4 ms·
If we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway. Until
by xiaoma 11y ago
If we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway.
Until the language is remade to conform to logic though, I think it's best to learn countable and uncountable distinctions. At the very least it's an advantage not to have others underestimate you based on grammar issues in your writing.
- xupybd 11y agoFrom the wiki page on this topic: "However, descriptive grammarians (who describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770:
- Stratoscope 11y agoI'm sure fewer people every year care whether you write "fewer" or "less". By now, many people could care less. But quite a few will still notice and wonder why you didn't say "fewer", even if it's less of an issue than it used to be. I think it's still worth it to get this "right", if only because fewer people will think less of your writing. Watch out for that wiki page, if we're looking at the same one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less This page seems rather biased; it's easily earned its "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag with crazy stuff like this: > even most prescriptivists accept the most common usage "there are less cups of flour in this canister" [emphasis added] Instead of worrying about the opinions of "prescriptivists" and "descriptivists", just listen to the people you know, hear, and read: would most of them really say "there are less cups of flour in this canister"? And does that sound fine, or a bit off, to your ear? Of course, no one I know would say "there are fewer cups of flour in this canister" either - they would simply say "there's less flour in this canister". What do cups have to do with it? Language does change, and usage that was once "wrong" becomes right. A good example is "because of" and "due to". There was a terribly confusing rule about which to use, but these days fewer and fewer people will care if you simply use "due to" in every context. "Due to" has won, and it's nice to have one less rule to worry about. Alas, I don't think "fewer" and "less" are quite there yet.
- hudibras 11y ago> By now, many people could care less. This should be "couldn't care less."
- Stratoscope 11y agoNope, but you get an upvote for noticing, thanks! :-) I used "could care less" deliberately, in keeping with the cheeky spirit of my comment: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less.html http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less.... http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pinker-language-william-safire https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pi... (scroll down) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-tribu-words-work-care-less-20130313_1_care-harry-styles-idioms http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-tr...
- hudibras 11y agoI knew that you used it on purpose; just tossing you a softball, that's all.
- Stratoscope 11y agoHa! I should have known you were up to something, my friend. Well played. And I mean that not in the sarcastic sense! :-)