Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 4
    I almost agree, but the way you phrase it suggests that there are more bad results than good results in quantity of specific effects. The phrase might well be used when there is one very significant negative outcome but several minor positive. Commented Jan 29, 2020 at 18:00
  • Then, you must think that the definition of the Oxford dictionary is wrong. Do you really think so? Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 2:35
  • 1
    @listeneva: Yes, because the "inadvertently" is not a necessary part of the definition. Sometimes the excess of harm over good may be intentional - always bearing in mind that both harm and good have a large subjective component. Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 4:45
  • I understand your objection to including 'inadvertently' in the definition. That said, the reason I think you disagree with the definition is that you're quantitatively comparing good and bad effects whereas the definition is not. All the definition's saying is that there are only bad effects. Likewise, the Cambridge dictionary agrees with Oxford: "to be damaging and not helpful" dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/… Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 5:03
  • @TimothyAWiseman does make a good point. In the end, it is not the quantity of good/bad outcomes but rather it is the overall impact. Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 8:32