When describing an ambiguous quantity of items beyond a certain specific threshold, there are multiple ways to state it, but in particular I’m wondering about the grammatical correctness of each when describing it in a possessive sense. The specific example is this:
“I’m referring to Gary’s over 80,000 residents.”
versus
“I’m referring to Gary’s 80,000+ residents.”
My gut feel is that the latter is correct and the former is incorrect, but I can’t put my finger on why. And again, that’s relating to the specific possessive expression used there. My gut feel is that both methods are correct in this other circumstance:
“Gary has over 80,000 residents.”
“Gary has 80,000+ residents.”
So again, with regard to the possessive expression: is the “+” expression correct and the “over” expression incorrect, or is it just a matter of my preference?
I don’t think there’s an “official” difference, but to me, personally, they have the same meaning but “80,000+” implies a little more precision.
“Gary has 80,000+ residents” = 80,000 is my best “low estimate”: it’s the closest number that I’m reasonably sure isn’t too high. Or, it was 80,000 at last count but it’s probably grown since then.
“Gary has over 80,000 residents” = I’m not sure how many residents Gary has, but it’s more than 80,000.
Again, I’m only speaking about how I, personally, interpret the expressions.
ETA: The problem with “Gary’s over 80,000 residents” IMHO is that I at first want to parse “Gary’s over…” as “Gary is over…” which doesn’t make sense when I get to the rest of the phrase.
I see it the same way that Thudlow Boink does, even in the way the “Gary’s” construction might cause a little confusion. But to me the two expressions are equivalent in their statement of an approximation.
In terms of preference I’d go with the “+” approach vs. the “over” one. To me the “+” implies the amount by which 80,000 falls short is less than the amount the “over” misses the precise number.
It’s a basic “six of one” / “half dozen of another” argument.
The latter is much scans much better than the former. “I’m referring to Gary’s over 80,000…” sounds like a response to a statement that could have been quoted, but “80,000+” is much clearer. Take the statement out of context and it’s difficult to understand what “Gary’s over 80,000 residents.” means.
However, I can’t tell you anything about it grammatically even though mine grammars are full of impeccableishness.
I would never use “over” to describe something that can be counted, like residents. Gary has more than 80,000 residents is the correct way to phrase it. If it has to be measured, then “over” is correct. Gary has over 57 square miles of area.
It’s like boogers and snot. If you can count them, they’re boogers, if you have to weigh it, it’s snot.
Professional writer and copy editor here. The OP has not stated the context in which he is writing, which will make some difference, but presumably it is some sort of formal setting, like a business report, and not just an e-mail to a friend.
The OP’s dislike of “over” in this context may have its roots in the longstanding, and some say dubious, preference in many style guides for “more than” over “over.” However, no less an authority than the Associated Press changed its position on this point earlier this year. I don’t have a hard and fast rule about this, but I think that in many situations, including this one, “more than” is less likely to create ambiguity than “over.”
I would never, in any publication I edited, allow “80,000+” to stand. It is simply a written form of a spoken colloquialism, and is not proper formal writing, in my opinion.
Recognizing the OP’s concern about the possessive, I would suggest recasting the sentence to avoid it. E.g., “I’m referring to the more than 80,000 residents of Gary.” I think this is better than either of the options in the OP.
I agree with Quartz. “X+” or “at least X” leaves open the possibility that there are exactly X. “Over X” means that it’s strictly greater. The distinction is irrelevant with numbers as large as 80,000, but it could be significant with smaller numbers.
Given the easy access to such information, why wouldn’t you give the actual number?
I’m referring to the residents of Gary (80,294 as of 2010 census).
(And based on the steady decline in population in Gary over the past half-century, neither of those statements is correct – Gary’s current population is well under 80,000.)
Statements like that probably mean something like: “We have seventeen basic models of oven, some or all of which come in a variety of more-or-less minor variations, so it depends on how you count them.”
Like a Toyota Corolla that you can get with or without sun roof, air conditioning, stick shift or automatic, bucket seats or bench seat, with or without cruise control, etc.
I just want to say that a professional writer and copy editor agreed with my phrasing of “more than” in preference to “over”. If my seventh grade English teacher were here we’d have words. Whose going to be an idiot all my life?
