From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:49:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.065611.26367@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
(Roger Lustig) writes:

>>The underlying meaning is: "I'm not spending a penny more money, and
>>I'm not spending a penny less money."  In the "10 items or less" bit,
>>the only thing under discussion is the quantity of items.
>
>Why? Why can't it be "stuff"?  "how much stuff do you have in your
>basket?" "Eight items."  If "dollars" can turn into "money," then
>"items" can turn into "stuff."

Because in the discussion of how much you're spending, the important
issue is how much *money* you're spending, not how many pennies, so the
use of pennies is just a way to quantify the uncountable.  A penny less
money, a drop less water, etc.

However, in the "10 items or less" sign, what is being discussed is the
exact number of items, not the amount of "stuff" as you put it.  The
sign doesn't mean to imply "10 items or less stuff," but rather "10 items,
or fewer than 10 items."  Two fewer items, one fewer penny, etc.

>"Six is one less than seven."

In this case, the numbers six and seven aren't the referents of "less"

>"complete this in 25 words or less."
>
>Put "fewer" in those sentences and you have stilted sentences that are
>*not* in common use.  People just don't say that sort of thing.

Sure they do.  "Fewer than 25 words" is used quite a bit.

>>And "less items" doesn't work.
>
>(Actually, it does, and vast numbers of people say it, but we'll let it
>pass for now, even though I've cited an authority for its correctness
>and standardness...)

Funny how you're not arguing for correctness and standardness when several
messages back you were browbeating anyone who even suggested such a thing.

>Uh, what?  I can deal with it just fine!  If you tell me that something
>is standard and correct, and I ask you to tell me why, and you can cite
>neither evidence nor authority, then I can deal with it instantly: by
>pointing out that you're blowing smoke.  You wave your hands and insist
>on distinctions and standards and "accepted usage" and correctness and
>propriety, but when it comes time to tell me *why* these things are what
>you say, all of a sudden the line goes dead.

Perhaps you didn't manage to read my last few messages.  I listed several
sources.  Upon my doing so, you just trudged out the "oh no, that isn't
grammar, that's usage" business again.

>Indeed, S&W does make usage prescriptions.  Many of them are at variance
>with actual usage, and even with most other prescriptions.  (e.g.,
>"different than.")

I consider "different than" to be in the same camp as "should of."  You
differ from something.  It may be at variance with your actual usage
though.

>This is where all the trouble starts: when people start bludgeoning
>speakers of everyday English for not hewing to S&W's rules for formal
>expository prose.

I still don't see the benefit of *not* speaking or writing well as much
as possible.  Your argument seems to be, "Well, people do it, and it's
documented, so it must be okay."

>>>Now, I happen to know the *history* of the less/fewer distinction.
>
>>Wow.  That doesn't mean that you suddenly have some sort of monopoly on
>>stating that it's "correct usage," which is how this whole thing started.
>
>Nor did I state that, so don't go putting silly words in my mouth.

You did indeed.  Go back to the first message in this thread and you'll
see that you described "10 items or less" as correct usage, to which I
replied "NOT!"

>Knowing the history of the distinction *does* tell me one thing: no
>writer or speaker ever worried about it until some 19th century
>schoolmasters *invented* the distinction out of a simple fear of
>alternatives, i.e., they wanted to be able to teach that one word

>This is where all the trouble starts: when people start bludgeoning
>speakers of everyday English for not hewing to S&W's rules for formal
>expository prose.

I still don't see the benefit of *not* speaking or writing well as much
as possible.  Your argument seems to be, "Well, people do it, and it's
documented, so it must be okay."

>>>Now, I happen to know the *history* of the less/fewer distinction.
>
>>Wow.  That doesn't mean that you suddenly have some sort of monopoly on
>>stating that it's "correct usage," which is how this whole thing started.
>
>Nor did I state that, so don't go putting silly words in my mouth.

You did indeed.  Go back to the first message in this thread and you'll
see that you described "10 items or less" as correct usage, to which I
replied "NOT!"

>Knowing the history of the distinction *does* tell me one thing: no
>writer or speaker ever worried about it until some 19th century
>schoolmasters *invented* the distinction out of a simple fear of
>alternatives, i.e., they wanted to be able to teach that one word
>was right, the other wrong.  Before that, good speakers and writers
>could and did use "less" in many places where you now insist on "Fewer,"
>and nobody was any the worse for it.  Nor did anyone complain.

And prior to Johnson, people spelled words however they wanted to
and no one complained.  Would you rather we all go back to spelling
things however we'd like?

>So why should I let myself be jerked around by the laziness of a 19th
>century schoolmaster, especially since the rule has never really taken
>hold in common speech, and is also disregarded quite a bit in the
>written language?

The Andrew Jackson approach to language.  The point is that these rules
are *not* disregarded by a good number of people who put effort into
their language.

>Am I?  Or will "educated" people (i.e., those who learned a rule in
>school) groan and moan and call me "illiterate" and "uneducated" and
>"Barbaric"?  I seem to recall people going to complain to supermarket
>managers and 1-800 operators about the usage on signs and paper bags.
>Clearly the people being complained to were *not* free to use it, and
>THAT, my friend, is where I came in.

>was right, the other wrong.  Before that, good speakers and writers
>could and did use "less" in many places where you now insist on "Fewer,"
>and nobody was any the worse for it.  Nor did anyone complain.

And prior to Johnson, people spelled words however they wanted to
and no one complained.  Would you rather we all go back to spelling
things however we'd like?

>So why should I let myself be jerked around by the laziness of a 19th
>century schoolmaster, especially since the rule has never really taken
>hold in common speech, and is also disregarded quite a bit in the
>written language?

The Andrew Jackson approach to language.  The point is that these rules
are *not* disregarded by a good number of people who put effort into
their language.

>Am I?  Or will "educated" people (i.e., those who learned a rule in
>school) groan and moan and call me "illiterate" and "uneducated" and
>"Barbaric"?  I seem to recall people going to complain to supermarket
>managers and 1-800 operators about the usage on signs and paper bags.
>Clearly the people being complained to were *not* free to use it, and
>THAT, my friend, is where I came in.

What, you think that by not *liking* the standard, you're going to get
people to stop concerning themselves with it?

>I don't know about Little/Brown, but I do know that Strunk&White (the
>third one you cited) is not particularly linguistically informed, and
>does *not* reflect actual usage in many of its prescriptions.  Again,
>it's a book for those writing formal, expository prose.

>>One of the purposes of editing is to correct grammatical
>>errors, and as far as I'm concerned, less+countable is still an error.
>
>Good luck getting a job as an editor with that attitude.

I've gotten quite a number of them, though it isn't my main field.

>>Clarity isn't compromised when you say "me am here."  It's perfectly
>>clear who's here.
>
>Plenty of things *are* disrupted, though, such as the flow of
>communication.  People will stop listening to what you say next, because
>they'll havesuch a hard time believeing what they heard before.

And some have a hard time believing that ad copywriters would put
"1/3 less calories" on a packaging.

>>Hardly.  The point is that most people have been cured of that error by
>>the time they're out of sixth grade.
>
>Most people?  Naaah.  I hear it all the time.  Perhaps not most people
>in Morningside Heights.

Hopefully not most people in Princeton, NJ either.

>What other reasons do you have for complaining?  Why bother with the
>"error" argument if the error makes no difference?  "Me and Paul will
>win 'em all" caused nobody any problems, except for a few English
>teachers who keeled over and thus missed a terrific World Series.  "Me
>am here" disrupts the flow of communication by being terribly
>nonstandard in a way that the previous example does not.  It's incorrect
>in a way that the other sentence is not.

To many, "me and paul...." is just as nonstandard as "me am here."  Same
error.

>Neither sentence is part of the written or formal-speech dialect.
>
>>I could say "Je suis ici" or "hic sum" to you, and there would be no loss
>>of information.
>
>To me, yes.  (Actually, you'd get a funny look with the Latin, since it
>means "I am this," but that's OK.  I'm sure you meant to type "Adsum".)

My Latin is 4 years rusty, though as I recall, "hic" (with the long mark)
also means here, but we'll save that for alt.usage.latin.

>>"me and my friends..." doesn't gain any more correctness on the golf
>>course than it does in the seminar room.
>
>Wrong.  Dead wrong.  So wrong you're not in the ballpark.

Maybe not in yours.  To many, "me and my friends" is not in the ballpark.

By the way, you're mixing metaphors....golf and baseball. :-)


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877