|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 3, 2008 17:53:28 GMT
jme
Jun 3, 08 - 4:38 PM amount v. number
Just as there is major confusion about the use of fewer or less, there are constant errors regarding the use of amount or number. It's so easy to learn; I can't imagine why people can't get it.
Paul Doherty
Jun 3rd, 2008 - 6:49 PM
Because it doesn't matter much? We have to distinguish between number and amount when choosing less or fewer, but happily use more for both.
If I can say more sand and more pencils why am I forced to make the distinction between less sand and fewer pencils? Why not just use less for both? Language change often makes sense: pointless rules are abandoned over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 3, 2008 18:21:19 GMT
One of your favourites, eh, Paul? But, if there were fewer bees in fewer bonnets, there'd be less to argue about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 3, 2008 18:26:24 GMT
Heh. There's a discussion on this going on at Wordcraft: Anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 3, 2008 18:34:52 GMT
Heh. There's a discussion on this going on at Wordcraft: Anyways. What, another forum discussing the trivia of the English language?! Are there that many people interested in doing so?  (I'd have guessed there were far fewer.) PS How many more messages do I have to post to be awarded my second star? Don't my thousands of puerile posts to the APS count for anything? |
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 3, 2008 19:56:37 GMT
Why not just use less for both? Language change often makes sense: pointless rules are abandoned over time. And this particular rule never even existed! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 3, 2008 20:29:22 GMT
PS How many more messages do I have to post to be awarded my second star? Don't my thousands of puerile posts to the APS count for anything? 2 stars at 50 posts - junior member  3 stars at 100 posts - full member  4 stars at 250 posts - senior member ;D 5 stars at 500 posts - god  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 3, 2008 20:58:01 GMT
Don't my thousands of puerile posts to the APS count for anything? Yes, they do. I'm thinking of quadrupling the required number of posts for your username. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 3, 2008 21:02:58 GMT
And this particular rule never even existed! Well, it certainly existed in the sense that many people could quote it, believed in it, and obeyed it. It's easy enough to find in any number of usage guides and dictionaries. Whether it ever had any validity, of course, is another matter. But I'm not sure how you'd assess any grammatical convention's validity. It's a useful way of assessing someone's educational level and willingness to follow norms, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 3, 2008 21:13:17 GMT
Don't my thousands of puerile posts to the APS count for anything? Yes, they do. I'm thinking of quadrupling the required number of posts for your username. About a fortnight until I get five stars, then. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 4, 2008 2:00:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 4, 2008 2:29:12 GMT
There's also the wiki page that's been around for a while. That's quite a discussion. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage wasn't quoted, but fortunately Liberman has provided it for us. It's interesting that this all seems to have started with one writer's personal preference. Facebook says, when someone leaves a group, "one fewer member" - which just sounds downright weird to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 4, 2008 2:46:48 GMT
Facebook says, when someone leaves a group, "one fewer member" - which just sounds downright weird to me. If two leave, would you allow "two fewer members"? |
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 4, 2008 2:47:50 GMT
If two leave, would you allow "two fewer members"? That's fine, altho I prefer "two less members." |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 4, 2008 2:55:45 GMT
[...] Facebook says, when someone leaves a group, "one fewer member" - which just sounds downright weird to me. I'll confess that it sounds a tad odd to me, too, yet turning it around to "one member fewer" sounds - to my ear - perfectly okay. Meanwhile, "two members fewer", "three members ...", etc. all sound quite "normal" to me and require no inversion. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 4, 2008 3:03:53 GMT
I'm surprised no-one else seems to render the rule as "use less with numbers", not even goofy's beloved MWDEU. It seems to me clearly what we do when not influenced by the spurious rule:
- this group has fewer members
- this group has one less member
- this group has two less members
It's the number -- "one" or "two" in those examples -- which makes the difference. We'd all say that 6 is less than 7, and the < sign is always "less than", never "fewer than". Numbers take less, it's obvious!
My often-quoted one less thing to worry about is a case in point. I simply don't believe that anyone would naturally say one fewer thing to worry about, and my explanation is the only one that fits. Perhaps I should write a usage guide!
|
|
(I'd have guessed there were far fewer.)
