Sorry if this is a bit old hat but does anyone find themselves shouting at the telly when the More Fun, Less Emissions ad comes on.
IT’S FEWER EMISSIONS FFS!!!

And relax

No.

I expect you avoid the ’10 items or less’ till at the supermarket, too 😉

evolution of language old bean.

Anyway case was settled some time back.

http://www.grammar-monster.com/grammar_court/volvo_less_emissions.htm

You’ve missed an apostrophe.

and “ad” should have a full stop after it as it’s an abreviation.

Really, ‘but’ should have a comma before it, shouldn’t it?

explain. i thought fewer was when dealing with plurals, 10 items or fewer, and less was when you were talking about items that can’t be counted – less time in traffic – i earn less money – you cannot have an “emission” in this context, so perhaps they are correct? less emissions (in this case co2, nox and so on)

fewer hydrocarbons, less emissions?

The thing about “less” and “fewer” is that it can matter. “Fewer serious injuries” means something different to “less serious injuries”. However, in this case, the meaning of the advert seems quite clear, and whilst I find the use of “less” lacking in style, I don’t think it’s wrong.

You missed the lacking question mark and starting a sentence with and as well 🙂

C’mon Chaps! Take a look at Chaucerian English eh?

Surely we can just learn to live with change. It’s not as though our great cobbled together language will suddenly leap forward and become incomprehensible to us oily masses?!!

Change is good…embrace change….feel the spirit of change

or bury you head in a Queens English grammar book from 1952 😯

Anyway case was settled some time back.

Personally I’d be taking that to the appeal court.

But this is not so straightforward. ‘Fewer’ emissions would imply that there was a smaller number of emissions. However, that is unlikely to be the case. The number of emissions are the same, but there are less of each.

Fewer for discrete items. There are fewer cats.

Less for your more nebulous things like water coming out of a tap or emissions out of an exhaust pipe.

But this is not so simple, as there are not fewer emissions, there are just as many as before.

“But this is not so straightforward. ‘Fewer’ emissions would imply that there was a smaller number of emissions. However, that is unlikely to be the case. The number of emissions are the same, but there are less of each.”

Except that no-one would reasonably think that. Which is what matters.

Do you use the present participle? I ask only because it didn’t exist until around 500 years ago.

Surely it’s fewer because emissions are plural and less because water is singular?

Except that no-one would reasonably think that. Which is what matters.

Perhaps, but no doubt some pedant would shout at their telly saying that then number of emissions had not changed, so there could not be less emissions

Less for your more nebulous things like water coming out of a tap or emissions out of an exhaust pipe.

Exactly. There aren’t fewer emissions – there is the same number of emissions, but a smaller quantity of each: CO2, particulates and so on. This needs to be expressed concisely in an advert. I suppose you could use “lower emissions” but that’s not quite right, either.

Perhaps, but no doubt some pedant would shout at their telly saying that then number of emissions had not changed, so there could not be less emissions

There aren’t fewer emissions, either!

CharlieMungus – Member
But this is not so simple, as there are not fewer emissions, there are just as many as before.

Correct, the emissions are the same (C02, DP10, NO2 etc) but there are less of each of them.

You need to be fewer pedantic mate.

What they needed was ‘less emission’. If they really meant there was just less stuff coming out. or maybe ‘less harmful emission’

Or they could do what they actually did, and everyone would understand what they meant.

I’m happy with that. But if folks are going to be pedantic, they had better be sure about the thing about which they are pedantting.

It is only worth get pedantic for two reason.
1. You dont know what the person means – did they mean the double negative for example?
2. It is very funny to complain.

This is neither

‘Worth getting‘ ?

Car ad pedantry?

The Golf ads from last year, the ‘Just like a Golf.’ ones.

In one scene the people are standing over the engine bay of a modified car and say the line ‘Just like a Golf’. The car, a mkIII Golf.

I did not break the rules andyou is just being mr smarty pants and failing to not quite achieve rule 2 or something like that

That’s ‘Dr smarty pants’ to you!

Get you lot, you need to get out more.

Your lives are clearly fewer fun than mine.

Does anyone really give a sh**?

Does anyone really give a sh**

If so, how much compared to the OP?

If you want to be pedantic, it’s not FEWER emissions either. It still has the same emissions – it emits CO2, CO, NOx, HC and so on, the same as any car.

It should actually be LOWER emissions.

Your post is therefore a FAIL I’m afraid.

Correct, the emissions are the same (C02, DP10, NO2 etc) but there are less of each of them.

There IS less of each of them. Dear me.

There IS less of each of them. Dear me.

Really? I think I’ll buy one then!

Perhaps, but no doubt some pedant would shout at their telly saying that then number of emissions had not changed, so there could not be less emissions

Well, as it’s a twin cyclinder (compared to the normal 4) aren’t there both less and fewer?

“If you want to be pedantic, it’s not FEWER emissions either. It still has the same emissions – it emits CO2, CO, NOx, HC and so on, the same as any car.”

If I wished to be pedantic, I’d point out that I covered this some time ago. But as I’m not a pedant, I won’t.

You did indeed point it out, but I didn’t read it. Pedantically speaking that’s not pedantry, just pointing something out.

IT’S FEWER EMISSIONS FFS!!!

No it’s not’

“LOWER emissions” is correct.