3 ms·
Its a bit of linguistic pedantry: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less
by supermatt 4y ago
Its a bit of linguistic pedantry: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less
- eru 4y agoThat rule only exists for prescriptive wannabe grammarians anyway.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SamBam 4y agoExcept they didn't even correct correctly. GP said "We need to find ways for people to burn less carbon," which is totally correct. "Carbon" is being used as a mass noun.
- theherk 4y agoI don't know if you are referring about my comment "fewer hydrocarbons", but it was a direct reference to the post I was referring to, "cool way to burn hydrocarbons". I wasn't trying to be pedantic or correcting anybody. Maybe I should have said less, but... I just didn't. The point is simply that higher efficiency doesn't directly equate to more usage; though it can in some cases.
- supermatt 4y agoMy bad, I misinterpreted the intent behind the emphasis. Sorry :)