Forum menu
Pedants Corner Fiat...
 

[Closed] Pedants Corner Fiat 500 ad

Posts: 1754
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#3216774]

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 [u]FEWER[/u] EMISSIONS FFS!!!

And relax


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:54 am
 Drac
Posts: 50609
 

No.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:55 am
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

I expect you avoid the '10 items or less' till at the supermarket, too ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:55 am
 nonk
Posts: 18
Free Member
 

evolution of language old bean.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:57 am
 Drac
Posts: 50609
 

Anyway case was settled some time back.

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:57 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

You've missed an apostrophe.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:58 am
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

and "ad" should have a full stop after it as it's an abreviation.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:59 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 9:59 am
Posts: 2258
Full Member
 

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?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:01 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:01 am
Posts: 1754
Free Member
Topic starter
 

You missed the lacking question mark and starting a sentence with and as well ๐Ÿ™‚


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:08 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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 ๐Ÿ˜ฏ


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:13 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Anyway case was settled some time back.

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:22 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:23 am
 tron
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:28 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:29 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

"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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:32 am
Posts: 1754
Free Member
Topic starter
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:33 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:34 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:35 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

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!


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:36 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:36 am
Posts: 40432
Free Member
 

You need to be fewer pedantic mate.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:36 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:38 am
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:40 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:41 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

'Worth get[b]ting[/b]' ?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:53 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 10:55 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

That's 'Dr smarty pants' to you!


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:29 pm
Posts: 16
Free Member
 

Get you lot, you need to get out more.

Your lives are clearly fewer fun than mine.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:41 pm
Posts: 14779
Full Member
 

Does anyone really give a sh**?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Does anyone really give a sh**

If so, how much compared to the OP?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:46 pm
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:51 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

There IS less of each of them. Dear me.

Really? I think I'll buy one then!


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 41849
Free Member
 

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?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 12:57 pm
Posts: 16210
Free Member
 

"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.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:16 pm
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 19914
Free Member
 

IT'S FEWER EMISSIONS FFS!!!

No it's not'

"LOWER emissions" is correct.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:30 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

That's 'Dr smarty pants' to you!

Sorry Dr ๐Ÿ˜†


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 1754
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I'm not bothered now, this is by far the most replies I've ever had to a posting (apart from one yonks ago about someone who I gave a bike to because they were pleading poverty who then bragged about selling it on e bay), I'm made up ๐Ÿ˜€


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:36 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

[i]I'm made up[/i]

I'm real.


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:37 pm
Posts: 1754
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Or should that be "to whom I gave a bike" ?


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:38 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Capitals and underline...? Oh dear oh dear


 
Posted : 06/10/2011 1:40 pm