Puuulease stop saying "price per value"

[emeryjl]

The English language is going to H E double hockey sticks. The amount of people, who's one and only language is English, that can not speak it properly is astounding. I still cringe when I hear, or see someone type, "me and my..." instead of the proper way of "they and I(me)".

More context is needed, when is "they and I" better than 'we'

 

[Xalthon]

Wholeheartedly agree that "price per value" is meaningless. Clearly, the intended point being made is just "value." "Yes, the drink costs $16, but I still consider it a decent value," i.e., "I get enough satisfaction for my $16."

If Value (V) is considered to be how much "bang for the buck" you get, then it can be represented by the equation "Quality or Enjoyment (Q) / Price (P)." Thus, Price per Value is P/V or P/(Q/P), which equals P^2/Q and has no real meaning. Indeed, a quick look will revel that something that has a very high price and little quality or enjoyment would have a very high "price per value," so it means the opposite of what was intended.

Which made me think of other phrases people routinely say when they mean the opposite, such as "I could care less" when intent is to say "I could not care less" or when people say "irregardless" when they really mean "regardless." All of this piggybacks off of @Lilsia 's comment:

The English language is going to H E double hockey sticks.

 

[Lilsia]

More context is needed, when is "they and I" better than 'we'

Um, well my point was that you are supposed to put the other person first and say "she and I", not "me and her". No matter what pronoun you are using, the other person goes first. But for some reason, people have started using "I", and "me" first. Incorrect sentence... "Me and my sister went to the store." Correct sentence... "My sister and I went to the store."

 

[Lilsia]

Wholeheartedly agree that "price per value" is meaningless. Clearly, the intended point being made is just "value." "Yes, the drink costs $16, but I still consider it a decent value," i.e., "I get enough satisfaction for my $16."

If Value (V) is considered to be how much "bang for the buck" you get, then it can be represented by the equation "Quality or Enjoyment (Q) / Price (P)." Thus, Price per Value is P/V or P/(Q/P), which equals P^2/Q and has no real meaning. Indeed, a quick look will revel that something that has a very high price and little quality or enjoyment would have a very high "price per value," so it means the opposite of what was intended.

Which made me think of other phrases people routinely say when they mean the opposite, such as "I could care less" when intent is to say "I could not care less" or when people say "irregardless" when they really mean "regardless." All of this piggybacks off of @Lilsia 's comment:

OMG the "Irregardless" is a staple joke in our house. LOL No joke, I actually heard a lawyer, giving a statement on the news, say "irregardless". How do you get all the way through law school and not realize that that is not a word?

 

[emeryjl]

Wholeheartedly agree that "price per value" is meaningless. Clearly, the intended point being made is just "value." "Yes, the drink costs $16, but I still consider it a decent value," i.e., "I get enough satisfaction for my $16."

If Value (V) is considered to be how much "bang for the buck" you get, then it can be represented by the equation "Quality or Enjoyment (Q) / Price (P)." Thus, Price per Value is P/V or P/(Q/P), which equals P^2/Q and has no real meaning. Indeed, a quick look will revel that something that has a very high price and little quality or enjoyment would have a very high "price per value," so it means the opposite of what was intended.

Which made me think of other phrases people routinely say when they mean the opposite, such as "I could care less" when intent is to say "I could not care less" or when people say "irregardless" when they really mean "regardless." All of this piggybacks off of @Lilsia 's comment:

Um, well my point was that you are supposed to put the other person first and say "she and I", not "me and her". No matter what pronoun you are using, the other person goes first. But for some reason, people have started using "I", and "me" first. Incorrect sentence... "Me and my sister went to the store." Correct sentence... "My sister and I went to the store."

While this is true for the subject, there is no formal grammatical rule for which should go first as an object. Convention places 'me' second as a matter of etiquette, but it is not grammatically wrong to say or write 'me and my sister'. Sometimes it is preferred if the writer wants the emphasis placed on himself (or whichever pronoun is appropriate). If something happened while walking your pet, you could correctly write 'me and my dog'. If something is negative, etitquette might support "the fault lies with me and my partner"

 

[Lilsia]

While this is true for the subject, there is no formal grammatical rule for which should go first as an object. Convention places 'me' second as a matter of etiquette, but it is not grammatically wrong to say or write 'me and my sister'. Sometimes it is preferred if the writer wants the emphasis placed on himself (or whichever pronoun is appropriate). If something happened while walking your pet, you could correctly write 'me and my dog'. If something is negative, etitquette might support "the fault lies with me and my partner"

Well I guess all of our English teachers were wrong then because that is how we were taught. And that is how everyone phrased their sentences until about a decade ago when the language started to go downhill.

 

[emeryjl]

Wholeheartedly agree that "price per value" is meaningless. Clearly, the intended point being made is just "value." "Yes, the drink costs $16, but I still consider it a decent value," i.e., "I get enough satisfaction for my $16."

If Value (V) is considered to be how much "bang for the buck" you get, then it can be represented by the equation "Quality or Enjoyment (Q) / Price (P)." Thus, Price per Value is P/V or P/(Q/P), which equals P^2/Q and has no real meaning. Indeed, a quick look will revel that something that has a very high price and little quality or enjoyment would have a very high "price per value," so it means the opposite of what was intended.

Which made me think of other phrases people routinely say when they mean the opposite, such as "I could care less" when intent is to say "I could not care less" or when people say "irregardless" when they really mean "regardless." All of this piggybacks off of @Lilsia 's comment:

Well I guess all of our English teachers were wrong then because that is how we were taught. And that is how everyone phrased their sentences until about a decade ago when the language started to go downhill.

The teachers were not wrong in that they were teaching you the rules and how they are generally applied. As you become more educated, you have probably realized the everything is more nuanced than you were taught in elementary school (or even high school). Just because you learn that something is more of a convention than a rule doesn't make how you were taught wrong. It just means the teacher was focusing on what is important for students of a given age instead of getting bogged down in exceptions. Nor would a teacher necessarily want to start making distinctions between things like "rule", "convention", "best practice", etc.

Another example is the "i before e" rule. For words that a elementary student learning to spell, it is probably a decent rule. For the english language overall, there are so many exceptions, that is generally not a very accurate rule.

 

[ELLH]

Wholeheartedly agree that "price per value" is meaningless. Clearly, the intended point being made is just "value." "Yes, the drink costs $16, but I still consider it a decent value," i.e., "I get enough satisfaction for my $16."

If Value (V) is considered to be how much "bang for the buck" you get, then it can be represented by the equation "Quality or Enjoyment (Q) / Price (P)." Thus, Price per Value is P/V or P/(Q/P), which equals P^2/Q and has no real meaning. Indeed, a quick look will revel that something that has a very high price and little quality or enjoyment would have a very high "price per value," so it means the opposite of what was intended.

Which made me think of other phrases people routinely say when they mean the opposite, such as "I could care less" when intent is to say "I could not care less" or when people say "irregardless" when they really mean "regardless." All of this piggybacks off of @Lilsia 's comment:

 

[TomorrowlandKD]

Love Tommy Shaw. Love him!