From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:36:34 GMT

In article <pjh.714401779@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

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

>How about: less refers to an amount, fewer to a number.

Ahem:

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

That's *utility*. I know what the distinction is supposed to be (and in
actual practice isn't always); I want to know what good it is.  We don't
have a distinction between the comparatives of "much" and "many," and
manage just fine.  Why enforce a distinction here that's at variance
with actual usage, and always has been?

>>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.  

>If you are talking about a number of items (as in this case) you must
>have fewer than a certain number not less than a certain amount.

WHY?  WHY?  WHY?  Why do you insist on this prescription, when the words
have never been used in only the ways you insist on?  You have nothing
to say here, except to repeat the prescription over and over.  Give me
evidence that the prescription is a reasonable one.

>[Sometimes I think that "10 items or less" means "10 items or 10
>'parts of items less than a complete item'". Silly I know but this is
>what it (literally) means.)

No, it is *not* what it literally means, unless you first apply a red
pencil to the dictionary.  Playing dumb is not a good way to make
grammatical rules, or to explain them.

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

>>"Dinner will cost twenty dollars, more or less."

>"more or less" is a standard phrase which means "roughly". The "more"
>and the "less" do not apply as such to the 20 dollars. {Besides which,
>you can have "an amount of a dollar not equal to a whole dollar".}

Which is still a number.

>>"I'll pay a hundred for that bicycle, not a penny more, not a penny
>>less."

>I think I'd classify this as above -a a standard phrase which means
>something in its entirety which. Also this is talking about an amount
>of money, not a number of pennies.

Um, seems to me it's talking about a *single* penny.  But, yes,they're
both idioms.  Howcome the prescriptions never even take note of these
idioms?

>>"Complete this sentence in 25 words or less."

>I would say this ought to be fewer.

Fine.  Say it.  Then tell us why.  Then explain why this usage has been
common and standard in English for centuries, and why you wish to
eradicate it.  So far I haven't heard a reason.

>>"The baby is less than six months old."

>Less than a certain age.

Expressed as a number.

>>"The building is eight stories high, one less than the NYC average."

>Again I would think it ought to be fewer.

But it isn't.  That's the problem.  People in all walks of life say
and write "less," just as their ancestors have done for centuries.

>>"Six is one less than seven." 

>Pass. Mathmospeak?

Sure.  All those first-grade mathematicians who are confronted with this
type of thing have to resort to jargon.

>>"Write 'I love grammar' on the blackboard a hundred times--and not one
>>time less."

>"One time fewer.

Or "less."  Both are standard usage.  "Less" sounds a little less
stilted.

>>Put "fewer" in any of these sentences and it will sound awkward. 

>Not all of them. Those that _do_ need "less" are talking about amounts
>of time/money etc. not numbers of months/dollars etc.

Tell me why the other ones _need_ "fewer."  

>> 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.    

>I say it depends on the situation. I distinguish between less and fewer.

Be my guest.  But be aware that others draw the distinction elsewhere.

Roger