Are standards slipping? Less/fewer, then/than…. Being/been?!

The problem with me starting this thread is those that it is addressed to probably don’t even know it is aimed at them….
I know this is only a forum, but please put a little more effort into what you type.

Twice in the same thread different people have used been instead of being… FFS.

Then is being used more and more often when comparing instead of than.

Less /fewer really is quite easy, but still people seem unaware of the difference.

If we stuck to archaic rules we might aswell speak French.

but please put a little more effort into what you type.

no

I think you need to kick back and blaze one up, Alpin.

Oh… wait…

You need to losen up.

I think you need to kick back and blaze one up, Alpin.

Oh… wait…
😆

You really should read back, and edit, what you just typed. Ffs! 😆

What you should of said is…

Don’t loose your cool, It’s only a forum! (that one really pisses me off)

If you want to see shite grammar & spelling, look at any fishing forum!

One bloke today was selling his ‘real’.
It’s an English teachers heaven/nightmare.

+1 to the OP

(from a miserable old pedant!)

The problem with me starting this thread is those that it is addressed to probably don’t even know it is aimed at them….

pot… …black… 🙄

Sports commentary – why use an adverb when an adjective works just as well 😯 ?

Sorry Alpin, but peak Civilization was reached in 1992. We’re now on a slow downward spiral towards societal collapse and a return to the swamp.

But sometimes an errant homonym changes the meaning and is quite amusing. I remember on a car forum someone describing how to fit a difficult part, suggesting you should “use greece” 😀

Sorry OP, but that is written really bad.

I done it deliberately. 😛

I’m with the OP, I likes it I do’s.

Less /fewer really is quite easy, but still people seem unaware of the difference.

Go on, give us the rule.

Fewer things, less stuff.

So fewer cars, less traffic.

Cars can be individual items. Traffic can’t be.

Or less water, fewer raindrops.

I was counting on Alpin giving the rule, it’s he what said it’s easy.

Language changes. Some things sound wrong to some people but don’t change the meaning. Other things don’t sound wrong but do change the meaning.

I wouldn’t be too bothered about less/fewer as they are becoming interchangeable. However, if you have an uncle Jack who rides horses you need to be careful.

Just seen an advert for Braun shavers on the telly. They pronounced it Brown!

Language changes. Some things sound wrong to some people but don’t change the meaning. Other things don’t sound wrong but do change the meaning.

What’s the point of having grammatical rules then? Admittedly the rules did come a few hundred years after the language established itself. The joy of the exceptions.
If I have to read a sentence twice to get the meaning, it’s wrong,

While we’re at it, “of” and “have”.

Just seen an advert for Braun shavers on the telly. They pronounced it Brown!

They read yesterday’s thread where apparently you have to speak the native language of the country you’re in.

Just seen an advert for Braun shavers on the telly. They pronounced it Brown!

God knows how many years it’s taken them to get that one right.

Just seen an advert for Braun shavers on the telly. They pronounced it Brown!

That is how braun is pronounced in German, despite ‘brawn’ sounding more German.

I think you need to kick back and blaze one up, Alpin.
Oh… wait…

Raised a smile…. Smoke free for over four months now. Although despite being stoned on and off for the last 20 years I was still able to differentiate between less/fewer, then/than, have/of…. 8)

I’m broadly with the OP

Being/been, than/then should be right.

But language changes and ‘accepted use’ becomes a factor. I haven’t checked but the less/fewer rule is probably now obsolete. Anyone still using ‘gay’ to mean happy, or ‘decimate’ to mean one in 10?

That’s not language changing, that’s just people being lazy and incorrect. Or are you going to suggest that a grocers’ apostrophe is now acceptable because language changes and it’s so widely used?

What’s the point of having grammatical rules then?

To aid understanding. If everyone understands what less cars on the road means and its written in an internet chat bored why worry?

I don’t understand how people can confuse than and then. They have completely different meanings innit. 🙂 I honestly think that auto correct and spell checkers are the reason for some of the mistakes. I always try and use the correct terms, but as long as a sentence can still be understood I don’t get too bothered by it.

Right I’m going for a shower than once I’ve being in the shower I’m going too work wear I’ll loose the will to live 😈

Homophones – words like “where” and “wear” “should of” instead of “should have” (should’ve) are at least understandable when used interchangeably but getting “then”,”than” and “that” mixed up is just wrong,

On a forum like this something is written once but read many times so the onus is on the writer to be correct not the many readers to have to make mental adjustments to figure out what the writer meant to write.

The grocer’s apostrophe: this seems be because people don’t know how to form plurals so they assume that the apostrophe covers up their lack of knowledge.

language is constantly in flux, no-one is wrong.

Pfft,

‘Are’ instead of ‘our’ isn’t an example of ‘flux’, it’s an example of wrongery*

(*flux)

On a forum like this something is written once but read many times so the onus is on the writer to be correct not the many readers to have to make mental adjustments to figure out what the writer meant to write.

I’m not sure it’ll cause readers too much mental anguish.

On a forum like this something is written once but read many times so the onus is on the writer to be correct not the many readers to have to make mental adjustments to figure out what the writer meant to write.

Your right.

jekkyl – Member

language is constantly in flux, no-one is wrong.
🙄 Accept when you are wrong! My rule of thumb is that language can be played with, and as long as you can explain what you have done, then it’s fine. If you can’t explain, it’s a mistake. Same rule applies to foul language. Swearing is fine except when it’s the limit of your vocabulary. If you can’t express what you want in other ways, it’s wrong.

It is difficult to use ‘fewer’ incorrectly

fewer traffic just sounds wrong and can’t imagine anyone saying that.
“I notice there is fewer traffic today”

Less cars sounds fine to me even if it is technically incorrect.
“I notice there are less cars on the road today”

Guess I have just got used to less sounding okay when misused but can’t imagine I will ever get used to fewer. Still, we all have our pain points…

whitestone – Member
…(from a miserable old pedant!)

That’s a brave thing to admit in public. Isn’t there a govt enquiry into that?

Next you’ll be admitting to matriculating at university….