How can I avoid ambiguity in the sentence "I cut the middle of the hose"?

Question

How do I describe exactly in what way this hose was cut?

We have at least two ways to cut a hose in the middle. To simplify it, I'll use a bottle as an example.

1) Cutting the hose from the opening. In a bottle: from the opening to the bottom, like this one:

2) Cutting the hose from the middle of the body. In a bottle: at its waist, like this one:

Now if I say simply: "I cut the hose in the middle of it", it may have these two meanings. How can I describe each of the possibilities separately and accurately (without falling into ambiguity)?

Answer 1

I cut the hose in half.

I (and I think most people) would assume you were talking about doing what is represented in the first and third pictures if you said that.

To describe, the second, I would say:

I cut (or probably more commonly, split) the hose in half length-wise.

Answer 2

@sharken’s answer may be precise, but even as a native English speaker I would have to reach for a dictionary to be certain of the meaning of axial:

I cut the hose along the longitudinal/axial plane.

The initial question you pose is:

How to describe exactly in what way this hose was cut?

And as @KateBunting says in the comments, you can simply say

I cut the hose in two

or

I cut it in the middle

(this last one depending on whereabouts along its length you cut the hose).

This works because of implicit context: what a hose is (plastic pipe that transfers water) and typical concerns/issues/actions (often hose is provided in a long length that needs to be reduced) and qualities of the hose (it’s usually plastic and amenable to cutting to shorter lengths).

As it’s such an unusual thing to do, if you want to describe cutting the hose in two along its length, opening it up, you’d probably say exactly that. In a paragraph explaining why on earth you wanted to!

EDIT: You might also say

I cut the hose lengthwise

as an alternative to "along its length"

Answer 3

As a practical matter, I'm assuming that the person shown is cutting out a part of the hose that has a leak, and splicing the two good pieces back together with a hose mender. So you wouldn't say "I cut the hose in the middle", because the leak might not be in the middle of the hose. You'd say "I cut out the leaking part, and spliced the hose back together".

As for the direction of cut, you wouldn't say that you cut ACROSS the hose, because that would be assumed. You would only mention the direction if for some odd reason you cut in a different direction, e.g. "I cut the hose at a 45 degree angle" or "I cut the hose lengthwise".

Answer 4

Something can be split in half, for example a tree

Something can be cut in half, for example an apple

But you could also describe it as being spilt down the middle, because both sides of the apple are equal.

For cylinder objects like hoses, tubes and pipes; in order to avoid any ambiguity say

I cut the [object] in half OR in the middle

I cut through the [object] OR cut the [object] in two pieces

Answer 5

Cross Section:

a cutting or piece of something cut off at right angles to an axis also; a representation of such a cutting.

Considering the angle, it's vertical cross section.

So, it could be "doing a vertical cut to the hose."

Answer 6

"I cut the hose into two pieces of equal length".

Strictly speaking, splitting the hose down its length will also result in two pieces of equal length, but that interpretation seems very unlikely. If you were concerned about that potential ambiguity, then "I cut the hose into two pieces, each half the original length" removes the ambiguity but is verbose.

Answer 7

In the context of a hose, cutting in two is unambiguous. For any object in common use, cutting it, without further qualification, means cutting it on the 'easy' plane. When I cut a piece of paper in two, I don't expect to need to qualify it with saying I'm not going to halve its thickness.

The hose is practically one-dimensional, it only has significant length. The 'easy' plane is obviously normal to the length. To any english-speaker, or any human for that matter (excluding possibly mathematicians and topologists), they would be surprised if you meant anything else.

If I was demonstrating a build of something, and had a short piece of hose 40 mm long and 13 mm diameter that was going to be used for some bushings or something, the length is not so overwhelmingly obvious, and I might expect to have to make a distinction between splitting along its length, and cutting it into two 20 mm pieces.

Answer 8

A bottle being three dimensional can be cut along three different planes.

Sagittal plane or longitudinal plane when the bottle is placed upright and cut perpendicular to the ground. It divides the object into left and right portions.

A transverse or axial plane when the bottle is cut to separate it’s top from it’s bottom.

The third type is coronal or frontal plane, which is perpendicular to the ground and when cut divides an object into dorsal and ventral portions. This would not apply to your example of a bottle or a hose being cut.

Your sentence would then be:

I cut the hose along the longitudinal/axial plane.

Edit 1: If it were to be cut along it’s length, would either half still be called a hose?

Answer 9

"I cut the hose in the middle" seems completely clear to me, since in your alternative meaning the position of the cut would be not "in the middle" but "along its whole length".

The "middle" of a hose (or, really, of anything with two ends) is the part roughly halfway between the ends. If that is where the whole of your cut is, then you must have cut across its width.

(If you are concerned that this could be interpreted as cutting partway through the hose, making a place where water could escape but not separating it into two pieces, you could say "I cut the hose into two at the middle.")

Answer 10

I would describe it as cutting the hose at its midpoint. Since most people consider the length of a hose to be its long dimension, rather than either of the dimensions across its mouth, its intuitive "midpoint" would be halfway down that length. "At" also reinforces that it's a cut in a single location, as opposed to "along" or other prepositions.

Answer 11

Cutting into two hoses

For something like a hose, the first way, you can simply say:

I cut the hose into two.

This implies that you are making two hoses out of one, and sounds very natural. It is the same as the more explicit:

I cut the hose into two hoses.

If you are cutting it directly in the middle you can say:

I cut the hose into two hoses of equal length.

or

I cut the hose into two equal length hoses.

Cutting lengthwise

For the other way, as other answers have said:

I cut the hose lengthwise.

This is very natural sounding. Again if it is directly in the middle you can be more specific:

I cut the hose lengthwise through the center.

Answer 12

What about

Section the hose in the middle

For me (a native french speaker), section has a strong connotation of cutting a cylindrical item (such as a cable, or here a hose) in the direction depicted in your first image.

Answer 13

Corresponding to your numbered examples:

1) Slice the hose along its length to give two semi-circular sections.

2) Cut the hose to give two smaller[/shorter] hoses of equal length.

"Slice" tends to be for thin pieces (e.g. sliced bread). Cutting a hose longitudinally would give thin pieces.

Answer 14

Transect VERB cut across or make a transverse section in. "tissues connecting the tibia and femur were transected"