Redundant "some"

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:08 pm

What do make of this quote from the BBC website?

"Airport officials said some 43 people were injured in the accident"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4741015.stm

What does the word "some" add here, in your opinion? To my mind, 43 is precise enough; does that mean the BBC is forgetting how to write clear English?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:53 pm

Not necessarily. "Some" is an indication of part of a whole. In this case, it appears that BBC is suggesting that 43 may not be all of those actually injured. Perhaps their knowledge of the source of information leads them to want to leave the door open for an increase or a decrease in that number, so the very precision of 43 by itself is what may be making them uncomfortable with it. So they introduce some vagueness on purpose.

I remember that the American TV networks were estimating perhaps 5000 people killed in the early reports concerning the attack on the New York World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I don't remember if they said "some 5000" at the time, but it seems often to be the case that early reports are later adjusted. The final number in that case was slightly less than 3000.

Of course, this is speculation. But I think it's healthy to begin with the assumption that BBC knows what it's doing, unless there is incontrovertable evidence that it has truely made a mistake.

Larry Latham.

strider · Post by **strider** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:20 am

Here's a reference I found at dictionary.com :

Approximately; about: "Some 40 people attended the rally".

wintersweet · Post by **wintersweet** » Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 pm

strider wrote:Here's a reference I found at dictionary.com :

Approximately; about: "Some 40 people attended the rally".

I agree, but that makes it a bit strange to use with an exact number like "43."

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:45 am

lolwhites wrote:What do make of this quote from the BBC website?

"Airport officials said some 43 people were injured in the accident"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4741015.stm

What does the word "some" add here, in your opinion? To my mind, 43 is precise enough; does that mean the BBC is forgetting how to write clear English?

adverb: (of quantities) imprecise but fairly close to correct

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:02 am

That's exactly my point, metal. I could understand if it had said "some 40" or even "some 45", but 43 strikes me as a fairly precise figure so I think the "some" is redundant. I don't think a figure of 43 would be given unless it were the exact number, would it?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:18 am

lolwhites wrote:That's exactly my point, metal. I could understand if it had said "some 40" or even "some 45", but 43 strikes me as a fairly precise figure so I think the "some" is redundant. I don't think a figure of 43 would be given unless it were the exact number, would it?

I don't think a figure of 43 would be given unless it were the exact number, would it?

It does seem odd. Would you accept it more with the synonym "about"?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:01 pm

Hmmm, I'm still not sure. Again, "about" would be fine for a round number like 40 or 45 but why quote 43 as an approximate figure? Do they mean "between 40 and 45"?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:59 pm

It's clear enough wnat has happened. They've been given a figure of 43, but there are some doubts as to its accuracy. The expression is strange, but certainly not redundant.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:15 am

How nice to be able to agree with Stephen Jones.

But actually, I don't find the expression strange at all. Is 40 or 45 a less precise number than 43? Not to my mind.

Larry Latham

Teacher Discussion Forums

Redundant "some"

Redundant "some"

Re: Redundant "some"