Starfleet Jedi

Hello, I have two questions:

How big is a tiny portion of something, given in fractions?

and

How big is something, that is modest in comparison to the average thing?



Is tiny a tenth, a hundredth, a thousandth or even a still smaller part?

Is a modest thing half as big as the average thing or only a fourth, a tenth or still smaller?



Englisch is for me a foreign language.

I know, that tiny means small but I have no familiar understanding of this word and want to know a realistic proportion.

Miriam Webster Online has given inter alia the following explanation:

very small or diminutive : minute

Can I assume, that a minute is round about a 60th part of something?

Could be a tiny part of something be round about a hundredth of it?



I know, that modest means limited in size but I have no familiar understanding of this word and want to know a realistic proportion.

Miriam Webster Online has given inter alia the following explanation:

limited in size, amount, or scope

Could be something, that is modest, be a tenth as big as the average thing?



I will explain, why I have asked this question in this section, when I have your answers. I don't want, that your answers will be biased, if you know, what I want to explain.

Minute is actually two words spelled the same way. One is a measure of time (60 seconds are in one minute), the other means tiny or very small. There are also pronounced differently. So no, minute doesn't imply 1/60th of something, and if you think English sucks, then you're right.

Minute can also refer to the next step down after degrees measure in mathematics.

360 degrees.
60 minutes to a degree
60 seconds in minute.

Yay math!

I'm not a navigator, and I prefer radians so I forgot that one :)

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:Minute is actually two words spelled the same way. One is a measure of time (60 seconds are in one minute), the other means tiny or very small. There are also pronounced differently. So no, minute doesn't imply 1/60th of something, and if you think English sucks, then you're right.

I think your referring to minutia.

No, minutia is based on minute (pronounced my-noot). Look it up in a dictionary.

English rocks! It's the exactness and precisness that makes it so special; lots of languages limit words and makes you say them differently to give contexts. Take Mandarin. There are 5 different ways you can say a letter, neutral and 4 other ways. It's a tongue twister to be any good when you first start out. The only reason I like it is the sounds of the words. French sucks. Every damn thing is prnounced so softly, like you're doing baby talk.

To get back to our ESL poster...

Tiny is probably less than 1/10, I can't be more specific, it could be 1/100,000,000 or it could be 1/20, it's vague.

Modest would tend to be slightly less then average. It is a conservative figure. Example: I drive a modest car (I don't BTW) would mean that my vehicle is not expensive, an "economy" car, probably domestic in origin. In this example it could also mean that you could afford a better car, but you still drive the lesser vehicle.

I hope that helps, if not just say so and I'll attempt to clarify.

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:I hope that helps, if not just say so and I'll attempt to clarify.

Thank you very much.

If I have understand you right, tiny is an undefined term concerning somethings scale. It means small but doesn't say, how small. Therfore, if I would know, how big a "tiny" part of something is, I wouldn't be able to calculate the exteht of the whole thing.

Modest would tend to be slightly less then average.

That I can understand and use.

But I would need an example, in which modest is referencing to dimensions exclusively. Expensiv, economic, domestic or the ability to afford a better car don't fit. In the context on hand, there is no possibility to change something or make other, better things.



Maybe other could answer my questions too or approve AnonymousRedShirtEnsigns answer at least.

I don't want build my argumentation on one single answer.

I'll try to give you a better example. Armor piercing capacity of different munitions work for you?

A 9x19mm Lugar Parabellum pistol round (which I think is basically the same as a 9x19mm NATO round) has modest armor piercing capabily. Meaning that while it is sufficient for bad or very old body armor, a bullet proof vest will stop it. In contrast, a 12.7x99mm NATO (.50 caliber) round is an excellent armor piercing round do to it's increased mass, higher muzzel velocity, and pointier tip. While ineffective against a heavily armored vehicle the 50. cal round will penetrate any contemporary body armor.

I hope this one is better than the last.

Oh, modest can also mean unremarkable.

Stating with average and working down it would be…

Average-----“biggest”
Modest
Small
Tiny
Minute-------smallest

The size difference is relative. But in most cases small, tiny, and minute can be used interchangeably. Modest is generally pretty close to the average.

If you want to throw some numbers at it and say that a value of 50 was average; 47, 46, 45, 44, could all be considered modest. A value of around 35 (give or take) would be small. And a value of 10 or so could be called tiny and values close to 1 would be minute.

As far as modest in the context you mention it; if you were to guess someone’s age and wanted to be polite you would make a modest guess. A few years younger then you would say then if you wanted to guess their actual age.

Hope some of that help or at least adds up to more then just repeating AnonymousRed.

I'd add "moderate" between average and modest, but that's just me.

Welcome to StarfleetJedi.net Sandyin, please follow the rules and have fun :)

Thank you, that helps a lot.

But only to clarification: Average is nearly an arithmetic mean. At a homogeneous distribution, it is statistical nearly 50 percent?

If I have 10 people, who are 1,6 meters high, 100 people with 1,80 meters and 10 with 2,0 meters, an average high people would be 1,80 meters high and a modest high people would be 1,75 meters and a small peole would be 1,6 meters high?

I believe so.

It would be better if you had a range or people between 1.6-2.0m in height with a symmetrical dispersal pattern about 1.8m, rather than three discrete data points. But yes, your example works.