|
Post by Paul Doherty on Oct 5, 2009 18:53:41 GMT
I'd say "1 less member" "2 less members" " n. less members". I'd obviously be wrong but that's how I'd say it. I think you'd be right, in fact (but it's not a popular view amongst pedants). This is one of those cases where people learn an incorrect rule and then change what they'd naturally say in an attempt to be "correct". In other words they are hypercorrcect -- wrong by trying too hard. Like those people who can't say "She went with Sally and me" because they've been told the rule is "Sally and I" (they often fear that ... and me is "common"). The rule normally taught is that we use fewer for countable things, less for non-countable ones. But the rule oversimpliflies reality (which teachers implicitly acknowledges by adding "exceptions" for time, distance, and quantity, as in "the bell rang for less than 20 seconds"). The truth is that we use less when specific numbers are quoted -- so "one less thing to worry about", "less than six items", and so on. A lot of people who know the "rule" convince themselves they'd say "one fewer thing to worry about", but they mostly don't in practice, and those who do are being hypercorrect. So carry on saying "one less members, two less members" and so on, Vadim. Facebook is trying too hard. (Or rather it's buying the argument that, with countable items, we might use less in the phrase "less than", but fewer otherwise. So less than two members, but two fewer members; less than ten items but ten items of fewer. That seems over-fussy to me.)
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 11, 2009 10:24:41 GMT
The rule normally taught is that we use fewer for countable things, less for non-countable ones. But the rule oversimpliflies reality (which teachers implicitly acknowledges by adding "exceptions" for time, distance, and quantity, as in "the bell rang for less than 20 seconds"). My problem with your example, Paul, is that seconds are not countable. The bell may have rung for 19.35639658746964545 seconds. On the other hand, people are countable, as you can't have a fraction of a person.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Oct 11, 2009 20:12:53 GMT
>On the other hand, people are countable, as you can't have a fraction of a person. <But lions, ogres, and trolls can, when they are eating them! Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 12, 2009 7:56:14 GMT
>On the other hand, people are countable, as you can't have a fraction of a person. <But lions, ogres, and trolls can, when they are eating them! Tone Good point, well made. Why didn't I think of that?!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Oct 12, 2009 20:57:33 GMT
I think the countable/non-countable thing is just another was of saying discrete/continuous, Pete. (Or as I think of it in my sad programmer's way, digital/analogue).
Seconds are discrete and countable, time is continuous and non-countable. When we say "less than 30 seconds" we justify the less by saying we're really talking about time, not seconds. But that's never really held water for me -- we could as well justify "less spoons than we need" by saying we're really talking about cutlery, not spoons.
No; it's simpler (and observably true) that we just say less when numbers are involved.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 17, 2009 14:50:24 GMT
Seconds are discrete and countable, time is continuous and non-countable. When we say "less than 30 seconds" we justify the less by saying we're really talking about time, not seconds. But that's never really held water for me -- we could as well justify "less spoons than we need" by saying we're really talking about cutlery, not spoons. I disagree, Paul. In your time example, if I say that Usain Bolt ran the 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, it's because he did so in 9.58 seconds, not 9. Seconds are not discrete and countable, because you can have a fraction of a second. Whereas, spoons clearly are discrete and countable, because you cannot have a fraction of a spoon.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 4, 2010 7:17:05 GMT
I saw a slogan for Thames Water at one of their pipe laying sites the other day. It said "We are replacing 200 miles of water mains every year. That's a lot of pipe and a lot fewer leaks."
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 4, 2010 8:03:33 GMT
Uprooting onions in the process? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 4, 2010 13:21:40 GMT
>We are replacing 200 miles of water mains every year.<
Should that not be "main" instead of "mains"?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 4, 2010 14:01:04 GMT
>We are replacing 200 miles of water mains every year.< Should that not be "main" instead of "mains"? Tone I don't know. Why do you suggest that it might be, Tone?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 4, 2010 19:11:27 GMT
'Cos "water main" is the term for the pipe wot they are replacing. Whilst "water mains" is a distribution system. They (appear to be, by observation) doing the former. Were they to do the latter they must, I would have thought, install a new entire distribution system (possibly re-routing) to replace the one they had -- not just new bits of pipe in the same places. On the other hand, mayhap I'm being a bit too techno-picky about meanings. (But it is rather similar to the way that many people mix up the terms "sewerage" and "sewage".) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 5, 2010 16:50:29 GMT
'Cos "water main" is the term for the pipe wot they are replacing. Whilst "water mains" is a distribution system. They (appear to be, by observation) doing the former. Were they to do the latter they must, I would have thought, install a new entire distribution system (possibly re-routing) to replace the one they had -- not just new bits of pipe in the same places. On the other hand, mayhap I'm being a bit too techno-picky about meanings. (But it is rather similar to the way that many people mix up the terms "sewerage" and "sewage".) Tone Interesting. What they are in fact doing is replacing worn-out / leaking pipes with new ones. In many (possibly most) cases, this is done by dragging a plastic liner through the existing pipes. so effectively renewing them and making them leak-proof, without having to dig them all up.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 5, 2010 19:13:48 GMT
Yes, but not making the existing pipe leak-proof. Because every premisses has a takeoff point they appear to smash the cast-iron pipe where needed (for the take-off from the new plastic pipe) and thus use the old pipe as a duct for the new pipe. So just the route (and new pipe) is leak-proof.
(Did I say techno-picky?)
Tone
P.S. And "Alperton clay", near where I live, is listed as one of the worst types of ground for destroying the old cast-iron pipes.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Apr 5, 2010 21:51:45 GMT
Premisses, Tone? A typo, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 6, 2010 19:25:46 GMT
>Premisses<
Well, it is a legitimate, if archaic, spelling, and the spellchucker doesn't reject it.
Tone
|
|