Not trying to nitpick, but I guess I am. Does "most" really mean 65%? I tend to think most needs to clear a pretty high hurdle. I bring this up not to attack you, but I've noticed this behavior in journalism or when folks are trying to win arguments where instead of quoting the actual number they'll use a term like most, which I don't think has a hard and fast threshold.

I guess, for me, most would have to be something north of 80% because it just doesn't feel right to use it below that. 65% would be majority, obviously, maybe significant majority or some such.

Anyone else feel this way?

Edit: if anyone else reads this, I totally shouldn't have even brought this up. Downvote away, but as other replies have pointed out I missed the definition of "most" when you're comparing numbers against each other.

▲

quesera 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I do not. For me, "most" is 50% + 1 (Edit: or more).

▲

ImJamal 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think most would usually mean plurality not 50% + 1. If there are 3 people and 2 of them have $5 each and the third has $6 it would be correct to say the third has the most money despite not having 50% + 1.

Regardless, the majority is also the plurality so using most when it is over 50% would also be acceptable.

	▲	lotsofpulp 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Most and majority mean more than half, in the context of proportions. >If there are 3 people and 2 of them have $5 each and the third has $6 it would be correct to say the third has the most money despite not having 50% + 1. This is not an applicable example, as most is not being used to refer to the proportion of money. It is using a different definition of most, which is the top rank when ranking things by quantity.

▲

harmmonica 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is interesting. So you're saying that majority and most have the same meaning?

	▲	quesera 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I think so: Most people who voted for US President in 2020, voted for Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. The majority of people who voted for US President in 2020, voted for Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (I'm a native speaker, but there might be some regional differences here.)

▲

leptons 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Too bad there aren't books that describe the meaning of words, so this website will have to do...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/most

No, "most" does not mean "80%" or any other made up number.

▲

harmmonica 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not the friendliest way to reply, but are you saying 65% does not mean most? Just wondering if we're violently agreeing. I shouldn't have said 80%. Was just trying to articulate that most is a high threshold and also not defined as an absolute number.

▲

CGMthrowaway 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but even going by that the first definition would mean any plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the threshold potentially lower than 50%.

I prefer Merriam Webster, which is far more clear. Definition 2 (defn 1 does not apply in this context): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

▲

bbarnett 4 days ago | parent [-]

We have multiple parties in Canada.

There may be a minority government elected, with 40% of the seats, and 30%, 20%, 10% to other parties.

The 40% party will be described as winning the most seats.

	▲	harmmonica 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ha, I gotta say after reading your reply I feel kind of dumb for even saying the 80%; I had blinders on. Most, when it's relative, is the highest of a set even if that number is super low. Totally spaced on that when I asked, but I was fixated on how it's used to define something that's a percentage like in the 65% example. It happens so frequently in journalism and it's frustrating because it's trying to make an argument that sometimes the numbers themselves don't support. Anyway, appreciate you reminding me (and I deserved to feel dumb so also making me feel a bit dumb about it).
	▲	CGMthrowaway 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes, that is definition 1 (merriam-webster). This definition is often invoked by saying "the" before "most," as you did. It's a different definition than defn 2 (m-w), which is what is used when saying "Most farms are not owned by farmers." "The 40% party won the most seats" carries a different meaning than "The 40% party won most seats"
	▲	Dylan16807 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's more complicated. They got "the most" seats but they didn't get "most" seats. Pure "most" is implicitly that option versus all the rest.

▲

leptons 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, "most" is not a high threshold. You can say "most" about 30% of something in a group, if the rest are splintered between other groups getting less than 30%.

Maybe you should read the link I provided. It would likely clear up a lot of misconceptions for you.

▲

LastTrain 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You have a misconception about what the word means. Most has a meaning: more than any other quantity. > 50% meets that definition every time, but even 2% could mean ‘most’ if everything else in the comparison is less than 2%.

	▲	harmmonica 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're right about the 2% and I just totally had blinders on when thinking of "most" used when comparing a set of numbers (where one of those numbers is the most in the set). I disagree with your ">50% meets..." comment, but pretty sure we're not going to agree on that one so I'll just shut up now.