[Closed] Are standards slipping? Less/fewer, then/than.... Being/been?!

why would you be saying "there's fewer serious injuries" to an incoming paramedic?

As in "That person has fewer serious injuries" or "That person has less serious injuries". They mean different things.

Agree with andytherocketeer's last paragraph.

You were arguing that "less" and "fewer" are interchangeable. The two statements I wrote above shows that's not true.

No I wasn't. I was saying that it doesn't alway matter, i.e. fewer injuries or less injuries

Ambiguity eh? What's all that about. I was reading the subject of the thread "City character" and immediately envisioned an eccentric gent in a bowler and pin-striped trousers. You less of them these days. That's probably because there are fewer of them.

I seen people starting threads like this for tiiime yeah, and I'm just like shut up fam..

Your hardly the brightest spark in the fire innit

I used to be a bit of a grammar Nazi until I read a couple of linguistics books (specifically about the history thereof) - and completely changed my mind.

I now feel that if something is being communicated clearly, then pulling someone up over use of grammar is (usually) putting the cart before the horse. Obviously there are exceptions; for instance if you were writing an article in the Times you'd want it to be pretty spot on - but in general communication, less so.

So

less/fewer injuries - no possibility for confusion, so it doesn't matter

less/fewer [I]serious[/I] injuries - there is possibility for confusion: choose words carefully.

Also: "you are joking me" - well that's just a colloquialism. If you banned colloquialisms you'd have a very boring world indeed.

There is no difference and you are wrong. Who exactly decides what is right? Me or you?

There's fewer flour in the bag

There's less flour in the bag.

When you try to set hard and fast rules like this, you're pretty much bound to come up against instances where it just doesn't work, hence my example of "fewer seconds" (prescriptively correct, not in common use)

Less cars on the road, or fewer cars on the road is just such an example, one will work just as well as the other.

doris5000 - Member
I now feel that if something is being communicated clearly.

This is it, language is a communication tool, as long as the message is being understood, happy days.

There's a converse to it aswell, when language is used to bamboozle people, tbh that's counter productive to the purpose of language.

Saying that, American usage of "bring" rips my knitting! 😆 It's almost like they don't even know the word "take" exists!

My youngest son (who's 29) often says, 'I seen *so & so* the other day.... but when I correct him he just tells me to ££ck off!

No I wasn't. I was saying that it doesn't alway matter, i.e. fewer injuries or less injuries

I haven't argued that it always matters in terms of understanding. But if you contend that the words are interchangeable then you are plain wrong, as my exmaple demonstrated.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I'm saying that according to English grammar rules

aha, thought so, and you were doing so well. 😀

presumably this is you?

"I have seen that film at fewest ten times"?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
br />
This image I like and I was thinking just this. As an English teacher I take pride in my work and I am affronted when people dismiss the language as unimportant. How you use the language is as important, to me, as the clothes that are worn, the way that people are addressed or the tools that are taken into work.
Would the [s]mechannik[/s] [s]mecanic[/s] [s]mekanic[/s] fixer of planes be equally offended if I turned up to the workshop with a 4lb lump hammer and used it on every job, coz it gets the job done, innit?
I am not a grammar nazi, I have pride.

[quote=johnx2 ]Exactly! I can't believe that

are you going to suggest that a grocers' apostrophe is now acceptable

Deliberately setting yourself up? If not, then if you're going to try and out pedant a pedant, you'd better be damn sure you're right!

I haven't argued that it always matters in terms of understanding. But if you contend that the words are interchangeable then you are plain wrong, as my exmaple demonstrated.

As I have never said they are interchangeable then not sure what your point is. As long as I clearly understand what someone is saying then I don't care what "rules" it may have broken.

If for example a comment is made that there are "less cars on the road today" I am not going to wonder what they mean and go off crying into my rule book.

However, I would find it hard to listen to if someone said "the injuries were fewer serious" but I am not sure anyone would ever say that.

Maybe the rules need to be rewritten....

I try , I really do. 😀
I'm all in favour of pedantry.

Maybe the rules need to be rewritten....

Just because you can't be arsed to use the rules, it doesn't make them wrong.

It is not that I can't be arsed, it is that they are not always important and don't matter so I can choose where to apply them.

I would propose that the language is taught in a realistic way in line with how people use it in 2016. Thinking about it I am pretty sure the less/fewer 'rule' was never mentioned.

Where is this book of rules as I need to take it up with my school immediately.

It is not that I can't be arsed, it is that they are not always important and don't matter so I can choose where to apply them.

Where is this book of rules as I need to take it up with my school immediately.

I would propose that the language is taught in a realistic way in line with how people use it in 2016. Thinking about it I am pretty sure the less/fewer 'rule' was never mentioned.

As long as I clearly understand what someone is saying then I don't care what "rules" it may have broken.

And at times, as we have seen, the rules help us to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. Given that we have to apply them some of the time for good reason, why not apply them all of the time? It seems easier to me.

@aracer:

are you going to suggest that a grocers' apostrophe is now acceptable

It should be "a grocer's" as it's singular. Grocers' apostrophes would work if plural. But I'm learning to relax about these things.

Here's one from a business that's highly regarded on here:

"adjusts power accordingly to ensure the LEDs remain at [b]there[/b] optimum efficiency" 🙄

That's exactly how I feel about some/most of the driving rules.

They are driving laws rather than rules but if you want to ignore them that is up to you. The difference is I will not be fined or end up in prison for saying "less injuries" as that is a "rule" in a book by Michael Swan (whoever he is)

And at times, as we have seen, the rules help us to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. Given that we have to apply them some of the time for good reason, why not apply them all of the time? It seems easier to me.

If it is easier for you then you carry on. At times where it avoids ambiguity I would use fewer/less appropriately, at times where is doesn't matter I will use either.

You will notice I keep referring to less/fewer within the examples whereas mixing up their with there can never be done as they are never the same thing.

If it is easier for you then you carry on. At times where it avoids ambiguity I would use fewer/less appropriately, at times where is doesn't matter I will use either.

Sounds like a bit of an unnecessary palaver to me.

why not apply them all of the time?

Because, as has been pointed out they don't always make any sense...

If I may add its vs it's. Check out the MoT tester's lexicon thread. Apologies to the poster but it definitely (another common misspelling) wrong!

@kerley: their/there are homophones so people just write whichever comes into their head first without thinking about it. They are just writing phonetically.

You will notice I keep referring to less/fewer within the examples whereas mixing up [b]their with there can never be done[/b] as they are never the same thing.

Because, as has been pointed out they don't always make any sense...

You're saying that in English, there are sometimes exceptions to rules? Whatever next?

why not apply them all of the time?

there are sometimes exceptions to rules? Whatever next?

make your mind up then...

Sounds like a bit of an unnecessary palaver to me.

I don't consciously think about it so no palaver whatsoever.

make your mind up then...

This really isn't difficult. Rules have exceptions, as everyone except those looking for an argument on stw realise: "I before E except after C" doesn't mean I will misspell "science". Similarly, the correct usage of less/ fewer acknowledges the exceptions of time, money and distance nouns.

make your mind up then...

I don't consciously think about it so no palaver whatsoever.

At times where it avoids ambiguity I would use fewer/less appropriately, at times where is doesn't matter I will use either.

I don't see how both those statements can be true.

Why not? Someone probably thinks it's a stupid rule and should be changed. Why apply one rule and disregard another.

Because I have the ability to work out where it doesn't matter and will make no difference to the reader.

I say, I say, I say;

How do you comfort a Grammar Pedant?

There, their, they're.

I don't see how both those statements can be true.

Quite simple. I subconsciously use whatever is required.
Because I do not see a problem with using "less cars" I would just write that without needing to think about it.
If writing about number of serious injuries I would use fewer or less in the appropriate way, again without the need to think about it.

How do you comfort a Grammar Pedant?

How does one comfort a Grammar Pedant? 😉

and difficult for some to understand.

right, I've given you three examples of where your "rules" don't make sense, and yet you continue to plug away at trying to make out that there is no stylistic variable possible or that prescriptive application of the "rules" doesn't make for great sentence structure or accept that common usage sometimes makes the rules redundant.

Probably time to stop I reckon.

Because I have the ability to work out where it doesn't matter and will make no difference to the reader.

Quite simple. I subconsciously use whatever is required.

So, you are always able to "work it out" subconsciously. If you say so.

Because I have the ability to work out where it doesn't matter and will make no difference to the reader.

I hope you don't have any aspirations of emigrating to either Australia or Canada. Your cavalier attitude to the language might come back and bit you. 😆

roffle
at least grammar and spelling are 2 different topics on the curriculum

Less/fewer isn't a grammar rule. They are different words that mean different things. So the only rule you are breaking is using a word for its correct meaning.

There are prescriptive uses and common uses less cars (prescriptively) is technically incorrect, however it's common use and makes sense. Same with: "he can run 100 metres in fewer than 10 seconds" prescriptively correct, but sounds crap!

There's fewer flour in the bag

There's less flour in the bag.

When you try to set hard and fast rules like this, you're pretty much bound to come up against instances where it just doesn't work, hence my example of "fewer seconds" (prescriptively correct, not in common use)

Less cars on the road, or fewer cars on the road is just such an example, one will work just as well as the other.

Flour is uncountable so less is correct.

I can't see the third example that you mention unless it's the car thing. I imagine that the acceptance is because it sounds familiar, which is probably due to people accepting the wrongness of it for so long. Much like the addition of actual and literal into the modern language. Unnecessary and wrong (in most cases).

[b]@perchypanther[/b]

LOL!

[quote=johnx2 ]It should be "a grocer's" as it's singular.

Is there only one grocer doing that then?

What's with using "and" rather than "an" as seen in "Can I send and invoice to a private parking firm"?

There's a few instances of this in various threads.