People using 'less' when they should be using 'fewer'

Illecors@lemmy.cafe to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.world – 150 points –

EDIT: you guys have dug up some truly horrible pisstakes :D Thank you for those.

To the serious folk - relax a little. This is Mildly Infuriating, not I'm dying if this doesn't stop. As a non-native speaker I was taught a certain way to use the language. The rules were not written down by me, nor the teachers - it was done by the native folk. Peace!

124

[malix@derp ~]$ fewer .bashrc 
bash: fewer: command not found

:(

What would

" $ touch fewer
$ fewer .bashrc " Do?

basically nothing/same "command not found".

"fewer" doesn't have execute rights, nor does the next command use the fewer in current directory. But, taking all that into account and "doing it right...ish":

$ touch fewer
$ chmod +x fewer
$ ./fewer .bashrc
#it outputs nothing, it's an empty script

Your post is fewer than 60 minutes old.

Arguably, that is correct: "minute" is a countable noun, so should take "fewer" as a modifier.

Yeah it is grammatically correct but most people would say "less than 5 minutes ago" or "less than 50 seconds", instead of using "fewer than".

Yeah the inconsistencies are interesting.

Is it because of the "than"? Do we just not like saying "fewer than"? Because it wouldn't offend my ear to hear "we need less than 5 chairs", but "we need less chairs" is outrageous to me, (for less than however many chairs it takes for them to become dequantized) [I did it again there, did you notice?]

Or maybe it's to do with the minutes being a quantization of something continuous, whereas usually we deal with the transition the other way.

"couches vs. furniture" couches are discrete, furniture is discrete things as a collective.

"time vs minutes" time is continuous, minutes are a quantization of it. That is a difference compared to couches/ furniture. How do we talk about other quantizations of continuous?

Distance: how far is it? Less than 5 miles. Maybe it's an acknowledgement of the fact that we talk about miles but inherently understand that distance isn't countable.

Oops that used "than" again. Uhhh... "the battery in my electric car is degraded so I get 10 less miles per charge". Hmm I'm not sure if that sounds right....

It might have to do with grouping. Use less for one lump, use fewer for individual count.

Or maybe it's to do with the minutes being a quantization of something continuous, whereas usually we deal with the transition the other way.

I think this is correct.

Suppose she has a 4-gallon bucket, 3/4 filled. She has "less than 4 gallons."

Contrast with a milk crate, which normally holds 4 jugs of milk, but it, too is only 3/4 filled. Same liquid volume of milk but now I would say that she has "fewer than 4 gallons", because the milk now comes in discrete units.

Minutes may be countable but time itself isn't, I'd say. Generally applies to units: You can certainly count litres but it's still "less than five litres", at least when talking about a volume say left in a tank as opposed to things that come in individual 1l containers. The space between that (e.g. 500ml or 1.5l containers) is fuzzy.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
-bash: fewer: command not found

$ alias fewer=less
$ which fewer
fewer: aliased to less

I'm also a non-native speaker and I've also been taught to speak a certain way ("you and I are going" but "he saw you and me"; don't split infinitives; don't end sentences with prepositions, etc.), but then I read Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct and - even more relevant here - The Sense of Style. We've been taught to use language a certain way, but our teachers were following the prescriptivist school of thought. You say these rules were written by native folk, but it's often (if not usually) the native folk that say less when they "should" be saying fewer.

I know you said it's only mildly infuriating to you, but if proper use of language is something dear to your heart (as it is to mine) - I really recommend the above books as I think this is something not worth to get even mildly infuriated about. The border between less and fewer is fuzzier than you think and - in the words of Pinker - once you really master the distinction - that's one fewer thing for you to worry about.

Edit: typo

haha! amazing write up and informative view on language and it's evolution

I have used less several times when I should have used more...

I've corrected people a few times on this, but then I looked it up, and from what I understand, since language is defined by usage, saying "less" when technically it should be "fewer" is still generally correct. It still sounds alright to me, though oddly the reverse (using "fewer" when it should be "less") sounds fewer (aka less) correct to me.

I’m a linguist and this is the answer. The correct usage is however people use it, not how a book editor, dictionary, or your third grade teacher think it should be used.

Example: “there’s” for both plural and singular rather than “there are” versus “there’s/there is”.

joor rite spelin is stoopit an sos punktution. Pandas be damned.

however people use it,

The way this is phrased, it sounds like you can't be wrong. So I would just clarifying that if both the speaker and audience agree on the intent of the speaker, it's correct.

There is the concept of an ideolect and you can very easily argue that something is correct as long as some native speaker thinks so..

The correct usage is however people use it

If people use "literally" figuratively, does that mean that they're evolving the language? Or are they just idiots?

The language is evolving. "Literally" now means "literally" and also "very much so.

I have worked as a book editor, and so my instinct is often to be corrective/prescriptive. The linguist side of me usually wins out, though.

Literally is now even officially a contranym. Additionally in the process of making the decision to make it a contranym, they pointed to a number of examples of famous English authors using it as in the way these "idiots" use it.

Language evolves.

What is the line for language evolution ?

If I start calling dogs "cats" tomorrow, am I wrong? Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong?

If your audience knows what you mean? No. If your audience has no idea what you mean? Yes.

Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

If it becomes a norm? Yes.

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about literally, and how it is literally (the way you mean it) a contranym now. Using it to only mean figuratively (the way you want it to be used), especially when it had been used that way for a long time and even has a history of using is no longer "idiotic" it's just a common usage of the term. It mildly irks me too, however, I can't remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.

Well, my personal options on literally are that it is not being used to mean figuratively, it is being used in a figurative manner for weight and effect. The same way that yeah and right are both positive/agreement words, but can be used in a figurative manner to mean the opposite. If someone says "they turned the frogs gay!" And someone responds "riiiiiiiiiight....", right still means "that statement is correct" but it was used with an inflection that implies the opposite. That doesn't mean the dictionary definition of right now needs to be updated to fall in line with 21st century sarcastic smart ass linguistics.

So, I dont actually think the definition of literally has changed, and I disagree with any dictionary that says it has and now needs to include an additional definition of the word that means the opposite.

The reason I was asking is because you, like me, seem to care about this more than the average person. So I was curious of your thought on the matter in hopes that I might gain some additional insight on the matter that I didn't have before.

It mildly irks me too, however, I can't remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.

That's the same feeling I would have if someone told me a story where they were "habilitated by fear" instead of "debilitated by fear". I know what they mean. That doesn't mean the word they used means the same thing though.

People thinking the English language is static and has to follow rules.

This Is English, my friend. The top dog of non-proscriptive languages where meanings change over time and reflect current usage.

Want to force everyone to follow the rules?

Start speaking French.

It is also a tool to allow common understanding between a diverse group of people. I’m not saying that less/fewer is an important rule. However ‘anything goes’ is going to have an impact on people’s understanding of bothe you and your message

I'm not saying anything goes either but if people around you use less and fewer interchangeably, there is no communication breakdown at all.

Do you know the correct times to use practice vs practise?

The thing I find interesting is how the mixing of less and fewer, is broadly accepted, whereas nobody tends to use ‘much’ and ‘many’ interchangeably.

I’m not quite sure why much/many is do conserved when fewer/less isn’t.

That's kinda easy though because much fewer people use less then many.

I like to use "not much" instead of "not many" whenever I can.

I've tried more instead of less, I will have to try fewer and see how it works, which repo is fewer on?

Hmmm - maybe I should be using "fewer" less times than I should be using "less" fewer times...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ok so, as a native English speaker, let me inform you, that whatever you think is a rule in English, isn't. It's a guideline. It's a hard language because we lack structure. The native teachers are teaching you the basic guidelines, not actual conversational English, which varies heavily on location, and social group.

Holy shit, you broke so many comma usage rules in your first sentence alone!

Ok[] so, as a native english speaker, let me inform you[,] that whatever you think is a rule in english[,] isn't.

i count 3.

out of 4 commas placed, it's not great, but i was expecting closer to a dozen from your comment.

English definitely has rules.

It's why you can't say something like "girl the will boy the paid" to mean "the boy is paying the girl" and have people understand you.

Less vs fewer, though, isn't really a rule. It's more an 18th century style guideline some people took too seriously.

No link, no AUR and hard to google, thanks.

edit: the joke fell flat, because with how modern replacements often are named, fewer could easily have been a modern less.

common usage is not the enemy

Confusion is the enemy of communication. Clarity of language is critical to being understood. Correctly using "fewer" and "less" could theoretically provide context clues about what type of thing you're counting, but you will be understood irregardless of which word you choose to use.

People using "fewer" instead of "less" would be far more infuriating. 'cause you know they know better and are trying to get a rise out of you :)

I feel like that could happen in the same way that "you and I" became a common overcorrection.

I refuse to acknowledge anyone's struggle with common words like that except lose and loose.

Unlike less and fewer which are basically interchangeable unless you're being pedantic lose and loose are two completely different words entirely

I wish humans created fewer pollution.

Change pollution to pollutants and it works.

That's exactly the point. There's nothing pedantic about acknowledging the difference. "Fewer" is for a countable number of things like "pollutants", and "less" is for uncountable things like "pollution". It's not hard.

It’s fine, OP - English is my native language and it irks me some, too, because It was a subject in school that I did really well in and tutored other students.

I’ve come to accept the fact that most folks will always say ‘less’ regardless of the context, I’m guilty of it at times, and at the end of the day it’s not a big deal. But I’m sorry you’re getting the reaction that you are.

My husband and I were actually discussing this a few days ago when I corrected him, again, but at this point it’s more of a running joke between us and he laughs (he is the only person who I ‘correct’ because it is a joke and he finds it funny; I’m not being an asshole when I do it and he knows that).

This is Mildly Infuriating, not I'm dying if this doesn't stop.

Equally, this is mildly infuriating not mildly irritating. The subreddit is for things you're getting, albeit mildly, infuriated by.

People using 'infuriating' when they should be using 'irritating'

Honestly you have to be able to switch caring about that stuff off, when you want to, otherwise knowing any of these rules is more a curse than a blessing.

Totally agree. I need to bite my tongue when I hear it.

Also see: ‘Very unique’ And ‘jealous’ when they mean ‘envious’.

Very unique was originally an insult veiled as an unintentionally incorrect usage of the expression. The hidden meaning could be explained as "I think it's retarded but I don't want to say that in public."

Source: chick movies.

As for Jealous vs Envious. Are you sure it isn't merely your perception that's mistaking the use?
I know I tend to confuse the two because one wants something that resembles what you have and the other wants what you have directly.
So the perception of those involved can mix up the two concepts in this regard.

@Lath the way to remember is the phrase "jealous husband".

Obviously he doesn't just want to have a wife (he's already a husband), he specifically wants his own wife to be talking with him not some other guy.

Jealous vs envious is super common to misuse as I did for years because envious seems ‘old fashioned’ these days.

‘Very unique’ is used widely but I doubt your attribution or source. It’s just a common sloppy lack of rigour in meaning.

If you're able to correct them, you've understood what they're trying to say. So what's the harm?

Ah the old "I'm too lazy to learn, so people should make a little bit more effort to understand my typing, rather than me making a bit more effort to type properly"

It's ok, that's 100% your parents' fault 😂