this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
18 points (90.9% liked)

English usage and grammar

365 readers
9 users here now

A community to discuss and ask questions about English usage and grammar.

If your post refers to a specific English variant, please indicate it within square brackets (for instance [Canadian]).

Online resources:

Sibling communities:

Rules of conduct:

The usual ones on Lemmy and Mastodon.. In short: be kind or at least respectful, no offensive language, no harassment, no spam.

(Icon: entry "English" in the Oxford English Dictionary, 1933. Banner: page from Chaucer's "The Wife of Bath's Tale".)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
18
Less vs. Fewer (self.english)
submitted 1 year ago by OsakaWilson to c/[email protected]
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Of course the official rule is that for countable things, like apples, we say fewer, as in, "Why are there fewer apples?" And for things that you can't really count, you use less, as in "We need more dream time and less screen time."

But recently, even from native speakers who've been to university, you can hear people using 'less' when the grammar books say they should use 'fewer'. Language changes and there are many examples of things that we say differently than we write. What are your thoughts?

Should we grammar nazi this until everyone gets back in line? Should we just let language evolve and enjoy the ride? Do you think it will settle in with spoken and written forms being different? Do you think this will become the norm in English?

By the way, I blame supermarkets with their "9 items or less" signs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Oxford English dictionary also gives one definition of less as fewer, but with a warning:

A.1.c A smaller number of; fewer. This originates from the OE. construction of lǽs adv. (quasi-n.) with a partitive genitive. Freq. found but generally regarded as incorrect.

Gilman's Webster's Dictionary of English Usage gives an insightful and (as usual) witty discussion. I paste it here as an image:

Gilman's discussion about "fewer/less"

[–] OsakaWilson 3 points 1 year ago

The line from 1770 says a lot. It appears this has been an issue for a long time. Maybe the pendulum will swing the other direction later.

"No fewer than a hundred appears to me not only more elegant than no less than a hundred, but more strictly proper."