Olympus Mons dwarfs Mount Everest three to one

[Glizdka]

Olympus Mons on Mars is three times higher than Mount Everest on Earth.

Can I say that Olympus Mons dwarfs Mount Everest three to one?

 

[GoesStation]

Yes.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes. It's grammatical and logical. But I think the first version is more natural.

I'd probably say three times as high as.

(Cross-post.)

 

[jutfrank]

I'm afraid I disagree that what you've said is correct, for a few reasons.

At the very least, you need by before the ratio phrase.

 

[Glizdka]

I'm afraid I disagree that what you've said is correct, for a few reasons.

At the very least, you need by before the ratio phrase.

What are the other reasons?

 

[Tarheel]

Mount Everest could literally be in the shadow of Olympus Mons. But Olympus Mons is on Mars, so I'll never go there.

 

[jutfrank]

The major reason is that you shouldn't use a specific ratio phrase to qualify the verb dwarf because the relative size is already there within the meaning of the word.

Olympus Mons dwarfs Mount Everest. :tick:

Another general point is that in common speech, when we use ratio phrases such as by three to one, we are normally dealing with a relative number of things. We don't normally use them to talk about relative magnitude, such as dimensions of height and length.

Women outnumber men by three to one. :tick:

 

[GoesStation]

The logic is sound, but the sentence sounds equally natural to me with or without by.