I think it’s safe to say he was reflecting actual usage of “fewer,” and based on that actual usage he opined what he thought should be correct use of “less.”
I think it’s safe to say he was reflecting actual usage of “fewer,” and based on that actual usage he opined what he thought should be correct use of “less.”
I think it’s safe to say he was reflecting actual usage of “fewer,” and based on that actual usage he opined what he thought should be correct use of “less.”
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
Less things like this bother you when you discover they were never real rules but invented by 18th century grammarians.
I doubt grammarians invented rules, rather they codified them in response to usage or need.
The rule of never splitting an English infinitive was actually invented in the 18th century by a bunch of grammarians who thought English would be a much better language if the grammar behaved more like Latin. You can't split infinitives in Latin because they're all one word (eg amare, to love). Splitting an English infinitive, on the other hand, in order to boldly add emphasis to what you are saying, is perfectly grammatical.
Yes, I realise this is inconsistent with my usage of less and fewer. Very few people are completely logical in their use of language.
If I remember correctly, the prohibition of double negatives is another result of grammarians imposing Latin rules on English.
The persistence of both split infinitives and double negatives in spoken (and sometimes written) English is, some would say, an indication of how both are actually “baked into” English.
Yes - and his formulation is elegant, neat, logical and economic.
Unfortunately language isn't necessarily any of these.
I'd argue that language should be all of those. Whether given the mental effort it takes to remember the rule about less and fewer, and the exceptions to it, the rule is actually economic is another matter.
Comments
Yes - and his formulation is elegant, neat, logical and economic.
Unfortunately language isn't necessarily any of these.
But we can try, for example using less ... er .... fewer words in a sentence!
The rule of never splitting an English infinitive was actually invented in the 18th century by a bunch of grammarians who thought English would be a much better language if the grammar behaved more like Latin. You can't split infinitives in Latin because they're all one word (eg amare, to love). Splitting an English infinitive, on the other hand, in order to boldly add emphasis to what you are saying, is perfectly grammatical.
Yes, I realise this is inconsistent with my usage of less and fewer. Very few people are completely logical in their use of language.
The persistence of both split infinitives and double negatives in spoken (and sometimes written) English is, some would say, an indication of how both are actually “baked into” English.