English question

[KvHagedorn]

Yes, I can't be sure exactly what you are trying to say here, Umf. Do you think you could explain more fully exactly what you are trying to describe? If you look at your original sentence:

"Less than 10% is rated sub-investment grade by at least one of Moody’s and S&P.,"

it's hard to know what you mean without some context. Less than ten percent what? You could certainly make it a more complete sentence, since it was just sitting out there alone without the rest of your document. You might have meant something like:

"Bond issues with a return of less than ten percent per annum are rated as sub-investment grade by at least one of the major rating agencies."

or perhaps:

"Bond issues from companies with less than ten percent of their total book value in cash are rated as sub-investment grade by at least one of the major rating agencies."

Give us some more background.. explain what you are trying to say more fully, and I'm sure one of us can tell you exactly how to say it.

[Umfriend]

Yes, I can't be sure exactly what you are trying to say here, Umf. Do you think you could explain more fully exactly what you are trying to describe?

Well, I already said that

Actually, it refers to A portfolio (i.e. 10% of the portfolio IS) instead of SOME bonds (i.e 10% of the bonds ARE).

I don't think "fewer" is correct here, again because it "less than 10%" tries to say that a (one!) portion of the portfolio is rated bla bla bla. That portion comprises less than 10% of the whole portfolio. I would use "fewer" if I would say "Fewer than 10 per cent of the bonds are bla bla bla". I think it depends on what you refer to, just as with the "is" vs" are" issue above.

So there is a portfolio of bonds. This portolio has a notional or principal value. If we add all the principal values of the bonds in the portfolio, we have the total principal value. Each bond may or may not have been rated bu one or two rating agencies (in the context, only the two matter). I want to convey what portion of the portfolio is rated by at least on of the two rating agencies (...that matter).

It is industry practice to put that in relation to the value (as opposed to the number of bonds).

I am quite sure that the "Less" part is OK. It wasn't the subject of the initial discussion either. I am concerned with the "at least on of" vs "either/or/or both".

[GNEP]

Do you mean "rated" or "rated as investment grade" Umf?

Ie is this 10% meant to include those bonds that haven't even received a rating by one of the two main agencies, or bonds that have been rated but have received junk ratings from that process?

[Gurm]

The problem with your original wording, as KvH pointed out, is that "at least one of" REQUIRES (not _should have_ but REQUIRES) a single object (but not a SINGULAR object).

Confusing, eh? Welcome to English!

You CAN say:

One of the following objects is round.

You CANNOT say:

One of the box and the ball are round.

You CAN say:

One of these days, I'll cut you into little pieces.

You CANNOT say:

One of Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, I'll cut you into little pieces.

Follow?

- Gurm

[Umfriend]

The problem with your original wording, as KvH pointed out, is that "at least one of" REQUIRES (not _should have_ but REQUIRES) a single object (but not a SINGULAR object).

This seems clear to me. So, I can say "at least on of the rating agencies" (one non-singular) object, but not "at least one of the [INSERT LIST OF RATING AGENCIES]"?

Nice example Gurm, I think I got it clear now and only now realise it is exactly the same in Dutch.... DOH!

Seems Englsh isn't that bad after all

Thx guys. Of course, this sentence was the ESSENTIAL sentence of the paper

[Gurm]

Heh. Yes, you have it exactly.

Good luck!

- Gurm