From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:56:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.124208.24389@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.033002.17569@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>I'd be surprised to hear a radio announcer say "excape" (well, let's
>>>>say, one on WCBS or the like); but it's a colloquial pronunciation, and
>>>>all the tantrums in the worlds aren't going to make it go away.  In some
>>>>contexts it's shocking; in others, it's just fine.

>>>Why would you find it so shocking, Roger?  Everyone would understand what
>>>he meant.  Isn't *that* all that's important?

>>No.  What a silly idea.  Haven't you ever heard of style?  When I tune
>>to WCBS I expect a certain style.

>One of the styles that you (or at least I) expect from a radio news program
>is proper English.  

I don't expect it -- for one simple reason: I have never seen evidence
that there *is* a single idiom that may be classified as "proper
English."  

If you mean "formal speech, New York Style," then, yes, I suppose I'd
expect something like that from those reading the news bulletins.  Not
necessarily from the features, the sports, or the ads, though; a
different idiom is expected there.  More metaphor, imagery, colloquial
expression, etc.  Different styles for different things -- and that's
just on one radio station.  Listen to WCBS for an hour sometime; see if
you can't discern -- and ultimately predict -- the changes in style, the
types of usage that one person doing one job on that station will use,
and that another, with another job, will not.

>I'd be surprised to hear "excape" from my radio, just as
>I'd be surprised to hear "Less stocks were traded on the NASDAQ this month
>than last."  

Well, then, get surprised.  I've heard it often; not on WCBS, but on
lots of other stations.  If you go and look at the data that people
studying speech patterns of Americans havegathered, you'll find all
kinds of people saying "less stocks."  And you'll be shocked, shocked.

(And I'm *still* waiting for a cogent explanation of the utility of the
"less/fewer" distinction...)

>You may not expect it, but many people would expect that a printed sign in
>a place of business use standard grammar, and thus are surprised when signs
>say "ten items or less."  

But "ten items or less" *is* standard grammar, bubbeleh.  By any
reasonable definition of "standard grammar."  Historical, current
practice, or linguistically informed prescription.  Take your pick.
People say it, people have always said it; in fact, *most* people say it
and write it that way.  It's one of a class of expressions that
basically *needs* less rather than fewer.  

I've posted a few examples before, and I'll post them again:

"Dinner will cost twenty dollars, more or less."
"I'll pay a hundred for that bicycle, not a penny more, not a penny
less."
"Complete this sentence in 25 words or less."
"The baby is less than six months old."
"The building is eight stories high, one less than the NYC average."
"Six is one less than seven." 
"Write 'I love grammar' on the blackboard a hundred times--and not one
time less."

Put "fewer" in any of these sentences and it will sound awkward.  Do so
when you're speaking and you will sound stilted.  This is simply *not*
usage--people generally use, and always have used, "less" for these
uses; i.e., with numbers used as upper bounds.    

And I haven't even gotten around to the OED.   

Ten items or less is correct grammar AND correct usage.

>Many of the newer ones are, however, written correctly.

"Correctly " in this case meaning "according to some bungled rule based
on misobservation ofthe language."  

>>When I listen to people talking on the street or in the office, I have
>>different expectations.  Don't you?

>People can use whatever they want on the street.  One hopes that people in
>a business environment will speak well, however.

Great.  Now, how about we make some realistic expectations of what
"well" might be.  What shall we base them on?  The unjustified
prescriptions of 19th-century high-school textbook writers?  Or
observation of what good and careful and successful speakers and writers
actually do?  

Me, I go for the latter choice.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english