From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.024422.6685@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.205645.7083@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>Wow.  Chaucerian spelling was found among the best speakers and writers for
>>>centuries too.

>>Oh, stop it, Gabe.  You know perfectly well that spelling is
>>standardized in english in a way that usage is not.  Moreover,
>>Chaucerian spelling was never wrong in any sense, when it was used.

>The Chaucer bit was in response to your line regarding the acceptability
>of ungrammatical English because it was used before the relevant rules
>came into being.  

Stop assuming your conclusion, Gabe!  You haven't shown that it *is*
ungrammatical by anything other than fiat.

>>It was in, of all things, Theodore Bernstein's _The Careful Writer_.
>>He, like most others, makes a distinction similar to yours; but then he
>>notes: "Whereas it is fine to write, 'The Liberals won three fewer seats
>>than in the previous election,' you run into idiom trouble if you reduce
>>the number to one; you cannot say "one fewer seats," nor can you say
>>'one fewer seat.'  The only escape hatch is 'one seat fewer.'"

>Many people would say "The liberals won one fewer seat."

Not as many as you'd think, and lots of people would find it
funny-sounding.

>>Got that?  You CANNOT say... 

>Well, since you found it in a book, I'll be sure to strike it from my
>vocabulary right away.

I'm not saying you should.  I'm saying that this was the ONLY
proscription I found in any of the books I checked.  And that I found
this state of affairs mighty curious.

>>seat" for just that reason, or "one less set of footsteps at my door,"
>>in a song that would not be improved by replacing all the "one less"es
>>with "one fewer."

>Most lyricists I know are not the most grammatical people...

Really?  When people can hear the words
(which is the case in country music), they generally don't succeed
if they violate accepted usage.  Moreover, if they have a hit, they can
contribute to *defining* usage -- certainly with far more effectiveness
than any writer of rulebooks ever will.  They make language by using
language powerfully, not by drawing lines in the sand.

>>>I did.  Sounds fine.  Though I would say "No fewer than 10 applicants
>>>called."  I wouldn't say "No less than 10 applicants called."

>>But a vast number of English speakers would, and do.  And always have.
>>You got a problem with that?

>Nope.  The vast number can say whatever it likes.

Um,...8-)

Of course, we got into this discussion because people were *not* about
to let others do as they liked, or, more precisely, as they naturally
did.

>>Perhaps you should read one or two, Gabe.  Especially the Chicago Manual
>>you cited yesterday, which doesn't correct *any* grammatical or usage
>>errors.

>I've read one or two (or three), along with formatting manuals like Chicago
>and MLA.  And yes, Chicago's getting in there was an oversight, as I was
>going to reply to something you had written about academic writing, made
>a list involving Chicago and MLA, and ultimately decided not to include it.
>Unfortunatly I did a less than ideal job of purging it from the message.
>So, lest you jump up and down about the Chicago Manual again...

OK, just wondering.


Roger