That’s where you’re wrong. The chair would actually have fewer felony convictions and rapes. Allegedly. I don’t know that chair personally. But the point is that “fewer” is the grammatically correct word for the point you’re making.
“Less” is going to become grammatically correct as it’s used more and more. It’s only a matter of time. There is no useful distinction between the two terms.
Oh yeah I’m a staunch descriptivist, but I do sometimes mourn the changes that are going on in Finnish which is my native language.
Change is inevitable, especially when there are more learners whose native language is from a completely different family (which’d be the vast majority of immigrants here, Uralic languages aren’t exactly common), but it’s still a bit sad to see the language start to lose some of its unique features that have made it so expressive – but also hard as fuck to learn.
I’m a big fan of language being as useful for communication as possible for people, which means it has to evolve with the times. While it’s cool that Icelanders can still read 1000 year old documents, the fact that the language was artificially forced to stay the same doesn’t sit well with me. They can get away with it because it’s a niche language of only around 330,000 speakers, but no world language would ever survive under those kind of constraints.
As a native speaker of a relatively small language (under 6 million speakers) in a very niche language family, I understand eg. Iceland’s desire to “preserve” the language – languages are by definition communication tools, but they’re also inextricably tied to the culture(s) that produced them (and vice versa), so while I absolutely do agree that fighting change is relatively pointless, I think it’s understandable that speakers of minority languages try to protect them.
So yeah, even though I definitely am a descriptivist and know that linguistic evolution is just a fact of life, I just can’t help being a bit sad about it at the same time when it comes to Finnish. Not that I’d want to somehow “freeze” it since that’d be silly and impossible, but at the same time I’d love to see eg. promotion of some of the features that are currently dying out (whatever the hell that’d mean in practice). The primacy of English in this age of global mass media has minority languages in a real bind.
A language being closely tied to your identity is something I’ve never really experienced since my native language, English, is so widespread. I definitely agree that preservation of language is important - it doesn’t have to be keeping the language the same, but can also just be keeping track of the changes. I’ve always been fascinated by the etymology of words, and English’s word origins are very well-documented. I always assumed that it was the same in other languages that aren’t in danger of dying out - are you able look up a random Finnish word online to see where it came from?
Very late to the comment, but I don’t think and don’t hope this is correct. There is a distinction - fewer is for things you can count, less is for a more abstract, less countable amount. I have fewer opportunities as I have less time. I’m just an old English major, but I like accuracy with language.
Yes, there is a difference, but as far as understanding what a person is saying, you can use them interchangeably. In what situation would you need to know whether it’s a countable or abstract amount?
Problems. “I have fewer problems than I did last year” means that I understand what my problems are or am tracking some of them and no longer have as many. “I have less problems than I did last year” is more vibes based and is a statement that this year seems to be going easier than last year went
I’m fine with the “less” and “fewer” distinction only being relevant in formal settings. People need to give up on correcting “10 items or less” signs, though. The change is already here.
Depends on whatever style guide and dictionary your work falls under, I suppose.
When I edited law reviews, we used Chicago Manual and Webster. We had secondary and tertiary references as well in case the primary was silent or vague. We also had our own list of style exceptions and preferences. But that’s law and policy writing.
On the grocery sign, or on things such as ads, that’s not writing, that textography. The rules don’t need to be formal on the sign. The word was chosen for space constraints. The word with fewer letters takes up less space. If all you do is read signage, fewer and less probably feel interchangeable. If you are reading law reviews and legal opinions all day, you recognize the number disagreement error, immediately.
The countable / uncountable element which creates the disagreement error comes from the dictionary. They are slightly different parts of speech even. Both are determinative adjectives but only one is comparative, by definition. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The chair would have less felony convictions and rapes
That’s where you’re wrong. The chair would actually have fewer felony convictions and rapes. Allegedly. I don’t know that chair personally. But the point is that “fewer” is the grammatically correct word for the point you’re making.
“Less” is going to become grammatically correct as it’s used more and more. It’s only a matter of time. There is no useful distinction between the two terms.
So more less begets more less, more or less?
Yes.
Linguistic descriptivism 💪
Yes, although I will lament the loss of a useful term when it happens, like when “literally” became commonly used to mean “figuratively.”
“Less” and “fewer,” though? Worthless distinction. “Whom” needs to go ahead and die as well.
Oh yeah I’m a staunch descriptivist, but I do sometimes mourn the changes that are going on in Finnish which is my native language.
Change is inevitable, especially when there are more learners whose native language is from a completely different family (which’d be the vast majority of immigrants here, Uralic languages aren’t exactly common), but it’s still a bit sad to see the language start to lose some of its unique features that have made it so expressive – but also hard as fuck to learn.
I’m a big fan of language being as useful for communication as possible for people, which means it has to evolve with the times. While it’s cool that Icelanders can still read 1000 year old documents, the fact that the language was artificially forced to stay the same doesn’t sit well with me. They can get away with it because it’s a niche language of only around 330,000 speakers, but no world language would ever survive under those kind of constraints.
As a native speaker of a relatively small language (under 6 million speakers) in a very niche language family, I understand eg. Iceland’s desire to “preserve” the language – languages are by definition communication tools, but they’re also inextricably tied to the culture(s) that produced them (and vice versa), so while I absolutely do agree that fighting change is relatively pointless, I think it’s understandable that speakers of minority languages try to protect them.
So yeah, even though I definitely am a descriptivist and know that linguistic evolution is just a fact of life, I just can’t help being a bit sad about it at the same time when it comes to Finnish. Not that I’d want to somehow “freeze” it since that’d be silly and impossible, but at the same time I’d love to see eg. promotion of some of the features that are currently dying out (whatever the hell that’d mean in practice). The primacy of English in this age of global mass media has minority languages in a real bind.
A language being closely tied to your identity is something I’ve never really experienced since my native language, English, is so widespread. I definitely agree that preservation of language is important - it doesn’t have to be keeping the language the same, but can also just be keeping track of the changes. I’ve always been fascinated by the etymology of words, and English’s word origins are very well-documented. I always assumed that it was the same in other languages that aren’t in danger of dying out - are you able look up a random Finnish word online to see where it came from?
Very late to the comment, but I don’t think and don’t hope this is correct. There is a distinction - fewer is for things you can count, less is for a more abstract, less countable amount. I have fewer opportunities as I have less time. I’m just an old English major, but I like accuracy with language.
Yes, there is a difference, but as far as understanding what a person is saying, you can use them interchangeably. In what situation would you need to know whether it’s a countable or abstract amount?
Problems. “I have fewer problems than I did last year” means that I understand what my problems are or am tracking some of them and no longer have as many. “I have less problems than I did last year” is more vibes based and is a statement that this year seems to be going easier than last year went
Law.
I’m fine with the “less” and “fewer” distinction only being relevant in formal settings. People need to give up on correcting “10 items or less” signs, though. The change is already here.
Depends on whatever style guide and dictionary your work falls under, I suppose.
When I edited law reviews, we used Chicago Manual and Webster. We had secondary and tertiary references as well in case the primary was silent or vague. We also had our own list of style exceptions and preferences. But that’s law and policy writing.
On the grocery sign, or on things such as ads, that’s not writing, that textography. The rules don’t need to be formal on the sign. The word was chosen for space constraints. The word with fewer letters takes up less space. If all you do is read signage, fewer and less probably feel interchangeable. If you are reading law reviews and legal opinions all day, you recognize the number disagreement error, immediately.
The countable / uncountable element which creates the disagreement error comes from the dictionary. They are slightly different parts of speech even. Both are determinative adjectives but only one is comparative, by definition. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Hence “Drive-thru” rather than “drive-through.”
You’re correct. It’s just a distinction that’s extremely unlikely to be needed in everyday use.