ChatterBank5 mins ago
Less and fewer
13 Answers
This is another one I hear from presenters and broadcasters where fewer should be used rather than less. Aaaaah.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by RJUKL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"My workplace is fewer than two miles from home, so it takes a taxi fewer than ten minutes to get me there and the driver charges fewer than four pounds." Would anyone say that? I suspect not, yet miles, minutes and pounds are all countable nouns.
OK, the above example is just a little mischievous, because all three quantities concerned are considered as elements in a sequence rather than a collection of individual items. The concept of a journey of two miles is not thought of in quite the same way as a bag with two apples in it.
Nevertheless, there simply are situations which demand the demotic/idiomatic ‘less' rather than the - supposedly correct - ‘fewer'. The latter became ‘correct' only in the 18th century in any case. Prior to that, many writers used ‘less' where purists (or pedants) now demand ‘fewer'.
As time passes, we'll see much more of ‘less' and much less of ‘fewer', you may count on it! As an old-timer, I still differentiate between them, but I don't complain about people who choose not to... or don't know that they ‘should'. Even English examiners have been known to produce the instruction: "Write a précis of this passage in 50 words or less", never mind the supermarkets with their till-signs saying: "Ten items or less"!
It must be remembered, however, that there is a considerable difference - in terms of meaning - between a teacher telling his class: a) "Write fewer funny compositions" as opposed to: b) "Write less funny compositions." The sentence at ‘a' would mean they'd been writing too many of these and should try to cut the quantity down and ‘b' would mean the pupils were welcome to go on writing them, but the compositions should not be quite as amusing!
OK, the above example is just a little mischievous, because all three quantities concerned are considered as elements in a sequence rather than a collection of individual items. The concept of a journey of two miles is not thought of in quite the same way as a bag with two apples in it.
Nevertheless, there simply are situations which demand the demotic/idiomatic ‘less' rather than the - supposedly correct - ‘fewer'. The latter became ‘correct' only in the 18th century in any case. Prior to that, many writers used ‘less' where purists (or pedants) now demand ‘fewer'.
As time passes, we'll see much more of ‘less' and much less of ‘fewer', you may count on it! As an old-timer, I still differentiate between them, but I don't complain about people who choose not to... or don't know that they ‘should'. Even English examiners have been known to produce the instruction: "Write a précis of this passage in 50 words or less", never mind the supermarkets with their till-signs saying: "Ten items or less"!
It must be remembered, however, that there is a considerable difference - in terms of meaning - between a teacher telling his class: a) "Write fewer funny compositions" as opposed to: b) "Write less funny compositions." The sentence at ‘a' would mean they'd been writing too many of these and should try to cut the quantity down and ‘b' would mean the pupils were welcome to go on writing them, but the compositions should not be quite as amusing!
"Six is less than twenty" Is that wrong? Now try "Six apples are less than twenty" Wrong ? English meanings and usage change over time. We really shouldn't be bound by a convention invented by some grammarian or tutor of 'correct' English to the would-be gentry in the C18. He was only laying down a rule based on what he said.He had to earn his fees somehow ! Perhaps his usage was predominant in the true gentry of his area and time but that's no reason to condemn the other as wrong..
The very first definition, and therefore the original an earliest, meaning, of 'less' in the OED is '' a smaller number of; fewer' Now,here we have an example of a word not changing its meaning to something new but retaining its original meaning , presumably continuously, to the present day.Naught wrong with that!
The very first definition, and therefore the original an earliest, meaning, of 'less' in the OED is '' a smaller number of; fewer' Now,here we have an example of a word not changing its meaning to something new but retaining its original meaning , presumably continuously, to the present day.Naught wrong with that!
You need to distinguish whether you are referring to a single quantity, or a number of items. The value six is less than the value twenty because you are comparing one single numerical value with another. But six apples are fewer than twenty apples because you are comparing one number of items with another number of items.
It's not difficult. It's an embarrassment to all that it is continually used incorrectly. What sort of education system do we now have? I thought my schooling was bad enough, but it wasn't that bad. I even read, in a well known supermarket, a sign saying that they intended to use less bags. I'm still wondering it they were planing to cut the top or or the bottom off them. Or maybe one of the sides.
It's not difficult. It's an embarrassment to all that it is continually used incorrectly. What sort of education system do we now have? I thought my schooling was bad enough, but it wasn't that bad. I even read, in a well known supermarket, a sign saying that they intended to use less bags. I'm still wondering it they were planing to cut the top or or the bottom off them. Or maybe one of the sides.
It's not an embaressment to all - it's an example of our changing language.
We should take pride in our language's ability to adapt and not moan about how what people taught us at school was "right" isn't like it used to be.
People don't like the word fewer - in the same way they don't like the word whom.
(someone said the word whom was invented to make everyone sound like the butler)
They sound clumsy and anachronistic to modern ears and people make constructs to avoid them.
When someone went on about this regarding "10 items or less" on supermarket checkouts some of the supermarkets changed the signs to say things like "under 10 items" or rather than use fewer.
Language changes - get used to it or go back to thee and thou.
It's defined by use and not by a big book of rules it's a wonderfully democratic process and fascinating to watch.
We should take pride in our language's ability to adapt and not moan about how what people taught us at school was "right" isn't like it used to be.
People don't like the word fewer - in the same way they don't like the word whom.
(someone said the word whom was invented to make everyone sound like the butler)
They sound clumsy and anachronistic to modern ears and people make constructs to avoid them.
When someone went on about this regarding "10 items or less" on supermarket checkouts some of the supermarkets changed the signs to say things like "under 10 items" or rather than use fewer.
Language changes - get used to it or go back to thee and thou.
It's defined by use and not by a big book of rules it's a wonderfully democratic process and fascinating to watch.
I'm far from being a spring chicken myself, Old_Geezer, and I well recall as a schoolboy having to write 'tomorrow' as 'to-morrow' (with a hyphen), having to write addresses in letters with commas and full stops all over the place and a host of other such nonsensical ideas which were "simple basic rules" at the time. Thank goodness they've gone! 'Fewer' is in its death-throes and oldsters like you and me can do nothing to save it.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
ChatterBank98 mins ago
