43:49 · answer #10 · answered by dee k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋