4 ms·
In a time when a more and more people can't spell "too," it seems ambitious to school them on "less" vs. "fewer." But when I do try to explain why "less" and "
by ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
In a time when a more and more people can't spell "too," it seems ambitious to school them on "less" vs. "fewer."
But when I do try to explain why "less" and "fewer" are not interchangeable, I usually just say, "Do you want fewer syrup on your pancakes?"
Then there's "transition" as a verb: Do you illumination a room when it's dark?
We can go on and on, but we can't leave this one out: "would of." I always call that out in any comment forum. This just can't be let go.
And now, Weird Al has some words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
- BalinKing 3y ago> But when I do try to explain why "less" and "fewer" are not interchangeable, I usually just say, "Do you want fewer syrup on your pancakes?" This feels like a strawman: As evidenced by the fact that everyone would agree your example sentence is ungrammatical, clearly "less" and "fewer" are not strictly interchangeable, either prescriptively or descriptively. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how your example is relevant to the cases where people do in fact use "less" to mean "fewer" (or vice versa).
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoFirst: That's not what a strawman is. Second: If the relevance isn't clear, I leave it to you to suggest a better example.
- Skeime 3y agoThe problem with the example is: Some has used less where you would have preferred fewer. You answer with an example, where fewer is used but only less is generally considered grammatical. (In other words, the replacement goes in the opposite direction.) But it is perfectly consistent to say that fewer is restricted to countable nouns while less can be used universally.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago"Consistent" with what?
- Skeime 3y agoConsistent with how language works. Words have partial overlaps and “subset” relations all the time. In the case of less and fewer, there isn’t even really a problem, because there are very few cases where using less when fewer would (also) be appropriate leads to confusion. (Otherwise the same distinction would surely also exist for more.) I’m afraid, the only real “problem” is that for people who are accustomed to the distinction, using the “wrong” one gives a nails-on-chalkboard sensation.
- tuatoru 3y agoWith people, for instance? I commonly hear "less people" these days. It's weird to me to think of people as being like water or sand.
- zimpenfish 3y ago> And now, Weird Al has some words A linguist had some words in response[0] > While "grammar nerds" are psyched about Weird Al's new "Word Crimes" video, many linguists are shaking their heads and feeling a little hopeless about what the public enthusiasm about it represents: a society where largely trivial, largely arbitrary standards of linguistic correctness are heavily privileged, and people feel justified in degrading and attacking those who don't do things the "correct" way. I know who I'm trusting to speak confidently about language usage. [0] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13521 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13521
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoI believe in self-reliance.
- autoexec 3y ago> In a time when a more and more people can't spell "too," it seems ambitious to school them on "less" vs. "fewer." Over half of the American population reads below a 6th grade level. We should encourage them to improve at every opportunity.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoI fully agree. And yet you see people (above in this thread, even) who defend illiteracy with the old "you're just a grammar nazi; language is a 'living entity'" trope.
- alpinisme 3y agoTransition is an odd one to get hung up on. We may not illumination but we do vacation, function, question, proposition, requisition, audition, reposition, and many other words of similar etymology.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoNot really. Many of those do not have other verb forms that mean the same thing.
- Skeime 3y agoI don’t understand what you mean here.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoThe verb form of "transition" is "transit." But there is no similar form of "function" (like "funct," for example). Therefore the comparison is invalid.
- Skeime 3y agoI disagree that to transit is the right verb form of transition in general. Transit (to my ear) is pretty much limited to a change of place, usually even through something (you might “transit a stretch of wood”, to steal Merriam-Webster’s example). Transition is more generally about a state of change. By the same token, you could still reject to question because the verb to quest exists.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoWell, that's... like... your opinion, man. But not supported by etymology. "Quest" and "question" are also not a valid comparison, because the two forms aren't even clearly the same word. For example, if someone goes on a quest through the jungle, you don't say "his question through the jungle was interrupted by a phone call from home." Or, "he questioned from one end of the jungle to the other."
- tuatoru 3y agoThen there's the ongoing weakening of strong verbs. The past tense of "write" is not "writed". The past tense of "stand" is not "standed".
- AlexeyBelov 3y agoI think it has merit since it's easier to remember and is more consistent with other verbs. There is no (good) reason for only a few verbs being so different.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoWow, is that becoming a thing? I haven't seen this phenomenon yet.