0

The factory was dismantled to 70% of its original mass.

Is it grammatically correct to say "dismantled to 70%"? I am asking because I have never heard of something like that being phrased like this, and it seems a bit of an awkward phrasing. The "to 75%" might be wrong.

  • It's not so much a matter of it being grammatically correct - the problem here is one of semantics (meaning). So I'd just say your attempted phrasing is non-idiomatic (it's not something any native speaker would be likely to say). You might do better with 30% of the mass of the factory was dismantled, but even then I think it's rather strange to refer to the extent of the dismantling of a factory in terms of how much mass was "lost". – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 17:32
1

Not ungrammatical, but certainly awkward and non-idiomatic.

For a start, talking about how much "mass" of the factory remained is a strange way to measure a factory. If someone asked me how big a factory was, I might say "It covers an area of 1000m²" or I might say "30 people work there". I would not say "It has a mass of 100000 tonnes"

Then I would probably talk about the percentage that was removed, rather than the percentage that remained. So I'd say

30% of the factory was dismantled.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.