alexknibb
Silver
"I have never fallen in love. I've stepped in it a few times..."
Posts: 194
|
Post by alexknibb on Sept 3, 2009 8:51:53 GMT
Hi again, everyone. Long time, no post. How are you all keeping? I came across the following sentence in a BBC News article today: "But the Department of Health said many services needed more staff, not fewer." Now, to me the use of the word "fewer" looks odd. I would have gone with "less" as "staff" is singular in my mind. I understand the concept about something being a continuous amount or discrete quantities, but it still stood out in my mind... Is the use of "fewer" in this sentence technically incorrect, or am I just revisiting the issue of whether the England team are/is plural/singular? Thanks, Al. PS. Or am I just going mad?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 3, 2009 11:16:49 GMT
Perhaps you'd be happier with ... more staff members, not less or ... a larger staff, not smaller Otherwise, it depends on how you view staff--and I have the same problem!
|
|
|
Post by graham on Sept 3, 2009 12:35:53 GMT
We had this at work recently: Staff is plural according to the Guardian style guide and singular according to the MS Word spell-checker and Stephen Fry.
It is the England are/England is thing again really and I would always follow the UK convention of England are, the staff are, Australia are rubbish at cricket, etc. Therefore, fewer staff seems just about OK to me.
Recasting the sentence seems like the best idea though because both of Dave's examples do sound better.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 3, 2009 12:53:58 GMT
Does the decision about fewer or less depend on whether staff is singular or plural? To me, the word that is needed to complete the sense should be the opposite of more, which is less: But the Department of Health said many services needed more staff, not less.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Sept 3, 2009 14:47:20 GMT
... the UK convention of England are, the staff are ... Is there such a convention? And isn't that a red herring, anyway? Surely the use of less or fewer isn't a singular/plural thing? It depends on whether the noun is a count noun or a non-count noun, doesn't it? (Or more precisely, used in a count or non-count way.) Geoff says the opposite of more is less, but is it? Certainly the opposite of less is more, but also the opposite of fewer is more. So more has two opposites: less and fewer. I'd say fewer people, fewer staff, so I'd go with the BBC on this one. But less is often used in place of fewer -- less people, less staff -- probably by transference from mass nouns ( less sugar) and I maintain less is always appropriate if specific numbers are being used -- ten items or less -- so less is often an acceptable alternative to fewer, but it is a pedant's favourite, of course.
|
|
alexknibb
Silver
"I have never fallen in love. I've stepped in it a few times..."
Posts: 194
|
Post by alexknibb on Sept 4, 2009 10:05:32 GMT
Thanks very much for all the replies. I'm still not sure what irks me about the phrase, but I think Geoff's point about the opposite of more being less is probably pretty close to the mark. While the opposite of fewer is also more, I suspect that if you asked Joe Public in the street what the opposite of more is, the answer will almost invariably be "less". I think it might be the way the sentence is structured that catches me out, in that the reader knows that the opposite is about to pop its head above the horizon, but when it arrives it's not the opposite one was expecting. Interesting replies, though. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 4, 2009 19:50:53 GMT
Perhaps you'd be happier with ... more staff members, not less Sorry, Dave, but I would prefer 'fewer' in this example.
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Sept 5, 2009 0:27:55 GMT
I maintain less is always appropriate if specific numbers are being used -- ten items or less -- so less is often an acceptable alternative to fewer, but it is a pedant's favourite, of course. Fewer seems to me to be more appropriate when we are counting something, whereas less is more about mass.
|
|
|
Post by jjg1 on Sept 5, 2009 12:58:25 GMT
I agree with Bertie. Examples would be: There is less beer in my glass than yours - 'fewer' would be wrong here. I have less hair on my head than you do - again, 'fewer' would be wrong; but a similar sentence could be: I have fewer hairs on my head than you do - this would be correct as we are talking about a discrete number of hairs, not a mass of hair.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Sept 5, 2009 16:03:50 GMT
Was my "It depends on whether the noun is a count noun or a non-count noun" too technical?
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 5, 2009 16:21:46 GMT
Was my "It depends on whether the noun is a count noun or a non-count noun" too technical? As you've pointed out before, Paul, it's not that simple. We don't say "One fewer car/s", but "One less car", despite "car" being a count noun. I think singularity v plurality must come into it as well.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Sept 5, 2009 16:37:29 GMT
That's one fewer thing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by jjg1 on Sept 5, 2009 17:38:22 GMT
Paul D,
Not too technical, but your point regarding mass nouns and countable nouns did seem a bit confused (rather than confusing). Maybe it would be better if you were fewer technical in future and your reasoning might be more clear. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on Sept 5, 2009 18:29:21 GMT
For what it's worth, I also prefer fewer in this case (i.e. I go with the BBC).
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 6, 2009 3:21:40 GMT
No matter how many times the subject is raised, less vs. fewer is guaranteed to generate some discussion.
|
|