The Case for Less Words
Brian Beutler was trying to convince me to skip the NBA Finals and go with him to see Drag Me To Hell tonight. I objected that, among other things, I don’t like horror movies. First he said it’s not a real horro movie, “it’s a comedic horror movie like Evil Dead, only funnier and less monsters.” Then he corrected himself: “fewer” monsters.
Matthew Yglesias
eh, I think I’ve got a solid plan
never did understand the less/fewer thing thoughBrian Beutler
really?
fewer is for countable items
such as
monsters
less is for abstract quantities
you have less milk
or fewer gallons of milkMatthew Yglesias
yeah, yeah, people always reexplain it to me
then I forget again
sounds like b***s***
if we just abolished the word “fewer” we’d be in good shapeBrian Beutler
i don’t know manMatthew Yglesias
how does it really help us?Brian Beutler
“I’ve got less gallons of milk”
sounds weirdMatthew Yglesias
less words!
more easier to learn the language!
I’m prepared to stand behind this view. The less/fewer distinction isn’t really that hard to learn, but it would be much easier to not have to bother. I can’t think of any situations in which the existence of the two different words is actually helpful to our understanding of what’s being communicated. Native speakers of the English language have a perverse tendency to take pride in the difficulty of our language, but it’s not actually a good thing.
146 Responses to “The Case for Less Words”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 4th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Matt doesn’t know the rules of grammar? What a shock!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Less words are double plus good!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Paging George Orwell, George Orwell, cleanup in aisle two.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
This should be a fun game–trying to find examples of it mattering. How about the issue of how to communicate the relationship between two percentages?
12% is 25% less than 15%
12% is 3% fewer than 15%
June 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I never thought I would hear this kind of argument from someone who writes for a living.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
In a horrorish movie (arch or not), monsters are atmospheric, not an enumerated feature. “less” is correct usage, as in “less blood”
June 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
And, of course, I come up with an example where I screw up the math.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The “less” / “fewer” distinction is exactly the same as the “much” / “many” distinction.
I.e., if you have too much of something, you need less of it, but if you have too many of something, you need fewer of them.
That said, for some reason “less” / “fewer” seems to be dropping out of English, and as you say, the language won’t really be significantly impoverished without it.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
DTM: For your second statement, it would be, “12% is three percentage points less than 15%”
June 4th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I think we should get rid of the letter K. We use C for the hard sound, and S for the soft sound. It’s a redundant letter.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Irv – Kwite so (assuming you meant that C is the redundant letter, not K).
June 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
DTM: For your second statement, it would be, “12% is three percentage points less than 15%”
I would contend that is ambiguous, and that using “three percentage points fewer” instead disambiguates.
In any event, even if you think saying “three percentage points” instead of “3%” is sufficient to disambiguate, you had to use a lot more extra letters than simply swapping fewer for less.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I usually think the “I can’t believe Yglesias went to Harvard” people are tiresome wankers. And they are! And yet, Jesus Christ man.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What the f*ck? This is liberal hipsterism run amock. For your information, Mr. Yglesias, the rules of English grammar were not designed to cater to your ignorance and laziness. English is a difficult language for a reason: because the more difficult a language, the more it weeds out ignorant yahoos like yourself, and ensures that only people who have something valuable to say get to say it. English Language is not a democracy, by God. And thank Our Lord for that. We owe duties of obedience to our linguistic forebears.
This kind of lowest-common-denominator urge to cater to the ignorance of the American general public really gets my goat. The tongue of Milton, Shakespeare, Blake, Spurgeon, and Donne shall not be bastardized and debased just so that Mr. Yglesias can have an easier time of it. Linguistic descriptivisim is just another example of the disease of liberal-cosmopolite hipsterdom that is infecting America.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
It’s rather amazing how much hatred Yglesias has for the English language considering he makes his living by writing in it. Or attempting to write in it, I should say.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Well, it is dumb that we have to see “him” or “her” or “him or her” instead of “them.” E.g., it is grammatically incorrect to say “If you love someone, set them free.” But “If you love someone, set him free” excludes half the population, and “If you love someone, set him or her free” is absurd. “Them” is the only way to be gender-neutral without being annoying. And language is supposed to adapt.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Posts like this are, to me, a real downside to blogs. I’m reading through intelligent, well-thought-out political posts and then — what’s this? — it appears to be a not-especially-sharp 15 year old whining about grammar.
I can’t think of any situations in which the existence of the two different words is actually helpful to our understanding of what’s being communicated.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Connotation, denotation. This is not advanced stuff…
June 4th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
To clarify, here’s an example from 1984:
We could greatly simplify the english language by lumping all words with a negative valence together. Bad, evil, criminal, horrible, ugly, etc. — all of these words and more can be replaced by “ungood” or “doubleplus ungood.” Of course, if you obliterate nuance you make it hard even to think certain thoughts. (e.g. that an action can be both against the law and morally right)
Didn’t you do a philosophy degree at some point? When did you stop thinking that expressing your thoughts clearly and precisely was important?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Also,
actually makes Matt’s argument for him. We don’t talk like any of those dudes anymore, now do we?
June 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
A world with less options is a world with fewer freedom.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Funny how the only arbitrary grammatical distictions people want to eliminate are the ones they never learned.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I blame the express checkout.
That “9 items or less” sign is ambiguous, though, since it’s not a complete sentence. You can be snooty like Marks and Spencer, and say “9 items or fewer [items]“, or parse it out to mean “9 items, or less [stuff in your basket]“.
On the other hand, there are Old English examples of people using “less” for countable items (and Middle English split infinitives), so while you might invoke Newspeak, the Orwellian dictum to “break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous” makes more sense.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I’m curious about how Matt managed to get into Harvard with his approach to the English language. I would think this sort of thing would show up in SAT II: Writing scores if not in the verbal section is well. Must’ve taken a lot of work to hide it if not.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
assuming you meant that C is the redundant letter
Historically speaking, it is “K” that is redundant. “C” was the original letter used for the “K” sound in Latin.
MattY, the thing is that we know you have a poor command of the English language, and because of that we consider your opinions on the matters to hold a lot less weight than they would otherwise. You’re simply not a credible spokesperson for language reform, because it sounds a lot like either sour grapes or an indulgence of your laziness.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
ack, typo in grammar scold post…
OTL
June 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Matthew’s exactly right about this.
Also, the proper response to Beutler’s initial request was “Are you on crack?”
Sorry, I mean “r u on crck”.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Fake Hector:
Bravo!
June 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Also, it’s the NBA. As long as you catch a showing that allows you to get to a bar before the last five minutes, you’ll be fine.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
It’s rather amazing how much hatred Yglesias has for the English language considering he makes his living by writing in it.
He’s just rebelling against his trust fund.
The tongue of Milton, Shakespeare, Blake, Spurgeon, and Donne–
“One of these things is not like the other…”
–shall not be bastardized and debased just so that Mr. Yglesias can have an easier time of it.
No, Hector, that’s your job. Though I’m reminded of the story of a man who asked James Joyce if he could shake the hand that wrote Ulysses, to which yer man replied: “Yes, but it’s done a lot of other things as well.”
June 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
less words!
more easier to learn the language!
‘more easier’? You’re not really fighting the good fight for linguistic parsimony.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think the word “the”is redundant and don’t want to use it.
What fuck?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Ignore the rule. Use fewer when talking about number, use less for anything including number. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage “Fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. … Less refers to quantity or amount among this that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.” And “The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great (about 888 AD).” (same source) It really pisses me off when the grammar cops don’t know what they are talking about.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Of course, all that efficiency we would gain through fewer words would be lost by Matt’s proposed use of “more” with a comparative, now foolishly thought by most to be superfluous.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I’d give my thoughts on the whole “usage and grammar” issue, but they’re basically the same as David Foster Wallace’s, so I’ll just link to his amazing piece on the subject.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
This is liberal hipsterism run amock.
That could be “amok” or “amuck”, but not “amock”.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Language Log on less/fewer.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Sounds like Matt is beginning the long slide into communicating entirely in Esperanto.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Shorter MY: Get off my lawn!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
MY: “eh, I think I’ve got a solid plan”
Yeah, I’m amazed the conversation got *that* far. A movie which has multiple engagements at multiple venues, vs. a live, engaging sporting event that’s a one shot deal. Yeah, TiVO this, braddah.
Even though I don’t do hockey, even I wouldn’t even think about talking someone out of watching the Stanley Cup.
And, if MY is GOING TO the game, Brian should be bitch-slapped in the hope that it clears his head.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Oops, hit submit before I finished that.
Shorter MY: Get off my lawn, English language!
June 4th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Amusing observation about grammar –> people who don’t even remember their fifth grade teacher are insistent about the(usually misremembered) grammar rules taught by that teacher!
Also, why does knowledge about grammar give rise to extreme smugness in a way that knowledge of math or science (which are far more important) doesn’t ?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
less sturgeon
June 4th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Also, why does knowledge about grammar give rise to extreme smugness in a way that knowledge of math or science (which are far more important) doesn’t ?
You apparently do not know any mathematicians, scientists, or, worst of all, engineers.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Apples and oranges, for example. Why do we need TWO words for what are obviously both fruit? English, you perverse trollop of a language…
Also, plurals. Lots of languages get along perfectly well without plurals. Or prepositions. Or punctuation.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
As language log points out, this isn’t a firm, ironclad rule.
“I wish there were less cars on the road” sounds more awkward than using “fewer,” but “If you have less than 12 items, you can use that line,” sounds perfectly reasonable.
“More easier” just belongs in the department of redundancy department.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Tyro:
If you have fewer items
If you have less than 12
Think about it.
[Is 10 fewer than 12? Do I have less items than he has?]
June 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
engaging sporting event
Did you miss the part where he explained that this was the NBA Finals?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Also, why does knowledge about grammar give rise to extreme smugness in a way that knowledge of math or science (which are far more important) doesn’t ?
Class distinctions and the mark of the clan.
Try using a spoon at dinner when you’re supposed to use a fork. Or loop the roll of toilet paper the wrong way.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
We should just go with Newspeak. I believe it’s “unmore” or “double plus unmore” depending on how much less.
I know it was supposed to be satire, but at home my wife and I often use 1984 language like “double plus ungood.” This is probably a cruel thing to do to our toddler.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Less dribbling means fewer bad possessions.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Japanesegetsalongjustfinewithoutspacestoo.Whydon’twetrythat?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Fuck the semi-colon, too.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I think less/fewer is sort of a corner case. Most of the time having additional words gives one the opportunity to use fewer words or communicate a more specific idea.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
““I wish there were less cars on the road” sounds more awkward than using “fewer,” but “If you have less than 12 items, you can use that line,” sounds perfectly reasonable.”
Because it’s consistent with the rule. In the latter case, “less” modifies the 12, not the items. Ordinals are considered an uncountable quantity (even though you can count to them).
June 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Se MattY lernus paroli Esperanton, estus ecx pli facila komuniki!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I think we should spell Matt’s name “Iglesias”. Having both “I” and “Y” represent the same sound is redundant. Also, there should only be one “T” in his first name.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
What are you, a prescriptionist?
June 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I think Matt has a pretty unique relationship with words; I can’t think of anyone else who makes these mistakes, nor do I know of anyone who communicates so well.
On this topic, though i will read MY’s opinions with interest, I would be very wary his analysis of what is right for the rest of us. (I am not sure that English is more complicated on this kind of point–quite the reverse I would have thought.)
June 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The most puzzling thing for me about the fewer/less distinction is that there isn’t a parallel distinction for more of something: more milk, more gallons of milk. As a result of my fewer/less training, and my instinct that “more” is the opposite of “less,” I always think “more gallons” sounds wrong. Still searching for that distinctive opposite of “fewer”…
June 4th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Also, why does knowledge about grammar give rise to extreme smugness in a way that knowledge of math or science (which are far more important) doesn’t?
Allow me try my hand at extreme smugness in math and grammar simultaneously! ‘Fewer’ is used to contrast countable quantities (integers) while ‘less’ contrasts two non-discrete quantities (real numbers). The integers are a subset of the reals and hence ‘less’ applies. ‘Fewer’ is not strictly necessary unless the user wishes to make explicit that the things she refers to may only be found in discrete amounts.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Interesting how most of the examples people are presenting of how horrible it would be to lose excess words are instances where the relevant distinctions between the uses of those words are much more important than the distinction between “less” and “fewer”.
Look, languages change. You might have aesthetic preferences for certain traditions, rules, or quirks of the English language, but some of them are going to change, and that’s that. There’s a lot about English grammar that’s really not necessary to what I consider the purpose of grammar – making sure that we understand each other as clearly as possible. As someone who studied Latin in high school, I’m fond of declining nouns, but in the modern English language, it’s hard to identify instances where the “who/whom” distinction will clarify something for you that word order and context didn’t already indicate. (On the other hand, I go nuts over misused apostrophes, because they actually take me an extra split-second to clarify and understand, in addition to looking like shit. No, I don’t want to look at your “dessert’s”.)
The “proper” meaning and usage of the cliche “it begs the question” actually, in modern lexicon, makes less intuitive sense than the “mistaken” use of said phrase. But I’ll fight “I could care less” to my deathbed.
And while there’s good stuff in the DFW piece linked above, overall I thought it was kind of bullshit, though not unsympathetic bullshit, which is how I felt about most of the longer pieces in Consider the Lobster (not the porn piece, though, that was great), and I say that as a big fan of Wallace’s fiction, nonfiction, and general thought/badassedness.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I love this topic, from the point of view of a non-native english speaker as I am (actually a very sketchy one, since I learned it in a very hetherodox way -> almost no lessons, a little bit of travelling and lots of newspapers reading)
But I must say that, despite matt’s post, english is actually a very silly and simple language compared to actual spanish* or not to say german (and i guess russian or any other slavic language is just a few levels over any other indoeuropean language in terms of difficulty).
by the way:
Matt’s surname is originally spanish, and it should be Iglesias instead of Yglesias(which is a weird americanisation of it).
* spanish is a very easy language to learn in the first stage (to make yourself undertood in a conversation), because of it very simple phonetics, but extremely hard to deal with if you want to properly write in a literary way (included for spanish speakers themselves). It has a very particular approach to develope the meaning of words, moreover in Spain self than in South America: instead of using a new different word for a certain meaning, like in english or germanic languages, we usually develope new meanings out of groups of words in a subtle manner, very hard to learn for non-spanish speakers.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
It’s the new easified English! Lincoln should have said:
Eighty-seven year past us forefather bring forth new nation them conceive it in liberty them dedicate it to proposition that all person be create equal.
So simple a caveman could speak it!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
You should work on your spelling before you start editing the vocabulary.
If you want fewer words, take up French.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The “less” / “fewer” distinction is exactly the same as the “much” / “many” distinction.
Not quite. It is perfectly proper to say that I have more milk, and more cookies, than you. Yet you have less milk, and fewer cookies than me. And that asymmetry between ‘more’ and ‘less|fewer’ proves that the latter distinction adds no meaning to the sentence (because the discrete/continuous distinction is already captured in the noun that less|fewer modifies).
June 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Mass and number are not the same concept, therefore to use the same word for both sacrifices precision in the language.
Matt’s typos are annoying, but forgivable (although why CAP can’t get an intern to copy-edit him is beyond me). Active hostility towards grammar is another thing. That must be opposed and defeated. We’re holding the line here, Matt. This far! No farther!!!!
June 4th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Precision and clarity are the goals in language; any change that allows for greater precision and clarity is good, and any change that diminishes them is bad.
In other words: learn this frigging distinction (and any other distinction that you think you can’t be bothered to learn) so you can express yourself clearly and precisely.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Can we kill of either bring or take while we’re at it?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
This is actually a fascinating subject because the alleged “rule” actually doesn’t exist.
In every credible dictionary, one meaning of “less” IS “fewer”. That’s why it’s perfectly fine to use “less” instead of “fewer” to mean quantity.
Many people have been taught “rules” of grammar, syntax, and usage by English teachers that don’t actually exist. For instance, rules against split infinitives. Rules requiring that certain phrases be set off by commas. Rules that the period must come before or after the closing quotation mark.
Less MEANS fewer. If you don’t believe me look it up. Look at all the examples of it in ordinary usage.
If you don’t LIKE less meaning fewer, than you are at liberty not to use it. But you have no basis to criticize anyone for engaging in a well-established usage of English that is supported by dictionary definitions. Get over it.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Less/fewer doesn’t bother me. Ya know what drives me nuts? “Equally as.”
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Way to jump into the prescriptivist/descriptivist melee. I think you’re instinctively on the right side.
In any case, that’s too bad, because the prescriptivists lost that battle years ago, and there are way more interesting and relevant debates in the linguistic field. See formalist/functionalist debate, for example.
Grammar Nazis suck though, see Hector above.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Reminds me of an early April skiing trip in France, followed by a visit to Paris.
At Moutiers I boarded a bus for Les Menuires and, upon being asked where I wanted to go, dutifully failed to pronounce the “r” (and anything following), as I had learned. I was corrected…the “r” should be pronounced (though not anything else).
After having a great time skiing I travelled to Paris, and upon dragging a pair of skis into the hotel, was asked where I had been. I said “Les Menuires”, pronouncing it as the locals had insisted, and was corrected…it should be pronounced as I had originally done back at the beginning of the trip, without the “r” or the “es”.
After this I think I should be exempt from people bitching about weird crap in the English language.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Class distinctions and the mark of the clan.
Try using a spoon at dinner when you’re supposed to use a fork. Or loop the roll of toilet paper the wrong way.
Is there a class indicator when it comes to the roll of toilet paper, or is it just a very strongly held personal preference?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I think a benefit of having distinct terms marking logically distinct conceptions, rather than a single more flexible term used polysemously to express both conceptions, is that the proper usage of the two terms then has to be taught. And teaching the proper usage of terms forces the learner to attend to the distinction they mark, and to employ language more deliberately and self-consciously.
It’s a good thing when the student attends carefully to the distinction between:
I have started eating fewer meats
and
I have started eating less meat,
even though it is true that we could mark the distinction with a single term – “fess”? – and the employment of the plural ending. By having two words with differing functions, people like Matt are forced to ask, “How do these two terms function?”, and the answer requires a little discussion of mass nouns, count nouns, plurality, magnitude and what have you.
Note that because of the existence of irregular plurals that do double duty as mass nouns, we sometimes need to rely on the “less”/”fewer” distinction to avoid ambiguity, and a single term wouldn’t do, as in:
The town consumed fewer fish this year
vs.
The town consumed less fish this year.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
You also can’t get rid of “fewer” without getting rid of “few” or “fewest.” It’s a comparative, and most one-syllable adjectives have comparative and superlative forms. Even “less” is a secondary/alternate comparative form of “little:” little, less, least. It’s not that hard to master standard English–millions and millions of people have done it. Maybe Matt could sign up for an ESL class or find a tutor.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“But I’ll fight “I could care less” to my deathbed.”
The correct way to pronounce it is to put the accent on the “could”. Then it is perfectly grammatically correct.
Man, Matt really hates the English language.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I’m “convinced” that
You “persuade” people to
(in Matt’s case, change his plans.)
But what difference would a rule make? A nice distinction isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I hope MY decided to see the movie. The game sucked.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I wish less pedantic assholes commented.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Geoff, I can’t tell what you mean. Do you want assholes who comment to be not as pedantic as these assholes, or do you want fewer pedantic assholes commenting?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
If you read the Language Log post linked above, you’ll find that the distinction is not incorrect – it’s simply that it simplifies a more common situation.
The implication of the post is that sometimes it’s okay to use “less” to refer to “number among things that are counted” (which is what “fewer” also means.) However, frequently that sounds wrong. To quote the Merriam-Webster Concise Dictionary of the English Language from the Language Log post:
If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear [unless you are Matt Yglesias]. If you are not a native speaker, you will find that the simple rule with which we started is a safe guide, except for the constructions for which we have shown less to be preferred.
So, basically, the source which “proves” that there is no rule does nothing of the sort. It says that the rule is usually a valid description of usage, but there are certain special cases when you’d use “less” when the rule would expect you to use “fewer.”
Furthermore, the people talking about “usage changes” and such bullshit are full of it. Yes, of course usage changes. But usage at the moment would suggest that “the case for less words” is wrong. It’s one thing to say that languages and usage rules change over time. It’s another thing to demand that usage guidelines one doesn’t like be abandoned on the grounds that usage rules change over time. They change because people come to generally accept the new usage.
And none of this justifies Matt’s ridiculous nonsense.
BTW – the “incorrect” usage of “begs the question” pisses me off to no end. Basically the proper meaning of “begging the question” is a useful concept which there’s no other English term that accurately describes it. The incorrect usage is one that could be replaced by any number of other perfectly acceptable phrases like “raises the question.” Why should a useful phrase be surrendered so that ignorant people can think they’re being smart?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I think people are missing the point. Which is that Matt needs to go see Drag Me To Hell. It kicked much ass. Or should it be many asses?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:04 am
less/fewer is simply the comparative version of little/few. Are those interchangeable?
Let’s see:
“We little, we happy little”
“Little will note, nor long remember, what we say here.”
“On the plus side, death is one of the few things that can be done just as easily lying down.”
And I leave you with Twain:
“Little things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.”
June 5th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Hey, I don’t want fewer words in the English language! I want more words in the English language! I have specific ideas in mind for some of them! (Spanish and Portuguese – and other romance languages? – have common idioms for both the apologetic and the sympathetic uses to which we put the phrase “I’m sorry,” and a surprising amount of the time people tell me “it’s not your fault” when I never intended to imply that it was. “I’m sorry your cat is dead,” I say, “not I’m sorry I killed your cat.” [I stay away from this example when an actual pet is dead.] There are of course ways to express the distinction clearly, but they generally seem inappropriate – too stilted and emotionally distant – for informal conversation between close friends, who aren’t the sort of people to whom I typically offer condolences or my sympathies.)
And yeah, Matt’s being silly above, but he, fwiw, didn’t make the “usage changes” argument to defend the proposition that “fewer” and “less” should go into the Octagon, he just made his usual “English is difficult enough argument.” I made the “usage changes” argument not in favor of ditching a word but to point out that there’s nothing sacrosanct about preserving a less/fewer distinction, because usage changes over time, and tried to marshal some pithy examples as evidence of how that’s not necessarily bad. That very few people seem to have a grasp of “less” v. “few” – good lord, how many people have an improper grasp of “I” vs. “me”! – indicates to me as a lay person that this usage distinction is changing. I don’t feel one way or the other about that, but if it is changing I don’t think it’s a big deal because very few examples have been proffered in response to Matt’s point that he can’t think of an instance when it really matters (Dan Kervick gave one above).
And, perhaps especially since I’m not a professional linguist nor claim to be an amateur one, I’m inevitably going to be something of a descriptivist because my primary concern is how clear I’m being with other people. There’s a relatively small number of people of my acquaintance with whom I could confidently use the proper meaning of “begs the question,” and a bunch of them would know what I meant if I said “petitio principii” instead, and the rest would understand what I meant if I said, “you’re assuming an unproven premise,” so the phrase has done me little good in life. (If I needed to explain myself further, it’s probably because they don’t see the question being begged, in which case I’d have to point it out to them regardless of what phrase I used.) I don’t have an opinion one way or the other about the fate of the phrase, but I think it’s silly to get up in arms about a change in the meaning of the phrase to one that, coincidentally, actually better fits a plain reading of the modern understanding of what those words mean.
My dad is driven up the wall by people who say “it’s a mute point,” and I agree with him, because “mute” and “moot” really do mean usefully different things in my opinion, but I like to tease him by arguing that actually they’re being quite poetic – the point has spoken all that it could, and now falls silent.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Some of the hardest languages to learn are those that have the fewest words!!
There a gazzillion synonyms in Japanese, Latin or French, for example, languages that have seemingly restricted vocabularies. What happens is that one word has to do double, triple, or quadruple duty. Take a look in a Latin, dictionary and you will see pages of definitions following single entries. It is extremely easy to make a fool of oneself in such languages.
“Simplicity” can be far from simple, anyway. It takes genius to come up with sentences as succinct as Caesar’s.
The idea that some languages are easier to learn than others is a fallacy. Easier to spell, maybe. To pronounce, maybe. But there are always other difficulties.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:24 am
The sunlight seemed less intense, but contained no fewer photons.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Medrawt, I recently read an article saying that Canadians are mistakenly thought to be polite because we use I’m sorry in many different ways besides apologetic -sympathetic, sarcastic, and I think the author had a few more.
I’m someone who was taught at school the fewer/less distinction so thoroughly that it grates on me when media people evidence no knowledge of what I grew up thinking was proper usage.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Note that because of the existence of irregular plurals that do double duty as mass nouns, we sometimes need to rely on the “less”/”fewer” distinction to avoid ambiguity, and a single term wouldn’t do, as in: The town consumed fewer fish this year vs. The town consumed less fish this year.
Just who do you mean by “we”, Kemo Sabe? YOU may do this. Meanwhile many English speakers use the correct term “less” to mean “a smaller number of”.
You are proposing a possible distinction between “fewer” and “less”, but it is not one that is accepted by dictionaries or large numbers of English speakers. It is your WISH that “less” not mean “a smaller number of”, but, unfortunately for you, it does mean that, which means that you have to live with the fact that the supposed ambiguity that you object to exists in correct English.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 am
John 81:
Here’s the Webster’s Dictionary entry on “less”. It makes absolutely clear that your supposed “rule” does not exist and that using the word to mean “fewer” is ABSOLUTELY 100 PERCENT CORRECT ENGLISH, just correct English that some scolds disapprove of:
Main Entry:
1less Listen to the pronunciation of 1less
Pronunciation:
\ˈles\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, partly from Old English lǣs, adverb & noun; partly from lǣssa, adjective; akin to OldFrisian lēs less
Date:
before 12th century
comparative of 1little
1: constituting a more limited number or amount 2: of lower rank, degree, or importance 3 a: of reduced size, extent, or degree b: more limited in quantity
— no less
—used to emphasize that something is regarded as impressive or surprising
usage The traditional view is that less applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while fewer applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. Less has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. Less is more likely than fewer to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved and as likely as fewer to modify periods of time .
June 5th, 2009 at 1:48 am
<>Geoff, I can’t tell what you mean. Do you want assholes who comment to be not as pedantic as these assholes, or do you want fewer pedantic assholes commenting?<>
the other day on the radio a rather indignant caller (talking about how great Ayn Rand is, no less) said to the host who had corrected her as to the pronunciation of the name “well I may not be as pedantic as you are.”
It was awesome, because although she was clearly misusing the word pedantic, it would have been even more pedantic to correct her on it. It made my brain freeze and I wasn’t even expected to respond.
Similarly, when someone misuses “less” and “fewer” even though there’s no mistaking there meaning it sounds funny to me so I spend a split second thinking about it which interrupts my attention to what they’re saying and may make me lose track. That’s the real reason why it matters. A natural language has lots of grammatical rules that don’t make a logical difference to the meaning of a sentence but are important to communication nonetheless because they make phrases intelligible.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I work in a university writing center and tutor a lot of non-native English speakers. I happened to work with a graduate student who:
Spoke a Congolese dialect as mother tongue
Spoke French as his native language (French official language of his country)
Spoke Arabic because he went to a Muslim school
Worked for several years as a computer professor in Russia, and spoke Russian
Now was learning English, his FIFTH language.
I said, “I bet English is the hardest to learn.”
And he laughed. He said, no, it wasn’t hard to learn English. “Russian!! Russian is impossible!”
So from someone who knows 5 languages (and lots of computer languages too)– English is easy. Russian is hard.
Well, we should believe that. Think how hard Russian novels are.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:48 am
italics fail
June 5th, 2009 at 1:50 am
And here’s Dictionary.com:
less
/lɛs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [les] Show IPA
–adverb, a compar. of little with least as superl.
1. to a smaller extent, amount, or degree: less exact.
2. most certainly not (often prec. by much or still): He could barely pay for his own lodging, much less for that of his friend.
3. in any way different; other: He is nothing less than a thief.
–adjective, a compar. of little with least as superl.
4. smaller in size, amount, degree, etc.; not so large, great, or much: less money; less speed.
5. lower in consideration, rank, or importance: no less a person than the manager.
6. fewer: less than a dozen.
–noun
7. a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained.
8. something inferior or not as important: He was tortured for less.
–preposition
9. minus; without: a year less two days; six dollars less tax.
—Idiom
10. less than, by far short of being; not in the least; hardly at all: The job is less than perfect.
Origin:
bef. 900; ME; OE lǣs (adv.), lǣssa (adj.); c. OFris lês (adv.), lêssa (adj.). See least
Synonyms:
4. See small.
Usage note:
Even though less has been used before plural nouns (less words; less men) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns (less sugar; less money) and singular abstract nouns (less honesty; less love). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states.
Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction. When followed by than, less occurs at least as often as fewer in modifying plural nouns that are not units or groups, and the use of less in this construction is increasing in all varieties of English: less than eight million people; no less than 31 of the 50 states. When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.
-less
June 5th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Now, a short message to the scolds who want us to not use “less” to mean its established, accepted meaning of “lower in number”.
You guys are free to refrain from using “less” to denote its established definition of “lower in number”. But you have no right to stop the rest of us from using it if we want to.
And that’s what these debates are really about. This is about people who want to stop OTHER people from using language that they don’t like. And they should mind their own business. Nobody’s stopping them from using whatever stilted and stupid rules that their English teacher happened to make up.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:18 am
to Dilan Esper-
baloney. You can use language however you want. and for all the talking about language scolds, I don’t think I’ve ever met one.
I don’t refrain from using less in these situations because of some arcane rule I heard about in fifth grade, I do it because it sounds funny to use it the other way, and if what you say to me sounds funny I’m thinking about that rather than the content of what you’re saying. Now maybe it doesn’t sound funny to you, and that’s fine, you should go ahead and use it.
There are a lot of grammatical rules that don’t exist to prevent an ambiguity but simply to make language more regular and therfore more easily comprehensible. There’s no ambiguity in saying “I is fat.” or “they is talking about grammar” but we don’t say those things because they are ungrammatical.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Too many comments, guys. Fewer is more.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:25 am
And you have no right to stop us from trying to stop you. You’ve got some nerve telling us what we can and can’t tell you to do!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Also note that in the disclaimer in the Webster’s entry on the subject all of the categories of plural nouns that are likely to be modified by “less” (i.e distances, sums of money and time) are things that are generally considered to be measured/available in non-discreet quantities.
You could say “that costs fewer than ten dollars” but you would be implying that it costs some whole number of dollars when in fact it probably costs $9.99 plus tax.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:30 am
I’m a big believer in using non-standard english when it sounds right, but that’s different from pretending there isn’t a distinction where there is one. Also I can’t sleep and there are few things I like more than talking about language.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:33 am
We don’t abolish words or rules of grammar. Over time, people stop using them, and eventually the words get filed under “archaic” and the rules (which are really only simplified descriptions of convention) change. It’s not unlike politics. When enough generations acclimate to the idea of, say, gay marriage the laws (and interpretations of existing laws) start changing.
The “proper” meaning and usage of the cliche “it begs the question” actually, in modern lexicon, makes less intuitive sense than the “mistaken” use of said phrase. But I’ll fight “I could care less” to my deathbed.
The original meaning of “begs the question” is less intuitive. On the other hand, we don’t have a handy way to say the original meaning, while there are plenty of different ways to say “raises the question”. And it’s an annoying cliche. So on that one, I’m in favor of the original meaning, though I seem to be outvoted.
However, it will be a cold, cold day in Hell before I accept “irregardless”.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:36 am
There are a lot of grammatical rules that don’t exist to prevent an ambiguity but simply to make language more regular and therfore more easily comprehensible. There’s no ambiguity in saying “I is fat.” or “they is talking about grammar” but we don’t say those things because they are ungrammatical.
If it was just a matter of what “sounds funny to you”, you wouldn’t state it as a “rule” (which it isn’t). You’d just say that it was your preference, or that it sounds funny to you.
Subject-verb agreement with respect to the verb “to be” is a rule. It is widely accepted in standard English and reflected in dictionaries.
In contrast, “less” does mean “fewer”, whether it sounds funny to you or not.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:50 am
the problem is with the notion that there is some finite set of rules that make up grammar and that they are written in a dictionary and can be referenced at will.
Where I come from, West Virginia, it is very common to here someone say “they is” or “they was.”
You may say it’s a rule, but in our dialect the rule is different. That doesn’t mean that there’s no distinction between “is” and “are.” Neither does it mean that people who have grown up saying it the way they learned it are wrong.
You are welcome to use “less” any way you want, but don’t claim that there’s no difference between “less” and “fewer.”
June 5th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Actually now that I think about it “they is” in hillbilly dialect almost always means “there are” not “they are.”
but “they was” is commonly used in place of “they were.”
June 5th, 2009 at 4:03 am
What 2 said. WTF is wrong with you? Fewer Orwellian language modifications plz.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:01 am
English is a complicated language. Full of subtlety and all that. Maybe fewer and less are unneeded distinctions. But in many cases, subtle distinctions between words are a valuable tool in the hands of a skilled writer. Let’s not be too hasty assuming we know better.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:06 am
The {less, fewer} such blog-posts, the better.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
If you think the two are synonyms, use “fewer” instead of “less”.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Language is a tall fence over which thought can barely peek. The wider this fence stretches, the more we can think. The appreciation of the less/fewer nuance increases the ability to appreciate similar nuance. Children who routinely hear more complex language, or multiple languages have better neuronal development.
I’m all for dumping archaisms which only serve to bolster stuffy egos, but we should not dump nuance.
Oh, and neither c nor k should go. The k should be used for all unvoiced back-lingual (cat->kat), the s for open, unvoiced, front-linguals (cent->sent), and the c for unvoiced mid-labials (church ->curc). I’d also like to get rid of
“gh” sounding like “f” (use an “f”), or sounding like nothing (use nothing, or a silent “e”). All “wh” should be replaced by “w” or “h”. Then, we go back to using “y” for “th”, let “i” take over most of the duties that “y” had (jelly -> jelli, yellow -> iello, youth->iuye). I’d also like to be younger.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
While you are at it, abolish the distinction between the sounds of ‘v’ and ‘w’. Confusion on this score was the only infraction of the English language for which I was laughed at when I came to this country.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The tongue of Milton, Shakespeare, Blake, Spurgeon, and Donne shall not be bastardized and debased just so that Mr. Yglesias can have an easier time of it.
Um, Hector, have you read Shakespeare? Have you ever seen images of the earliest published versions of his work? There are a lot of grammatical and spelling things in Shakespeare’s English that very different from how we speak and write the language today. That’s because English is a language that grows, changes, and evolves. You, however, seem deeply committed to resisting any growth, change, or evolution in any feature of society.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
This is a classic example of the inanity prescriptive grammar. No serious linguist would argue that a “less/fewer” distinction exists in English. You’re a native English speaker, Matt. If you say it, it’s English.
Also, the notion that English is harder or easier to learn (as a spoken language) than any other language is false. In fact, all (spoken) languages are equally difficult to learn, the only caveat being that it is easier to learn a language that is closely related to one’s native language. It is true that English spelling is more difficult than other languages.
None of this is radical or debated by serious linguists. Nor is this political correctness on the part of the linguistics community– ask the right wing linguist Geoff Sampson. This and other “rules” are made up by self-appointed experts who have never thought seriously about language at all.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:10 am
102 and 107:
Saying less and fewer are synonyms is a straw man. They aren’t synonyms; they share one common meaning in standard (I.e. not west virginia) correct english. They are analogous to ‘coach’ and ‘economy’. They share one meaning (referring to classes of airline service) and also have non-overlapping other meanings.
What happened is that some english teacher lied to you and said that less COULD NOT mean lower in number and thus created a nonexistant additional distinction between the two.
The fact that you think it would be useful to create this distinction doesn’t matter, because the distinxtion doesn’t exist in standard english.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Late to the party, but a response to Pseudonymous at #22:
“I blame the express checkout.
I worked at a Meijer superstore back in the day (it’s basically an off-brand Super Walmart chain in the Midwest). The express checkout signs there all say “15 items or fewer.” We learned during our corporate indoctrination that Mrs. Meijer was a Grammar Nazi who was irritated by this error and compelled her husband to change all the signs.
“This and other “rules” are made up by self-appointed experts who have never thought seriously about language at all.”
Uh… no. This and many other rules were codified by people who thought very seriously about language and attempted to standardize the language for the benefit of all who speak it, and to prevent it from splintering off into incomprehensible regional dialects and idiot slang.
Contemporary people who reflexively enforce the most trivial Nineteenth Century standards, rather than accepting the natural evolution of spoken English, are just as irritating as their analogues in the political sphere. But it would be impossible to teach standard English in schools if no one had taken the time to identify and explain the standards.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:34 am
What happened is that some english teacher lied to you and said that less COULD NOT mean lower in number and thus created a nonexistant additional distinction between the two.
Well, no. Nobody lied to me. It’s simply a distinction I’ve come to prefer. Disregarding it seems to me to be merely laziness. My high school economy used “less” all the time.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
If it was just a matter of what “sounds funny to you”, you wouldn’t state it as a “rule” (which it isn’t). You’d just say that it was your preference, or that it sounds funny to you.
@Dilan Esper
English makes sparing use of the subjunctive mood and your sentence above is a classic example. The correct conjugation of the verb “to be” in this instance would be “[i]f it were just a matter of what “sounds funny to you”, you wouldn’t state it as a “rule” (which it isn’t).”
June 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
To find a good example you need to find something where it is ambiguous whether something is countable. For instance imagine a giant sand monster. Suppose the individual sand particles were called wids. If the wids became larger in size but fewer in number then you could say that fewer wids exist but you can’t say less wids exist.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
To find a good example you need to find something where it is ambiguous whether something is countable. For instance imagine a giant sand monster. Suppose the individual sand particles were called wids. If the wids became larger in size but fewer in number then you could say that fewer wids exist but you can’t say less wids exist.
Like goldfish. When one goldfish gets rid of all the other goldfish, it gets real big. Real, real big. Like a dog or a young child. So, less goldfish would just be wrong. Sadly wrong.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
DTM: I think one should say “three percentage points” no matter what, because the difference between % points and % is so significant. “3% fewer” is not clear at all as to what is meant; I’d think it was gibberish if I encountered it.
I’m actually a copy editor who supports the fewer/less distinction, just playing at backing Matt.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
June 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Dilan Esper – nonsense. You haven’t proved anything that I haven’t already conceded. The issue isn’t one of dictionary definitions, but of usage. I conceded already that “less” can be used to mean “fewer”. The point is that, in common usage, for most situations when we are referring to a smaller number of countable items, “fewer” is the more natural word to use. There are some situations when “less” is more natural, however, and in such situations we should use it.
“The case for less words” is not one of those situations where it is natural to use “less” rather than “fewer.” As Buskertype notes above – the issue isn’t some prescriptivist pedantry. It’s that “the case for less words” sounds stupid and wrong.
Beyond that, there’s two issues here. One is whether it’s okay to use “less” when the more typical word used is “fewer”. I’d say this is sometimes okay, and sometimes not, but whatever, it’s beside the point, because that’s not Matt’s argument.
Matt’s argument is that the word “fewer” should not exist, because English is such a “hard” language to learn. In the first place, English is not a hard language to learn, in the second place this stuff is just nonsense.
Matt’s “descriptivism” basically extends only to areas where he himself has personal difficulties. On the subject of spelling he has urged some sort of massive from above spelling reform to make spelling phonetic, which hardly conforms to the idea that languages should evolve naturally over time. Matt basically just complains about any aspect of the English language which he has difficulty with.
Look, obviously usage changes, but that doesn’t mean that making subtle distinctions isn’t worthwhile. It doesn’t even mean that making subtle distinctions that aren’t necessarily 100% supported by usage aren’t worthwhile. It’s one thing to get worked up over the shall/will distinction, which I still don’t understand, and where the supposed “rule” has never really been born out in practice in any way whatever. It’s quite another thing to get upset about a useful, and usually observed, distinction like less/fewer.
To get briefly back to “begging the question” – my main problem with the natural/incorrect usage is that it serves no useful purpose. The only reason anybody ever says something like “That begs the question – why do we have usage rules in the first place?” is to try to sound smarter and more sophisticated than just asking the question straight out, or saying “That raises the question.” It’s pretentious throat clearing, and pretentious people should, at the very least, be able to avoid using phrases nonsensically.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
kth@65:
I wasn’t comparing the “less” / “fewer” distinction with “more”; I was comparing it with “much” / “many”. It’s certainly true that “more” is the opposite of both “less” and “fewer”.
English has two classes of nouns: “mass” nouns, which use “much” and “less”, and “count” nouns, which use “many” and (in standard usage) “fewer”.
While there’s certainly a connotative difference between the two categories, which nouns fall into which categories is ultimately arbitrary. Compare, for instance
“I have too much asparagus, give me less.”
with
“I have too many brussels sprouts, give me fewer.”
While many people might say “give me less” about the brussels sprouts, no native speaker would say *”too many asparaguses” or *”too much brussels sprout” non-ironically.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
no native speaker would say *”too many asparaguses” or *”too much brussels sprout” non-ironically.
Nonsense. I despise brussels sprouts. Any is too much.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I suppose Matt would also eliminate the distinction between “well” and “good.”
Is Matt also one of those who says “take a listen” rather than just “listen”?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Actually, the less/fewer distinction is vitally important. To indicate a lower quantity of discrete things, we say ‘fewer’. To indicate a lower quantity of continuous things, we say ‘less.’
The distinction is so important that mathematics has two separate branches, Discrete Mathematics and Mathematical Analysis, to deal with the huge differences between discrete and continuous things respectively.
The less/fewer distinction is very important.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I think Iglasias is pulling the collective chains of all the holier-than-thou English experts and they’re falling for it.
Furthermore, what does a discussion (serious or in jest) have to do with ones political views? Nothing!
Idiocy.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
John,
Precisely. As the saying goes, “abusus non tollit usum”. Just because Mr. Yglesias cannot spell properly, does not mean that spelling is without use.
I see no reason why English needs to be dumbed down to cater to the ignorance of Mr. Yglesias. If Yglesias has trouble with spelling then he just needs to work harder and stop making excuses.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The distinction of ‘less’ from ‘fewer’ will probably disappear within a few generations, just as most of the case system and verbal agreement has disappeared. Languages change like that and nothing can be done to stop that. The loss of such distinctions, however, does not really simplify the language, rather they displace complexity to other parts of it. Simpler morphology begets more complex syntax. If the English lexicon were to be drastically reduced in size, the meanings of the remaining words would might become more complex with more contextual rules and shades of meaning.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Dilan Esper – nonsense. You haven’t proved anything that I haven’t already conceded. The issue isn’t one of dictionary definitions, but of usage.
On usage, you are dead wrong. You are assuming that the way YOU and a few others idiosyncratically use the language is the same thing as a rule. Many English speakers use “less” to mean lower in number all the time.
Basically, you are a moving target:
You: “Lots of people say that. But it’s wrong. It’s against the rule.”
Someone else: “No, there isn’t a rule. The dictionary approves the usage.”
You: “OK, the dictionary may say it, but that doesn’t mean it’s standard usage.”
Someone else: “Well, if many people use it, it’s a standard usage.”
There’s no substance to your claim. You are complaining about a standard usage, endorsed by dictionaries. You just wish it was wrong. You might as well wish that you were married to Denise Richards– that’s just as likely to happen.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The less/fewer distinction is very important.
Again, your argument boils down to “it would be really nice if less DID NOT mean lower in number, because that would permit the language to make a distinction that I find very important”. But that’s not in any way the same thing as establishing that the language IN FACT makes that distinction.
Here’s an analogy. It would be really nice if English had a distinct second person plural pronoun rather than using the same pronoun (”you”) used in the singular. This would make it much clearer when speaking in front of a group of people as to whether the speaker is addressing the group or not.
That does not mean, however, that you can claim that “you” can’t refer to the plural. You can wish it didn’t, but in standard, correct English, it can.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
What about Further v. Farther? My friend is very adamant that we use them correctly and I still am not sure how.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I think you are responding to the wrong poster, but if you are responding to me, here goes: you’re right. Language is conventional. Some people will find the distinction useful and others not so useful.
Still, I find your comment peculiar. To show convention, we establish important areas in which the convention is used, is important, and will likely persist. Also, we provide a rationale for its use that way. That’s what I did.
I think people will continue to need the distinction between fewer and less, if for no other reason than one has an implied unit and the other doesn’t. One admits of matters of degree, the other doesn’t. Confusion surrounding matters of degree and matters of kind are notoriously common and irritating.
As for the second person plural pronoun, I approve. I’m from Texas. I nominate ‘y’all.’
June 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Still, I find your comment peculiar. To show convention, we establish important areas in which the convention is used, is important, and will likely persist. Also, we provide a rationale for its use that way. That’s what I did. I think people will continue to need the distinction between fewer and less, if for no other reason than one has an implied unit and the other doesn’t.
If the argument is “English really should distinguish between smaller quantities and smaller sizes”, I might agree though it isn’t really the most important thing in the world. (The lack of a distinct second person plural is a lot worse, in my opinion. And I’m fine with “y’all”), if we can get people to use it outside the South.)
But there’s a huge difference between providing a rationale for a distinction and arguing (as at least some people upthread are) that the alleged need for the distinction proves that the distinction actually exists. It doesn’t actually exist. Individual speakers may refuse to use “less” to mean lower in number, but the word still carries that meaning in standard correct English.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Heh. I took “distinction exists” in the naive realist way, “there is a factual basis for the distinction.” I think you’re using “distinction exists” to mean “a distinction that is actually made by lots of people.” I see what you mean, now.
But I don’t think standard, correct English admits of the usage of which you write.
Conventionally , people don’t really say, “Give me fewer milk.” Where units are involved, they might say, “Give me fewer pints of milk.” But mostly, people just say, “Give me less milk.” Most everywhere, we make this kind of distinction. So, it does exist. I really think you are wrong, here.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
But I don’t think standard, correct English admits of the usage of which you write.
You may not think that, but what you think doesn’t = standard, correct English. The dictionaries approve the usage, and it is used every day by millions of English speakers and has centuries of history behind it.
Your claim is simply that whatever YOU think is standard correct English actually is standard correct English. However, since you are not the language czar, the rest of us don’t have to listen to you and can go on using “less” to mean lower in number, AS EVERY FRICKING DICTIONARY SAYS IT MEANS.
If you don’t like it, you can always move to France and learn French. Or you can use the English however you like but mind your own business when it comes to the way other people use the language.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Jeff,
Dilan and you are both correct in this sense: it’s incorrect to use ‘fewer’ when you mean ‘less’. But it’s correct (at least in colloquial English) to use ‘less’ when the prescribed term would be ‘fewer’. ‘Less’ covers more ground than fewer.
That said, in my layman’s (not a linguist) opinion there is one difference between using ‘fewer’ and ‘less’: register. Saying ‘There’s less people at the park today then last year’ is colloquial, saying ‘There are fewer people at the park….” is formal. As such, having two words
‘less’ and ‘fewer’ allows us to have different registers and thus to convey differences in formality, status, etc. when we converse- you might use a different word when talking to different people.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hector:
It’s sometimes hard for people to distinguish between snooty asserted “rules” and formal register, but the “less cannot mean lower in number” claim is in the former category. I am a lawyer and deal with formal English register all the time, and people regularly use “less” to mean “lower in number” in that context. It doesn’t mark the person as lower class or using vulgar English (the way, say, using a vulgarity or failing to conjugate “to be” might). Rather, it’s just a usage that a small minority of people don’t really like but which is commonly used.
Granted, I suspect this is something of a gray area because I don’t disagree that sometimes using “less” in this context can sound a bit more informal. But enough people are using the term in their formal register that it isn’t primarily a register issue.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Has Dilan Esper ever seen the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Stylebook, MLA guidelines, or other guides to Standard English (like the Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage)? These and other similar books, more than dictionaries (which just list the way words are used without much commentary), reflect the current consensus on what is standard, written English. Yeah, you can claim that grammar is tyrannical or whatnot, but it’s not just your eighth grade English teacher who’s calling the shots. Some of these books differ in certain areas of punctuation, spelling, etc., but the less vs. fewer dispute is pretty much settled. If people like these believe such a distinction exists, then to a lot of people who more or less follow this fairly standard convention, people saying “less cookies” or “unpossible” non-ironically seem not-so-bright.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
but mind your own business when it comes to the way other people use the language.
Sure, people can use whatever word they want to use, but people who prefer the older usage can complain about the loss and lobby for the older way all they want.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
These and other similar books, more than dictionaries (which just list the way words are used without much commentary), reflect the current consensus on what is standard, written English.
No, those reflect a very rule-based version of English that replaces a lot of the flexibility of the language with bright line rules that are easy for newspaper copy editors and English graduate assistant instructors to utilize.
Seriously, anyone who has ever worked on a newspaper can tell you that the style rules that newspapers use are FAR more restrictive than actual proper English usage. There are lots of entirely correct expressions of thought that you nonetheless cannot use in a newspaper because they violate the style guidelines used by that publication.
the less vs. fewer dispute is pretty much settled
If it were “settled”, the dictionaries would reflect it and the allegedly incorrect use of “less” wouldn’t be commonplace among educated speakers.
This isn’t “settled” at all. Educated Americans use “less” all the time in a manner that offends some people. In other words, it’s a correct usage that some people don’t like.
The best analogy to this is probably split infinitives. Lots of newspaper and university style manuals condemn those too, while the rest of us smile and say “to boldly go where no man has gone before”.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Having multiple words is only a difficulty if the words have the sane meaning and have the same conotations (associations). For example,the word skinny, when applied to a person bears the association of health.
The word scrawny, however, bears the image of someone who(m?) is unhealthily thin, even though there is no change in the person being discussed.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Next Yglesias post:
“Dear Mr. President: There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a crackpot.”
June 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
In other words, it’s a correct usage that some people don’t like.
There’s no big book of “correct usage”. There’s only likes and dislikes. I prefer to keep the distinction between “less” and “fewer” if only to indicate the difference between less sturgeon and fewer sturgeon.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
By the way, Dilan, I really don’t give a d*mn if Mr. Yglesias _chooses_ not to use the word ‘fewer’. In colloquial speech, I never use ‘fewer’, and I almost never use it even when speaking in formal register (I might use it when the situation called for it in formal writing, however.) If Mr. Yglesias wants to be stylistically creative, he can be my guest, at least in this regard. What gets me is that he appears not to even _understand_ the distinction, and rather than try and correct his ignorance, he calls the distinction, and I quote, “bullsh*t”, because he can’t be bothered to learn it. It’s not as though he makes a conscious choice to use ‘less’, it’s that he wants English to be made simpler so he can have an easier time of it. Why should it?
June 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Me like post.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:33 am
What gets me is that he appears not to even _understand_ the distinction, and rather than try and correct his ignorance, he calls the distinction, and I quote, “bullsh*t”
Hector, the distinction doesn’t actually exist. That’s why he calls it BS and doesn’t feel the need to learn it.
There is not, actually, a rule that says you can’t use less to mean lower in number. Which is why there’s no reason that an educated speaker has to “learn” the “rule”.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:52 am
[...] he can’t remember he proposes to retire one of the words? The post also contained the phrase “more easier”, which may have been deliberate, but may also have been the mark of degeneracy. (Were it [...]