We love to “range.” When describing a new shopping mall, for example, an article might say: “It has everything from a roller coaster for the kiddies to high-end boutiques for fashionistas.” The “from” and “to” implies a “range,” and a range implies that “everything” will be along that line. But the only thing the roller coaster and boutique have in common is that they are inside this new mall. It’s a “false range.”
Scientists and mathematicians understand “false ranges” better than most people. Journalists fall into patterns of their own, relying on clichéd phrases like “everything from … to” even when “everything” is not listed. If you wanted to say the new shopping mall has “everything” from a roller coaster to pricey clothing, you should list everything it has. Otherwise, just say it “includes a roller coaster for the kiddies and high-end boutiques for fashionistas,” and you’re out of range danger.
A “false range” is similar to comparing apple to oranges—they may have things in common, but the comparison does not start with a level playing field. You must compare apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, and the same goes with ranges.
A “true” range requires that the items are very narrowly plotted and extremely similar, like “A to Z” (all letters) or “1 to 100” (all numbers), where the specific items mentioned are exactly on that line. The dancers on a new sitcom “include a stock quartet of teenage girls ranging from the sullen beauty to the body-obsessed-one-with-pluck,” The Boston Globe wrote, hedging its bets by using “included.” We know the “line” consists of four teenage girl dancers, and here are two of its members.
Think of a “true range” as the trip from New York to Miami. “Our stops ranged from Philadelphia to Charleston to Orlando” is a true range, because all of those are cities on the line between New York and Miami. But if you said “Our stops ranged from Philadelphia to a plantation house to Space Mountain,” that’s a false range because one is a city, one is a house, and one is a ride. If you said, though, that “our stops included Philadelphia, a plantation house, and Space Mountain,” you haven’t set up the expectation of a continuum, so you have not set up a range. “Include” is a great way to avoid even the whiff of a range. (But if you use “include,” you must “exclude” something, or you have listed “everything from ”)
“False ranges” usually don’t confuse readers, so on the range of things to worry about in writing, they rank somewhere below bad organization and somewhere above split infinitives. (That, by the way is a false range, since organization and split infinitives are not in the same family.) But they still “enrange” many readers. When you’re tempted to write phrases that include “from to,” stop and see if you can get yourself out of range.
You suggest saying it “includes a roller coaster for the kiddies to high-end boutiques for fashionistas." How can you use the word "to" in this example? It should be "and." By using to you simply commit a similar "range" error. It makes no sense.
#1 Posted by bob yearick, CJR on Mon 11 Jun 2012 at 05:43 PM
Bob, you're right, and thanks for the catch. It was intended to be "and," but our brain apparently went AWOL. We will fix ASAP.
#2 Posted by Languag Corner, CJR on Mon 11 Jun 2012 at 06:10 PM
"1 to 100" is hardly "all numbers"; there are more things, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your numerology.
#3 Posted by Theophylact, CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 12:28 PM
(But it is, of course, a valid range.)
#4 Posted by Theophylact, CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 12:31 PM
Theophylact - I think the "all numbers" refers to the fact that everything in the range 1 to 100 is a number, therefore it's a valid range. It is a little confusing following the range A to Z, which both has nothing but letters and contains all of the (English) letters. Maybe "only numbers" would have been clearer...
#5 Posted by Matt, CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 01:38 PM
Firstly, you shouldn't worry about split infinitives. The 'rule' was invented by antique grammarians overly enamoured of Latin, and has never been observed by the best writers of English. Naturally, it can be, well, clumsy, but then again, so can the use of, you know, comma-separated embedded clauses. The only reason to avoid them entirely is to avoid annoying wrong-headed pedants, but to deliberately annoy wrong-headed pedants with split infinitives is to (I assert) be on the side of the Good and the Just. (Also, note in the first link restructuring some sentences to avoid splitting infinitives changes their meaning).
So, I maybe could agree that using false ranges is between bad organization and split infinitives, but that's because split infinitives are not necessarily bad, and sometimes a good thing.
But what the hell is wrong with them, otherwise? So they're not a 'real range'. Did anyone claim they were? Is anyone actually confused by them and starts trying to find an order to put pricey clothing and rollercoasters on? What is this — today's message bought to you by the Organization for the Total Advancement of Literalism and the Elimination of All Figure? Tomorrow: new rule: never say "as big as Texas" to refer to anything that's not 696,000 km² ± 10%.
I'm well within the top decile of total pedantry, but I don't see any problem here. Perhaps it's a bit over-used, but the article only mentions that in passing.
#6 Posted by arcseconds, CJR on Fri 15 Jun 2012 at 09:25 PM
To have academic success, different persons should determine if they are willing to accomplish the original essay or just purchase term paper of superb upper-class.
#7 Posted by StaciChristensen, CJR on Sat 16 Jun 2012 at 07:37 PM
Hm, it seems to me "everything from... to" can still be a true range. I think "rollercoasters" and "boutiques" are connected in that they are part of a group called "everything," on top of being inside of a mall. The very dissimilarity of the two things perfectly illustrates one of the defining characteristics of the idea of everything - that it's not limited or qualified, and you can't really count out any one thing being part of this "everything" group. I don't buy that it is necessarily a false range. It may not be a down to earth, literal range, but it is nevertheless a clever use of the "range" form. It seems like somebody at one time took an experimental leap with the form - probably inverting or exploiting the original meaning of the "range" to further deepen the effect of saying - "it's got everything! there's no way to find a single 'line' of similarity between them, that's how 'everything' it is!"
That being said, I really enjoyed the explanation of how "range" is normally employed.
#8 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Sun 17 Jun 2012 at 09:12 PM