tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post388935477320900244..comments2023-11-10T16:19:46.880-05:00Comments on Blogslot: Fewer 'Less' Complaints, PleaseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-68492684706462020892014-07-23T15:38:36.587-04:002014-07-23T15:38:36.587-04:00I'd say the burden of proof is on those who wa...I'd say the burden of proof is on those who want to change the signs, but I guess that's just another of my meaningless rants.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-66140392858455009402014-07-23T12:24:21.008-04:002014-07-23T12:24:21.008-04:00An opinion without reasoning behind it – like this...An opinion without reasoning behind it – like this column – is just a worthless rant.Will o'the Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07389817737974063539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-26852487499989247052009-08-25T17:01:29.618-04:002009-08-25T17:01:29.618-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14668154432362202161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-76180362776943915032009-08-25T16:26:23.180-04:002009-08-25T16:26:23.180-04:00I can't tell whether this is a misguided objec...I can't tell whether this is a misguided objection to compound-modifier hyphenation, or a misguided objection to the double possessive, or a misguided objection to "argued the point."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-90040213950198025992009-08-25T15:07:13.027-04:002009-08-25T15:07:13.027-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14668154432362202161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-56511726552490279492009-06-16T11:05:45.873-04:002009-06-16T11:05:45.873-04:00Anyone who says "It is I" or tells other...Anyone who says "It is I" or tells others to say that is a pedantic moron.mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15109012623215904470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-32659567343375815352009-02-19T04:53:00.000-05:002009-02-19T04:53:00.000-05:00The correct answer to "Who's there?" is actually "...The correct answer to "Who's there?" is actually "I am". Ask any teacher of ESL!The TEFL Tradesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09213645150599522343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-57403934135793042392008-12-01T03:03:00.000-05:002008-12-01T03:03:00.000-05:00But doesn't it feel so gratifying to pay in the '1...But doesn't it feel so gratifying to pay in the '10 items or fewer' lane of Whole Foods?Theahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09031152719870752987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-71832379048860189682008-11-26T15:40:00.000-05:002008-11-26T15:40:00.000-05:00All the supermarkets round my way have banned the ...All the supermarkets round my way have banned the use of checks/cheques. About time too.JD (The Engine Room)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00836972574430969375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-75329128671382321452008-11-01T23:21:00.000-04:002008-11-01T23:21:00.000-04:00I've never bought into the "It is I" business. The...I've never bought into the "It is I" business. The fact that, coincidentally, an object is the same as the subject doesn't mean it's not the object. Or something like that. Yes, I know I'm alone here.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-2935724585960771472008-11-01T21:37:00.000-04:002008-11-01T21:37:00.000-04:00Just because a usage is "four times as common" doe...Just because a usage is "four times as common" doesn't make it correct. Sorry, I just can't agree with this. But then, I've also taught my children that the correct response to "Who's there?" is "It is I." Not that they actually SAY that, but at least they know it's correct.Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01213337643045832557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-29491078145346911762008-10-17T17:52:00.000-04:002008-10-17T17:52:00.000-04:00Susan has it quite right, though the distinction, ...Susan has it quite right, though the distinction, like so many of its ilk, wasn't made by a grammarian but by an ignoramus. <B>Less</B> is quite correct with count nouns and the distinction is as artificial as the belief that you can't use "<B>who</B> or <B>which</B> in defining relative clauses.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Less than + cardinal number</I></B> is four times as common in Contemporary American English than <B><I>fewer than + cardinal number</I></B> according to the Corpus of Contemporary American English. <B><I>Cardinal number + plural noun + or + less</I></B> is twice as common as <B><I>Cardinal number + plural noun + or + fewer</I></B> which puts paid to Bill's argument about having to use <B>fewer</B> when <B>less</B> refers to items. The only time <B>fewer</B> is more common than <B>less</B> with plural nouns is when we have the sequence <B><I>fewer + plural noun</I></B> which is eight times as common as <B><I>less + plural noun</I></B> (though only four times as common in British Contemporary English).<BR/><BR/>It would be nice if copy editors, instead of making up or parroting imaginary rules, actually bothered to find out what actually happens in English, but then it would be nice to get a pony for Christmas.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05952564820382472228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-61228263146051145422008-10-10T21:49:00.000-04:002008-10-10T21:49:00.000-04:00@p.s. Oh, the that/which distinction is absolutely...@p.s. Oh, the that/which distinction is absolutely artificial... but I'm not saying it's not useful. I use it myself.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11204738093047853245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-62594360453475886672008-10-08T20:09:00.000-04:002008-10-08T20:09:00.000-04:00The distinction between "that" and "which," especi...The distinction between "that" and "which," especially as they relate to the introduction of essential and non-essential phrases, is anything but "artificial." I'm talking to Susan.Peter Sibleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08449725607931123045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-13907066909835265162008-09-20T17:10:00.000-04:002008-09-20T17:10:00.000-04:00I am concerned only about being considerate of my ...I am concerned only about being considerate of my fellow man and having that favor returned; I couldn't (not "could"!) care less about my lane neighbor's solvency, at least in this context.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-12797738459212878912008-09-20T11:01:00.000-04:002008-09-20T11:01:00.000-04:00Hang on - you're complaining about people using ch...Hang on - you're complaining about people using <I>checks</I>? <BR/>At least those slow pokes usually have cash in the bank. Wouldn't you rather wait on them than watch some idiot put his groceries on credit ('I'll take my gallon of milk on a payment plan, please')? Or some bum on welfare use food stamps to buy the BRAND NAMES that even you don't buy?Lactoeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130460192684335841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-79148179233977259852008-09-20T00:18:00.000-04:002008-09-20T00:18:00.000-04:00Ohhhh ... I loved that movie! That is all.Ohhhh ... I loved that movie! That is all.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15776740659442720820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-90600838714482974032008-09-19T16:00:00.000-04:002008-09-19T16:00:00.000-04:00I agree with you folks, but I urge patience with t...I agree with you folks, but I urge patience with those who are finding "fewer than" hard to relinquish. We're talking, in many cases, about undoing decades of intense brainwashing by English teachers and journalism mentors. That's rarely accomplished overnight.<BR/><BR/>Jim ThomsenJim Thomsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436505068478971925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-87167769810898077462008-09-19T02:07:00.000-04:002008-09-19T02:07:00.000-04:00It's interesting that the first thing I see when I...It's interesting that the first thing I see when I come here is a complaint about the use of less. I've been hearing this used incorrectly on TV constantly lately and it drives me nuts. It's as bad as all these stars saying "Joey gave the XX to Jane and I." and "Joey and me are going to the movies." My grammar is far from perfect but these are such glaring errors. Sheesh.<BR/>Oh, and when did people start saying "I'm done with you?"? Is it a northern thing slipping south or have I just become aware of it?<BR/><BR/>JeanneUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13741859844069893742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-27737179999860393802008-09-18T17:41:00.000-04:002008-09-18T17:41:00.000-04:00It's an artificial distinction created by a gramma...It's an artificial distinction created by a grammarian, similar to the that/which distinction. It just contributes to language elitism. "Less" has been used with countable nouns for hundreds of years. <BR/><BR/>It would be different if using one or the other provided greater precision, but I don't see how, for example, "one fewer person" is more precise than "one less person," so...::shrug::Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11204738093047853245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1654667022288080962008-09-18T13:31:00.000-04:002008-09-18T13:31:00.000-04:00I agree with Bill's central point. It's as if the...I agree with Bill's central point. It's as if there's a comma: "Ten items, or less [than that]".<BR/><BR/>Personally, I would never write "less items" or "less cows" or "less staplers". At the same time, though, I'm not going to raise a big stink about anyone who does (although of course, I would change it if I were a copy editor).<BR/><BR/>Here's the reason I can't get <I>that</I> worked up about "less staplers": the word "more" can do double duty. "More cows" and "more milk" are both fine. So it's not somehow inherently illogical for there to exist a single antonym that we can use for both count nouns and mass nouns, rather than having to say "fewer cows" and "less milk". The language isn't there right now, of course, but there's no reason why in principle it couldn't be.Skullturf Q. Beavispantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139201454470391989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-4208633254235592982008-09-18T13:02:00.000-04:002008-09-18T13:02:00.000-04:00Oh. So it could be "10 items or less [stuff than t...Oh. So it could be "10 items or less [stuff than that]"? Interesting. Thanks for clarifying.ITurnedOutTVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04507423129524172943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-4649771745156425052008-09-18T12:58:00.000-04:002008-09-18T12:58:00.000-04:00Yes, "fewer" is correct with "items." I'm saying t...Yes, "fewer" is correct with "items." I'm saying the "less" in "10 items or less" isn't necessarily "with 'items.'"Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-65843443917235833972008-09-18T12:53:00.000-04:002008-09-18T12:53:00.000-04:00Huh, I'm not sure what you're arguing with "Don't ...Huh, I'm not sure what you're arguing with "Don't go inferring a supposedly implied word to create an error so you can criticize it." Technically, "10 items or less" is incorrect. You're not arguing that, are you? I'm willing to ignore the supermarket signs, but I still recognize that "fewer" is correct with "items."ITurnedOutTVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04507423129524172943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-80133561740096781332008-09-18T12:40:00.000-04:002008-09-18T12:40:00.000-04:00Not to mention that "less" has been used with coun...Not to mention that "less" has been used with count nouns since the earliest days of English by such literary greats as King Alfred.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323568112711824064noreply@blogger.com