this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
1197 points (99.0% liked)
196
16501 readers
3217 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading "less cops" was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you're, its/it's, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction).
Your write. Choose you're battle wisely
I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise.
Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object.
I think by letting it die they mean not policing people to use it. It's fun to use old grammar and words but it shouldn't be required if you're a native speaker.
Yeah, let it fall into the "archaic" classification.
Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century.
I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays.
That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast.
I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall.
Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'?
It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying.