What does the phrase “to factor prominently in” mean?
Does it mean “to feature” as is “feature prominently”? Not sure. I’ve seen the phrase before, but not all that often. I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
“The testimony is expected to factor prominently in another 9/11 lawsuit brought against the airlines by the owner of World Trade Center Properties. That case, which is on appeal, is expected to be heard next year.”
“Be given considerable weight” is how I read it.
Thanks jimbuff314. That sound right. Thank very much.
davidmich
The phrase is derived from mathematics were to ‘factor in’ something means to multiply by it. For instance in the famous equation E=mc[sup]2[/sup] both the mass (m) and the speed of light squared (c[sup]2[/sup]) are ‘factored in’. If you removed either the equation is no longer going to give the correct answer. Similar to saying something like, “You didn’t factor in the wind resistance” when building an unsafe structure…
How about the “prominently” part? Any distinction between that and “significantly”?
This is false. The mathematical use of the word factor is fairly recent (1837). The sense relevant to the OP “circumstance producing a result” is from 1816. Other senses of the word in English, when it was generally applied to people who do or make something, or make something possible, go back much further, and, originally, to the Latin word factor meaning doer or maker. See the Online Etymology dictionary.
“To factor prominently in X” means to play an important or significant role in making X possible, or to be prominent or notable aspect or part of X.
No – they’re synonyms. English has a lot of them.
Thanks njtt. “play an important or significant role in” sounds better. Thank you all.
davidmch
Well, like most “synonyms” they do not mean exactly the same thing, but close enough for many purposes. “Prominently” implies it is noticeable, and “significantly” implies it is important. Often, the most noticeable aspects of something are also the most important ones (for most purposes), and vice-versa, but that is not always the case.
Since it seems, judging from this post and others you’ve posted recently, that you’re interested in polishing up your English, I’ll point out that the phrase “factor prominently in” has a ring of clumsy business- or newspaper-speak about it and isn’t something people say in conversation. It’s certainly recognizable, but it sounds a bit awkward and stilted outside of that context (and inside that context, for that matter).
I agree with you, Itself. I would never have used the phrase, and to be honest I didn’t think it was standard English/good English. The phrase did seem clumsy to me, and therefore not very clear. I would have used either “play a prominent/sizeable role in” or “feature prominently in”, but those phrases don’t seem to have the same meaning. “Factor prominently in” is just poor wording.
“Factor prominently in” is more idiomatic for US English.
Thank you for not letting that snark stand.
In a thread designed to parse the phrase, I think the difs are important to note.
Since the NY Post is a lowbrow, blue-collar paper, they use the vocabulary familiar to their readers. It’s written at about a 5th grade reading level (what you would expect a 10 year old to comprehend) and in a colloquial, conversational style. In a sense there’s nothing wrong with what they wrote even if it seems slightly awkward to the highly educated reader; It would actually be poor style for that paper to use words and/or a level of formality their readers might not recognize. Unlike the pure rules of grammar, the rules of style are normative and depend on the audience.
The Post is famous for lurid headlines like “Headless Man in Topless Bar” and the excessive use of monosyllabic words, ie, “Cop Nab in Tot Slay.” You probably don’t want to be looking there for any grammar lessons.