|
Post by Pete on Apr 7, 2010 7:47:34 GMT
>Premisses<Well, it is a legitimate, if archaic, spelling, and the spellchucker doesn't reject it. Tone That's all right, then!
|
|
|
Post by Alice on Jul 25, 2018 14:37:28 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. Less/fewer ties very much to the plurality of a noun. In your example, the word people is plural. You wouldn't say "fewer person" because you'd sound insane.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 25, 2018 16:29:09 GMT
Hi Alice. It's not up to me to pronounce on what is correct and what isn't. If your assertion is that less people is what most people say, I'd probably agree with you. If you are saying that it sounds right to most people, again I'd probably agree. But it is technically ungrammatical, for the reasons I wrote in 2009. Whether this matters much is rather up to you. I certainly don't care much, and I'd happily say less people, but I do like to know that I'm breaking a grammatical "rule". If I heard someone say fewer people, I might think they were trying too hard to be correct, but I certainly wouldn't think they sounded insane. Well-educated possibly, or even a bit pompous, but not insane. Oxford Dictionaries did a questionnaire on less and fewer back in 2012, where they asked which of these is correct: - There were fewer books in the library than last time.
- (In a supermarket/store) Ten items or less.
- If you use poor grammar, you’ll impress less people.
- Learning English is less difficult than you might think.
1,699 people answered the questions, and only 96 of them felt less people was correct (5.65 percent). So presumably the other 94 percent of people would not agree with you that fewer people sounds insane. To them it sounds right. And the Oxford Dictionaries authar says it is correct. I dare say people who read dictionary blogs are not demographically representative, and you may not agree with the author that fewer people is correct, but it does make your assertion a bit dubious. As an opinion, it's fine. But as statement of grammar it's not in accordance with most authorities. You may, of course, feel the authorities are wrong, that usage has moved on, and that it's just not what people say any more. I'd tend to agree with you, but I don't thing people who choose to stick with the old, correct, usage sound insane. You can see the Oxford Dictionaries article here. Welcome to the fray!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 25, 2018 16:41:15 GMT
Also, it's very much not about plurality. We'd all say less sugar, I think, but is sugar a plural noun? Or a singular noun? No, it's a mass noun, and we don't usually think of mass nouns has being either singular or plural. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 25, 2018 19:47:06 GMT
Good heavens, like a ghost from the past - about eight years past in fact - the less vs fewer question has arisen once again, and Paul, whose appearances here nowadays are sadly few and far between, responded almost instantly. It's just like the old days! People and persons are countable, so I'd normally use "fewer", but perhaps the point that Alice makes is specifically about a singular noun. One less person, or one fewer person? In that situation I'd use the former, but that's not to say I'd be grammatically correct in doing so, nor that it'd be insane to use the latter. English isn't always rational - far from it. As Paul says, it isn't about singular and plural nouns, it's about mass nouns and non-mass nouns (or non-count and count nouns). Often, of course, there's an overlap where either word is correct; for example, "We've less than twenty miles to go" is just as valid as, "We've fewer than twenty miles to go", because the first is considering the remaining distance as an amount, and the second is looking at it as twenty individual, countable miles. Welcome, Alice. We enjoy a good (but friendly) discussion here and we've become a little short of members. Join us?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jul 26, 2018 14:10:59 GMT
Welcome home, Paul‼️
These days people seems to be the preferred plural of person. I would certainly be comfortable saying, for example, that there are two people in the room. Saying two persons would, I think, sound a little odd. Strangely, people has a plural of its own — the peoples of the Commonwealth of Nations. It seems that the plural of person is usually people but people is also the singular of peoples. Does any word have a more irregular form?
Regarding less or fewer: in this context, I think it can be difficult to choose— There were many people on the beach in the afternoon but during the late evening there were fewer / less people. I would be comfortable with either.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 1, 2018 21:23:43 GMT
... One less person, or one fewer person? In that situation I'd use the former, but that's not to say I'd be grammatically correct in doing so, nor that it'd be insane to use the latter. English isn't always rational - far from it. ... But we would say "one more person" or even "one person more" which shows that "one person fewer" might also be correct (and sound better than "one fewer person"). As usual, context may dictate as well.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Aug 1, 2018 21:45:14 GMT
... One less person, or one fewer person? In that situation I'd use the former, but that's not to say I'd be grammatically correct in doing so, nor that it'd be insane to use the latter. English isn't always rational - far from it. ... But we would say "one more person" or even "one person more" which shows that "one person fewer" might also be correct (and sound better than "one fewer person"). As usual, context may dictate as well. Yes, you're right: "one person fewer" sounds the best of all to me.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 2, 2018 22:40:34 GMT
Thank you for the welcome home! As some of you know, the reason I no longer post here is that I can't read long text (more than a sentence) without effort. Slight touch of brain damage.
So I didn't spot that Alice was talking about person, not people. So I agree with her, and I'd certainly say one less person. But then I've argued somewhere that we normally use less when a number is mentioned (despite what the grammar books say) - so I'd happily say six items or less, even though items are countable. Just as we all (surely?) say one less thing to worry about.
So Alice, now I understand her, is right. Singular and plural does come into it, in that we always used less with singular words. Mass nouns, of course, don't have singular and plural forms, so we still use less: less sand, less sugar.
The complications come with plurals. Less people in the room or fewer people in the room? It's not even clear if people is a mass noun now: a large amount of people (mass noun) or a large number of people (countable, plural)? With a clearly countable plural like pencils, it's clearer: less pencils in the bag or fewer pencils in the bag? People who are being careful would still, I think, prefer fewer pencils. But one less pencil. And three fewer pencils?
Don't feel it matters much! This is not one of the things that annoys me. But if we all took that line here, there'd be nothing to discuss ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 2, 2018 22:42:00 GMT
Oh and the reason I replied so quickly to Alice is that the system e-mails me when I'm quoted. Even after eight years.
|
|
|
Post by Boulevardier on Sept 30, 2018 20:19:49 GMT
So, is "percent" a countable noun? "Fewer than 15% of participants" or "less than 15% of participants"?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Sept 30, 2018 21:32:53 GMT
I’d say less than 15 percent.
You could have 14.9 percent, 14.785342 percent and so on. Countable nouns occur in whole numbers.
|
|