Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fewer
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/youtube-rewind-14.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600
-
-
-
-
-
@mlnews said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Fewer
https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/youtube-rewind-14.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600
Assuming you're talking about less vs fewer, if so you're breaking the rule, and if not then who cares I am going to keep going anyway!
That's just a nonsensical grammar rule like "no split infinitives" that disregards history and instead promotes the opinion of a single person as absolute fact, when they themselves had little understanding of their own language. Less, originally spelled læs has been used since at least the 9th century in all context that both less and fewer are now used. Fewer originated later in the 14th century as an extension of "few" which just meant "a little bit" or "small amount" of whatever, which is a meaning it still obviously has.
So this is a situation where a wanna-be know-it-all named Robert Baker in 1769/1770, much like Samuel Johnson but so unnotable he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, wrote in his book Reflections on the English Language (page 47) that: "This word is most commonly used in speaking of a number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but more strictly proper."
Or in other words "Nobody actually speaks this way, I think they should" and since that time most people still say "less" just as they did then. Others follow a rule made up by someone who pulled it out of his butt, much like the most strict "rules" of English, they are nonsensical and nobody actually speaks that way without hypercorrection, which is counter to natural language.
Even so, hardcore hypercorrectors often break this rule all the time without thinking about it by saying "at least X" rather than "at fewest X", so have you seen Star Wars at least 10 times? No, you saw it at fewest 10 times! Sounds wonderful, natural, and correct doesn't it? Much like "Boldly to go where no man has gone before", which is following the "no split infinitive" rule.
No who is the know-it-all, Robert?!
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Or in other words "Nobody actually speaks this way, I think they should" and since that time most people still say "less" just as they did then.
Actually, most people you'd want to talk to speak this way. All language rules, in all languages, are made up by someone and then become accepted convention. But in English, correctly using less vs fewer is common and is one of the more obvious dividers between those that know how to speak and those that do not.
And it is not arbitrary.
Fewer people means a small number in head count.
Less people means a small volume, like in weight or displacement.
They aren't interchangeable unless you don't want the ability to communicate clear meaning.
-
For example, elevators can take 2,000 lbs or less people. But it doesn't matter how many people are involved. It is the volume of people, not the head count, that delimits the capability of the elevator.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
For example, elevators can take 2,000 lbs or less people. But it doesn't matter how many people are involved. It is the volume of people, not the head count, that delimits the capability of the elevator.
Or 1 person that weighs 2000 lbs
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Or in other words "Nobody actually speaks this way, I think they should" and since that time most people still say "less" just as they did then.
Actually, most people you'd want to talk to speak this way.
I've yet to see any proof there's a connection between education and whether or not someone uses less vs fewer "correctly" without overt hypercorrection. In fact there are many really advanced grammarians who point out it's totally arbitrary, because it's an issue of prescriptive grammar vs descriptive grammar. I actually went to a debate between two different Oxford professors (can't remember the college(s) or their names other than one was a woman and the other an old man) where they each argued both sides of fewer vs less, but that wasn't the debate issue, it was about prescriptive vs descriptive grammar.
To my surprise it was the older man who was in favour of descriptive grammar, but then again the woman also claimed that English spelling impacts the lexicon and without a complex spelling system English would have less words and less meaning, a statement I was surprised to hear because it's so stupid. I don't think this has an impact either way on the argument, I'm just still so baffled at how utterly idiotic someone can be and still be an Oxford professor.
All language rules, in all languages, are made up by someone and then become accepted convention.
No they are not. Essentially all rules, except literary rules, are created by the evolution of language and by the speakers themselves. If we ignore writing, aside from "ain't", there are very few aspects of spoken grammar which ever need to be taught to anyone who is a native speaker. Children learn the rules with totally incomplete information. English speaking nations like to think children would never be able to speak properly without an education in grammar, but this creates a huge logic problem for language in general. The best way to learn advanced grammar is to read books.
But in English, correctly using less vs fewer is common and is one of the more obvious dividers between those that know how to speak and those that do not.
The vast majority of major languages have language academies which control rules for spelling, grammar, and usage. English has never had this so rules are made up by random people, often with little understanding of history. As I demonstrated, Robert Baker himself said he just thought it was better and sounded more correct, and if 248 years later we still need to hypercorrect people on the usage it shows that there's no innate confusion with mixing them up. Not only that, the rule is based upon his own misunderstanding of both "less" and "few" and how he thought people should speak.
If I say "There were 10 less than yesterday" and we're talking about weight then it makes sense, if we're talking about countable items, it still makes sense. Most people actually speak this way. Very few people say "10 items or fewer" because it sounds hypercorrected and silly.
That doesn't mean fewer has no use, it certainly does, the question is whether or not less can carry the weight of both, and they can, because in all Germanic languages except English the word "less" exists in various forms, but "fewer" does not. And English functioned quite well without Robert Baker making up the rule in 1770.
I have seen stats on usage taken amongst college educated individuals or professors (I don't recall), in the "fewer vs less" argument, only about 50% of them even knew of the distinction, and only about 20% actually used it. I don't have that information anymore and was trying to see if I could find it online and I can't so it doesn't prove anything and it's based on my word alone. I wish I had it because it had a lot of other weird stats too.
And it is not arbitrary.
Actually it totally is, there are few rules which are as arbitrary as this one. It's a rule that is trying to base itself on class, just as you demonstrated, the implication one is uneducated by saying "10 items are less". There are few rules like this in spoken language, the biggest certainly is "ain't", which even when I was in University, a professor actually argued with me that "ain't ain't in the dictionary" and, no, she was not an English professor, but it is a common myth because it's considered such wrong use.
I myself don't typically say "ain't", except sarcastically or joking way, mostly because it doesn't fit right and I didn't use it when learning English. Having said that, "ain't" actually did evolve within English and was brought to America by Protestants, primarily to the South East, hence its use there.
The struggle against it is related to class, but it's an issue that originates back in Jolly Ol' England, where language was a function of class, and in America that was not the case until primarily the mid-1800s when newspapers began using bad spelling and bad grammar as a means to communicate someone was stupid, uneducated, or poor primarily to demean politicians. It's a very British view of language indeed.
If someone literally makes up a rule based on his personal opinion and then finally by the end of the 19th century some people start taking it up as a real rule rather than ignoring it, it is arbitrary. If less can be stated as "less" or "fewer" and it still makes equal sense, then the distinction is arbitrary.
Here's my biggest and best trump card I wish I would have thought of when writing essays about language at university, because while it's not proof of anything, it's so goofy but sort of an interesting thought about language:
The mere fact there's absolutely no jokes, good jokes or terrible sitcom jokes, based on someone confusing the meaning of something because "less" was used rather than "fewer" shows it's not something built into the function of the language but tacked on.
Fewer people means a small number in head count.
Less people means a small volume, like in weight or displacement.
Less people than yesterday, I weigh less than I did before. They're both perfectly fine statements and they're what most people would use.
They aren't interchangeable unless you don't want the ability to communicate clear meaning.
Who does that though? As someone who has learned English as a second language I can't say I've ever been confused by someone using the wrong one nor has the meaning been misunderstood. Context is more important than word meaning when it comes to language, in other words nobody would understand children or foreigner language learners at all until they were great at the language.
And the thing is, it's a convention I also even use, but without thinking about it, I don't hypercorrect to the point where I am saying "10 items or fewer" or "at fewest 10 people like dirt flavoured chicken wings." I certainly fall into the descriptive grammar camp where usage in spoken language has an impact on the importance of language. There are cases now where "fewer" is in use even amongst those who were not forced to learn how to speak properly.
That does not mean that more information is made available if I say "10 items or fewer" rather than "10 items or less" and within language aside from hypercorrection, only when there's an issue that even context clues cannot solve are rules, arbitrary or evolutionary, are adopted. There's no chance in hell that "less" won't also always mean "fewer", primarily because it's a word like "set" or "run" that is heavy with meaning and context, unless there's contact with another language or English creates a language academy and sets a rule. If a rule is created that can be backed up by linguists based on logic and use and there isn't a huge gulf between general use and hypercorrection then I'll stop bitching about it.
-
In different situations, the same noun can be countable or uncountable. A seemingly countable noun can take or less if it can be thought of as a mass or as a single unit.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The vast majority of major languages have language academies which control rules for spelling, grammar, and usage.
Sort of. Except languages don't have owners. So anyone can claim to be an authority and make their own changes. Now, for example, France does this and uses the law, rather than fact, to declare what words in French mean. But other countries that speak French don't follow those rules and are no more or less French than the ones in France.
America had this with the Webster dictionary. It was telling a set of made up rules, rather than the Oxford dictionary defining the language as used. That's partially why American usage of English has not drifted to the extent that British or Canadian has. But it's not an authority, it was just heavily viewed as such by the same people who promoted "anything printed by a large company as proof."
-
What is interesting is that American English does have a de facto ruling academic body, and it is that body that defined the usage of less and fewer.
