UKC

What does in the hundreds mean ? It's a Diane abbott quote.

Is 130 in the hundreds ?

In reply to dunc56:

To me it would technically mean more than one hundred but less than one thousand, but it could be used misleadingly as it may be commonly interpreted as being very likely in the middle of that range, so several hundred or so, when in fact it could actually be quite a lot fewer than that.

In reply to dunc56:

Dalmatians?

In reply to dunc56:

100+ deaths would be in the hundreds?

In reply to malk:
I feel it implies multiple hundreds.

In reply to dunc56:

The s on the end could only mean two hundred or more.

In reply to dunc56:

"How much would you like me make it?", said the accountant.

In reply to summo:


I'd probably agree with you but it could also be interpreted as any 3 figure (whole) number as that's the grouping the number suits within. My own estimate of 'in the hundreds' would be a few hundred, so >300.

In reply to Fraser:

The Americans go much higher e.g. 29 hundred to.mean 2900

In reply to dunc56:

I was surprised by the lack of consensus on here so I googled for a definition. Turns out the top 3 results returned all agree:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hundreds, #4
... hundreds, a number between 100 and 999, as in referring to an amount of money

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hundred
... numbers between 100 and 1,000

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-hundreds
...a.
the numbers 100 to 109
the temperature was in the hundreds
b.
the numbers 100 to 199
his score went into the hundreds
c.
the numbers 100 to 999
the price was in the hundreds
hundred

In reply to MG:

Yes, since they use a version of English... As in 'fifteen hundred metres'...

In reply to dunc56:

If you voted Labour it means > 129. If you voted Tory it means > 130. Does that clear it up for you?

Meanwhile, if you aren't a tedious, partisan numpty, what "in the hundreds" literally means is 100-999, while what it implies depends on context.

In reply to Wicamoi:


If you had climbed 130 routes and someone asked you how many you had done, you would not say hundreds; you might say a hundred plus, a few dozen, or a hundred odd etc.. But never the plural unless you intended to mislead or lie.

No doubt when the party office responds tomorrow, it will mean that her blood sugar was either too high or low again.

In reply to summo:

Your example is missing the point that "hundreds of" and "in the hundreds" have subtly different meanings. But you probably knew that already.

In reply to john arran:

Your example is missing the point that "hundreds of" and "in the hundreds" have subtly different meanings. But you probably knew that already.

Here's the quote referenced to by the OP: -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-tower-fire-diane-abb...

Abbott says: "Those hundreds of people that died".
Not going to comment on the rest of the video as I'll be lynched for daring to criticise her...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Fair enough. I would agree that was misleading, even if not strictly incorrect.

In reply to dunc56:

Surely hundreds must be a multiple of hundred not more than one hundred.

Therefore, at least two hundred but less than one thousand

In reply to dunc56:



"Hundreds" is plural, so I would take it to mean more than 200 (to the nearest 100), so actually more than 150 but less than 950. Maybe.

In reply to dunc56:

I'd always take it to mean a few hundred. Technically it could be 2.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Troll of the night (the OP), implying DA said 130 and waiting for the usual, predictable crap about her, errr, numerically challenged mind (allegedly).

In reply to summo:

Not so sure.

One and a half apples.

1.2 metres.

1.1 hundreds?

Though in the context, it does seem misleading; I'd expect it to mean 200+, even if that isn't entirely correct.

In reply to Lusk:

Troll of the night (the OP), implying DA said 130 and waiting for the usual, predictable crap about her, errr, numerically challenged mind (allegedly).

To be perfectly honest, I'd be far more concerned about Abbotts use of language to imply that the disaster was a direct consequence of Conservative policy and that hundreds have died as a consequence of that policy.

In reply to skog:

I'll give you metres, but in standard description of value you'd never say I've climbed 1.3 hundreds routes. Plus even if you did it some how seems better with the s only on the subject, not the hundred.

Besides I think it's just more cheap politics out of the misery of others. A so called professional politician should be supporting those carrying out the investigation, not deciding who is to blame.

In reply to dunc56:



To me, yes, just as the year 1970 or 1971 is "in the seventies"

In reply to dunc56:



Any three digits number in the decimal system ?