[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]
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
was allowed to slip past without a bit of ridicule...
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....
I said that to the police officer as he was writing my speeding ticket. Just because you can't be arsed to use the rules, it doesn't make them wrong. I'm sure the people who get then and than, been and being would ask for the same. Where would you like this to stop? How would you propose the language is taught?
I always thought we should use the phonetic alphabet as it would instantly stop mispronunciation and mispeeling. 😉
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.
That's exactly how I feel about some/most of the driving rules.
Where is this book of rules as I need to take it up with my school immediately.
I said before, Michael Swan is the go to book.
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.
I think it already is, and as a result we have people not only using the language badly but actually justifying it and claiming that they are right to maintain this attitude.
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.
Why not? Someone probably thinks it's a stupid rule and should be changed. Why apply one rule and disregard another.
I'm now simply going to drive according to the law, the Highway Code and all its silly little rules can go and shove! Thanks for the clarification.
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...
There's a clear and obvious reason why there are exceptions, and the same reasons are why the rules can be a bit difficult and difficult for some to understand.
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.
So say you. Every time I see it when it's wrong, a piece of me dies. And when people dismiss it as being grammar naziism or pedantry and other piece dies.
Why should I have to read poor English because you think you know better? If you know better, you should be helping those who aren't as smart as you and not perpetuating was is clearly wrong.
As the OP questioned "Are standards slipping?" Be proud of your contribution to this slide.
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!
10 is uncountable, so less is correct.
Seconds are countable so fewer would be correct.
There's fewer flour in the bagThere'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).
[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.
