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.
Am I the only shipmate who is fed up with seeing, in proper published stuff, the use of 'it's when it should be 'its'? Easily done when typing a first draft (done it myself) but surely it should be picked up in editing or proof reading?
Not many people bother with proper proofreading any longer. I was a professional proofreader at a publishing house and when the other one retired, they let me go--they claimed the cooperators could handle that along with their proper duties. (Reader, they could not.)
I hear both in the American Midwest, but the first syllable gets the accent 90 percent of the time. Not sure where the other pronunciation is coming from.
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.
Where would Star Trek be without split infinitives?
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
That makes me grind my teeth in public, yell at the radio in private.
Less things like this bother you when you discover they were never real rules but invented by 18th century grammarians.
"Real rules" don't exist.
It doesn't matter whether the use you find comfortable developed organically, or sprung from a single influential individual laying down the law, or whatever else.
There's a large body of possible language that is more or less comprehensible. There is a smaller body of language that is pleasant to hear, and every choice we make about which language to use communicates things about us.
A favourite aphorism is that rules are for guidance of the wise and for the instruction of the unwise. I take that to mean, among many other things, that to get pleasure from playing with the language you must first understand it. I'd say that Terry Pratchett is a great example of that.
There are of course rules. They are what linguists spend much of their time discovering. However, they are like laws of nature - they are descriptions of phenomena as they are observed. If we observe that people consistently, regularly and predictably use language in a way that breaks a rule, then the rule is wrong because it doesn't describe the observed reality accurately.
I hate irregardless, regardless of the fact that some dictionaries have sold out and listed it.
They've done their job correctly and described observed usage.
This is where I retreat into my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (shelved beside my Bibles) and protectively wrap it around me while chaos unfolds uncontrollably.
I hate irregardless, regardless of the fact that some dictionaries have sold out and listed it.
They've done their job correctly and described observed usage.
This is where I retreat into my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (shelved beside my Bibles) and protectively wrap it around me while chaos unfolds uncontrollably.
Language as it really is is chaotic. Sorry; that's linguistic reality.
I hate irregardless, regardless of the fact that some dictionaries have sold out and listed it.
They've done their job correctly and described observed usage.
This is where I retreat into my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (shelved beside my Bibles) and protectively wrap it around me while chaos unfolds uncontrollably.
Language as it really is is chaotic. Sorry; that's linguistic reality.
Sure. And the way you use language says things about you. Some word choices belong to a particular geographic area, some to a particular social class, and some (like "irregardless") signal a lacking education.
I hate irregardless, regardless of the fact that some dictionaries have sold out and listed it.
They've done their job correctly and described observed usage.
This is where I retreat into my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (shelved beside my Bibles) and protectively wrap it around me while chaos unfolds uncontrollably.
Language as it really is is chaotic. Sorry; that's linguistic reality.
Sure. And the way you use language says things about you. Some word choices belong to a particular geographic area, some to a particular social class, and some (like "irregardless") signal a lacking education.
Except they don't. I'm willing to bet that the correlation between use of "irregardless" (and many other shibboleths) and education level is pretty weak.
Additionally, the implication of looking down on people because of their perceived lack of education is pretty arseholish too.
As long as what you say is understood by the listener does it matter what words you use?
I know what @Leorning Cniht is getting at (sociolinguistics) but yeah, fundamentally sound/meaning correlation is mostly arbitrary. Language is a community endeavour and all idiolects are linguistically valid.
As long as what you say is understood by the listener does it matter what words you use?
You're forgetting the English love of snobbery. There are many ways of looking down on someone, and language provides a delicious and self-righteous way.
As long as what you say is understood by the listener does it matter what words you use?
You're forgetting the English love of snobbery. There are many ways of looking down on someone, and language provides a delicious and self-righteous way.
While we are here, are ANY tautologies permitted? “Various different” really grates because various things are ALWAYS different and vice-versa,
While we’re here, and if I haven’t mentioned it before, all qualifications of unique are an offence. Not merely an error, they are offensive.
Lots of people don't like them, but offensive is very unique.
I would defend it that while a single species of bird that only eats salted peanuts would be unique, one which only ate peanuts and also only nested in dead ash trees would be more unique.
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.
I've never known any other pronunciation.
Two more pet peeves: people using "ascended/ascension" when they mean "acceded/accession"; and "lived experience" - what other kind is there?
And in the UK the oft trotted-out "lessons will be learned" when experience tells us that they aren't
Until recently I only ever heard it with the emphasis on the first syllable
Likewise 'electoral'. At first I thought it was just transatlantic usage, but no longer, it seems.
That too. I’ve also resigned myself (reluctantly) to the pronunciation of harrASment
And mayORal rather than MAIRul. This seems to have crept in since we started having elected regional mayors. It sounds really ugly.
Where would Star Trek be without split infinitives?
As in Welsh place-names even in their Anglicised form, 'AbergaVENNy', 'AbertillERy' etc.
Interestingly enough, I find this pattern is accentuated if I have to speak in public.
And what about CeriDIgion or LlanDOVery (I may be wrong with that last one)?
In Suffolk, people pronounce Stowmarket with the emphasis on "mar" not "Stow".
-ion is a single syllable in Welsh. The i tends towards being semi-consonantal, For two it would have to be -ïon
Llandyfri has the accent on the penult. English misspellings are just that.
"Real rules" don't exist.
It doesn't matter whether the use you find comfortable developed organically, or sprung from a single influential individual laying down the law, or whatever else.
There's a large body of possible language that is more or less comprehensible. There is a smaller body of language that is pleasant to hear, and every choice we make about which language to use communicates things about us.
They've done their job correctly and described observed usage.
This is where I retreat into my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (shelved beside my Bibles) and protectively wrap it around me while chaos unfolds uncontrollably.
Language as it really is is chaotic. Sorry; that's linguistic reality.
Sure. And the way you use language says things about you. Some word choices belong to a particular geographic area, some to a particular social class, and some (like "irregardless") signal a lacking education.
Except they don't. I'm willing to bet that the correlation between use of "irregardless" (and many other shibboleths) and education level is pretty weak.
Additionally, the implication of looking down on people because of their perceived lack of education is pretty arseholish too.
I know what @Leorning Cniht is getting at (sociolinguistics) but yeah, fundamentally sound/meaning correlation is mostly arbitrary. Language is a community endeavour and all idiolects are linguistically valid.
You're forgetting the English love of snobbery. There are many ways of looking down on someone, and language provides a delicious and self-righteous way.
While we’re here, and if I haven’t mentioned it before, all qualifications of unique are an offence. Not merely an error, they are offensive.
In my old age I have so few other pleasures.
Lots of people don't like them, but offensive is very unique.
I would defend it that while a single species of bird that only eats salted peanuts would be unique, one which only ate peanuts and also only nested in dead ash trees would be more unique.