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.
Certainly language changes constantly (look at how 'nice' has morphed over the years). But the trouble with losing the former meaning of words such as 'disinterested' is that you lose the concept with it. Without the word, the thought can no longer be formulated.
That would be a form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is generally discredited in linguistic circles. Words like "impartial", "unbiased", "uninvolved", "dispassionate" and phrases like "no dog in this fight" extend to fill the space.
That's a pretty patronising reply, @KarlLB, and of course none of the words you cite has the same meaning as 'disinterested', while to have to resort to a phase only emphasises what has been lost.
I note, but regret, that we are in Hell.
. . . and of course none of the words you cite has the same meaning as 'disinterested', . . . .
And yet the dictionary provides most if not all of them as synonyms of disinterested. Exactly what meaning do you think disinterested carries that none of those other words carry?
. . . while to have to resort to a phase only emphasises what has been lost.
How is that? If, as you said, we have lost the concept associated with disinterested, then it’s lost whether expressed in one word or in a phrase.
Meanwhile, I practiced law for decades, and I encountered (and used) disinterested in its original sense on a regular basis.
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.
Waste not want not; then when you ain't got none, yer'll 'ave some.
That's a pretty patronising reply, @KarlLB, and of course none of the words you cite has the same meaning as 'disinterested', while to have to resort to a phase only emphasises what has been lost.
I note, but regret, that we are in Hell.
How is that? If, as you said, we have lost the concept associated with disinterested, then it’s lost whether expressed in one word or in a phrase.
Meanwhile, I practiced law for decades, and I encountered (and used) disinterested in its original sense on a regular basis.