6 ms·

Fewer than

bookofjoe 1y ago
>'Fewer' versus 'less' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less >However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less being used with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns.
- pixelpoet 1y ago
  Modern linguistics will also say that literally meaning the same as figuratively is fine, and "I could care less" is perfectly acceptable to convey not caring; if you dare question it, you're just declared wrong by the descriptivist cargo cult. Proof by authority, the modern linguist's favourite logical fallacy!
  - bookofjoe 1y ago
    But is prevalent usage not a valid measure of acceptability? And is acceptable not the equivalent of correct? For example, "nonplussed" has evolved to mean — correctly — not only its original meaning of "surprised" but also its polar opposite.
    - pixelpoet 1y ago
      > But is prevalent usage not a valid measure of acceptability? It's exactly this central dogma that I question; an arbitrary number of people can be wrong about something without it magically becoming correct. The final nail in the coffin is: if anything goes as long as it's popular, then I can just go right ahead and be "wrong" with my preferred usage of logic (could care less) and consistency (up means up, you can't suddenly declare it now also means down) anyway. Before literally came to mean figuratively, there was a transition period where that usage was wrong, and then suddenly became correct when some imaginary threshold was crossed; so I'm just temporarily wrong and will, any day now, also see my preferred meaning of "up" (to mean down, of course with no new word for the original meaning of down because why bother with anything sensible) come to be canon. I just need to make enough viral tiktok videos and then truth vs falsity is my plaything :)
      - bookofjoe 1y ago
        See also: https://archive.org/details/alicesadventur00carr https://archive.org/details/alicesadventur00carr
      - resoluteteeth 1y ago
        > It's exactly this central dogma that I question; an arbitrary number of people can be wrong about something without it magically becoming correct. Language is arbitrary and when enough people agree that a word means something, it does. Do you insist that "nice" can only mean "foolish" and not kind because that was its original meaning, or do you accept that it now means "kind"? If the latter, you also actually agree that the meaning of words can change once enough people use them a new way.
  - qwe----3 1y ago
    Go read some prose from 200 years ago and tell me that consensuses don’t chsnge
chistev 1y ago
What makes "less than" wrong? Interested to learn.
- gs17 1y ago
  It's that followers are countable. "Less" and "fewer" get more mixed in usage, but "many" vs "much" is more clear IMO. "I don't have many followers" is considered more proper than "I don't have much followers" (but you could say "I don't have much of a following").

Fewer than

>'Fewer' versus 'less' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less >However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less being used with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns.

pixelpoet 1y ago
Modern linguistics will also say that literally meaning the same as figuratively is fine, and "I could care less" is perfectly acceptable to convey not caring; if you dare question it, you're just declared wrong by the descriptivist cargo cult. Proof by authority, the modern linguist's favourite logical fallacy!
- bookofjoe 1y ago
  But is prevalent usage not a valid measure of acceptability? And is acceptable not the equivalent of correct? For example, "nonplussed" has evolved to mean — correctly — not only its original meaning of "surprised" but also its polar opposite.
  - pixelpoet 1y ago
    > But is prevalent usage not a valid measure of acceptability? It's exactly this central dogma that I question; an arbitrary number of people can be wrong about something without it magically becoming correct. The final nail in the coffin is: if anything goes as long as it's popular, then I can just go right ahead and be "wrong" with my preferred usage of logic (could care less) and consistency (up means up, you can't suddenly declare it now also means down) anyway. Before literally came to mean figuratively, there was a transition period where that usage was wrong, and then suddenly became correct when some imaginary threshold was crossed; so I'm just temporarily wrong and will, any day now, also see my preferred meaning of "up" (to mean down, of course with no new word for the original meaning of down because why bother with anything sensible) come to be canon. I just need to make enough viral tiktok videos and then truth vs falsity is my plaything :)
    - bookofjoe 1y ago
      See also: https://archive.org/details/alicesadventur00carr https://archive.org/details/alicesadventur00carr
    - resoluteteeth 1y ago
      > It's exactly this central dogma that I question; an arbitrary number of people can be wrong about something without it magically becoming correct. Language is arbitrary and when enough people agree that a word means something, it does. Do you insist that "nice" can only mean "foolish" and not kind because that was its original meaning, or do you accept that it now means "kind"? If the latter, you also actually agree that the meaning of words can change once enough people use them a new way.
- qwe----3 1y ago
  Go read some prose from 200 years ago and tell me that consensuses don’t chsnge

chistev 1y ago

What makes "less than" wrong? Interested to learn.

gs17 1y ago
It's that followers are countable. "Less" and "fewer" get more mixed in usage, but "many" vs "much" is more clear IMO. "I don't have many followers" is considered more proper than "I don't have much followers" (but you could say "I don't have much of a following").