6 ms·

The thing about pedantic snark (less/fewer), is that it loses its teeth when you're wrong. Even if you go in for prescriptive grammar, less and fewer were neve

The thing about pedantic snark (less/fewer), is that it loses its teeth when you're wrong. Even if you go in for prescriptive grammar, less and fewer were never strictly divided. The distinction actually came to us through one Mr. Baker's expressed preference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less#Historical_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less#Historical_usage

mherdeg 13y ago
OK, so on the one hand, Alfred the Great used less with counting nouns in 888 AD. But can we really trust this guy for historical precedent? He burnt the cakes!
- kordless 13y ago
  > He burnt the cakes! Maybe he was gluten intolerant.
tehwalrus 13y ago
This, and singular they[1], make me very happy indeed - all the people who "correct" my grammar are actually, themselves, wrong (or, at most, people waving an opinion in my face as if it were a fact.) <3 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
- commandar 13y ago
  There are a lot of prescriptive "rules" in English that aren't really rules. Ending sentences in prepositions is probably my favorite.
  - evanb 13y ago
    "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." --Churchill (maybe) Some discussion: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.h...
leephillips 13y ago
There appeared a wonderful article on just this topic on the Inky Fool website a few days ago: http://blog.inkyfool.com/2014/02/less-fewers.html http://blog.inkyfool.com/2014/02/less-fewers.html
hluska 13y ago
While I don't think the proposed edit would help, the commenter isn't actually wrong - in modern usage, it is more correct to say "fewer corrections" than "less corrections." Language doesn't form in a vacuum, nor is its growth confined to dictionaries. Rather, language is a living, breathing thing and grammar is closer to history than mechanics. Consider the less v. fewer debate. Yes, several hundred years ago, it was just fine to say "less corrections." However, for whatever reason, the upper crust decided that "fewer corrections" both looked and sounded better. Consequently, "less corrections" evolved to be less correct. My inner smartass wanted to say "fewer correct", but that would be a silly joke. It's like Russian. If you speak French, you can understand many Russian words. This isn't because French and Russian are linguistic cousins. Rather, it's because French was the language of nobility and words trickled down. Or heck, we could talk about the word "you." You was originally formal, whereas "thou" was more relaxed and informal. Yet, today, if I started a comment on Hacker News with, "I fear thou are wrong", it would seem needlessly formal. To conclude this long mess (it was supposed to be four lines and turned into paragraphs), language evolves constantly. Though certain distinctions didn't exist in earlier English, they exist now. However, if you know much about the history and formation of English, you should be less pedantic. It should also make us much more tolerant of people for whom English isn't their native language. We speak an intensely complex language with random rules that apply in some cases and not others. Thank heavens we don't have to compile our language before we speak it...:)
- ajanuary 13y ago
  The 'language is evolving' and 'language is defined by usage' arguments go both ways. When something was both not historically incorrect, and not considered incorrect by many current people, the arguments people make about it being wrong starts to crumble slightly.
  - hluska 13y ago
    It's kind of like A/B testing. A blue button isn't wrong, but a green button coverts better. Language is the same. If your goal is to communicate, the most easily understood choice is best. Some grammatical quirks do nothing to hinder comprehension and don't need to be pointed out (ie - less/fewer). Others are far more toxic.
Angostura 13y ago
The thing about the pedantic anti snark is, it doesn't matter if you can show that the 'incorrect' usage goes back to the 17th Century, if the bulk of the educated audience you are writing for thinks that it is incorrect. You might as well use the 'correct' usage.
- bane 13y ago
  You should write for your audience. The only thing that's correct or incorrect is if you succeeded in communicating with the intended recipient.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 13y ago
It's worth noting, though, that many readers will be distracted by your use of less with counting nouns. Whether that's a pro or a con is up to you.
epitrochoidal 13y ago
irregardless, you knew what he meant, right?
- russelluresti 13y ago
  I smell a troll...
nilkn 13y ago
I don't really understand why a minority of people continue to belabor this. Anybody who has recently spent time in writing courses in a modern American institution knows that 'fewer' is greatly preferred to 'less' in this context, often to the extent of losing points if the latter is used. Students aren't going to care about your citations if following your advice means they lose points on their papers.
dmlorenzetti 13y ago
I felt like OP went out of his/her way to avoid snarkiness. He/she made several positive comments, added a helpful suggestion, and only then prefaced a "pedantic" comment by saying "Oh, by the way, a small part of me can't help but notice this..." That's a lot of mitigating language to earn the label "snark."
blaze33 13y ago
Stephen Fry has an interesting take on the less/fewer debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY
Mz 13y ago
The thing about pedantic snark (less/fewer), is that it loses its teeth when you're wrong. The thing about pedantic snark is that, whether it is right or wrong in its details, it almost always comes from a place of hostility and is thus a form of assholery. It indicates the individual "values" good grammar or whatever a helluva lot more than they value respect or politeness.
frodopwns 13y ago
Ooooh I like that. "pedantic snark"...

mherdeg 13y ago

OK, so on the one hand, Alfred the Great used less with counting nouns in 888 AD. But can we really trust this guy for historical precedent? He burnt the cakes!

kordless 13y ago
> He burnt the cakes! Maybe he was gluten intolerant.

tehwalrus 13y ago

This, and singular they[1], make me very happy indeed - all the people who "correct" my grammar are actually, themselves, wrong (or, at most, people waving an opinion in my face as if it were a fact.) <3 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

commandar 13y ago
There are a lot of prescriptive "rules" in English that aren't really rules. Ending sentences in prepositions is probably my favorite.
- evanb 13y ago
  "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put." --Churchill (maybe) Some discussion: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001702.h...

leephillips 13y ago

There appeared a wonderful article on just this topic on the Inky Fool website a few days ago: http://blog.inkyfool.com/2014/02/less-fewers.html http://blog.inkyfool.com/2014/02/less-fewers.html

hluska 13y ago

While I don't think the proposed edit would help, the commenter isn't actually wrong - in modern usage, it is more correct to say "fewer corrections" than "less corrections." Language doesn't form in a vacuum, nor is its growth confined to dictionaries. Rather, language is a living, breathing thing and grammar is closer to history than mechanics. Consider the less v. fewer debate. Yes, several hundred years ago, it was just fine to say "less corrections." However, for whatever reason, the upper crust decided that "fewer corrections" both looked and sounded better. Consequently, "less corrections" evolved to be less correct. My inner smartass wanted to say "fewer correct", but that would be a silly joke. It's like Russian. If you speak French, you can understand many Russian words. This isn't because French and Russian are linguistic cousins. Rather, it's because French was the language of nobility and words trickled down. Or heck, we could talk about the word "you." You was originally formal, whereas "thou" was more relaxed and informal. Yet, today, if I started a comment on Hacker News with, "I fear thou are wrong", it would seem needlessly formal. To conclude this long mess (it was supposed to be four lines and turned into paragraphs), language evolves constantly. Though certain distinctions didn't exist in earlier English, they exist now. However, if you know much about the history and formation of English, you should be less pedantic. It should also make us much more tolerant of people for whom English isn't their native language. We speak an intensely complex language with random rules that apply in some cases and not others. Thank heavens we don't have to compile our language before we speak it...:)

ajanuary 13y ago
The 'language is evolving' and 'language is defined by usage' arguments go both ways. When something was both not historically incorrect, and not considered incorrect by many current people, the arguments people make about it being wrong starts to crumble slightly.
- hluska 13y ago
  It's kind of like A/B testing. A blue button isn't wrong, but a green button coverts better. Language is the same. If your goal is to communicate, the most easily understood choice is best. Some grammatical quirks do nothing to hinder comprehension and don't need to be pointed out (ie - less/fewer). Others are far more toxic.

Angostura 13y ago

The thing about the pedantic anti snark is, it doesn't matter if you can show that the 'incorrect' usage goes back to the 17th Century, if the bulk of the educated audience you are writing for thinks that it is incorrect. You might as well use the 'correct' usage.

bane 13y ago
You should write for your audience. The only thing that's correct or incorrect is if you succeeded in communicating with the intended recipient.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dllthomas 13y ago

It's worth noting, though, that many readers will be distracted by your use of less with counting nouns. Whether that's a pro or a con is up to you.

epitrochoidal 13y ago

irregardless, you knew what he meant, right?

russelluresti 13y ago
I smell a troll...

nilkn 13y ago

I don't really understand why a minority of people continue to belabor this. Anybody who has recently spent time in writing courses in a modern American institution knows that 'fewer' is greatly preferred to 'less' in this context, often to the extent of losing points if the latter is used. Students aren't going to care about your citations if following your advice means they lose points on their papers.

dmlorenzetti 13y ago

I felt like OP went out of his/her way to avoid snarkiness. He/she made several positive comments, added a helpful suggestion, and only then prefaced a "pedantic" comment by saying "Oh, by the way, a small part of me can't help but notice this..." That's a lot of mitigating language to earn the label "snark."

blaze33 13y ago

Stephen Fry has an interesting take on the less/fewer debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Mz 13y ago

The thing about pedantic snark (less/fewer), is that it loses its teeth when you're wrong. The thing about pedantic snark is that, whether it is right or wrong in its details, it almost always comes from a place of hostility and is thus a form of assholery. It indicates the individual "values" good grammar or whatever a helluva lot more than they value respect or politeness.

frodopwns 13y ago

Ooooh I like that. "pedantic snark"...