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 20:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.191919.28140@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.164215.11501@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>"In general, use fewer for individual items, less for bulk or quantity.

>>>Wrong:  The trend is toward more machines and less people. (People, in this
>>>case, refers to individuals.)

>>Yet this usage has been found among the best speakers and writers for
>>centuries.  

>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.

Moreover, you're wrong.  Chaucerian spelling did *not* last for
centuries.

And finally, your reading comprehension is slipping.  You've lost the
distinction between "has been found" and "Was found"; the former implies
that it still *is* found, whereas the latter implies the opposite.

>>>Wrong:  She was fewer than 60 years old. (Years, in this instance, refers
>>>to a period of time, not individual years.)

>>"not a penny less" gets this explanation into trouble.

>Not really.  "Less" in "not a penny less" refers to amounts of money, namely
>the amount of money you are willing to pay for your bicycle. 

Looks to me like it refers to a penny.  Besides, even large amounts of
money are countable.

I've looked in about a dozen usage books and dictionaries today (and
will post a summary later on).  One interesting result: I found exactly
*one* prescription in all those sources.  Most spoke of "basic rules"
and "trends" and the like; but there was an exception. 

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.'"

Got that?  You CANNOT say...  and in fact, many people say "one less
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."

True, Bernstein doesn't say that you should use "less"; but he does note
the problem with "fewer for all countables" -- it just doesn't work at
the global level.  People don't say it.

>	"I'll pay $300 for the bike.  Not a penny more, not a penny less."

>However, if you were talking about the actual _number_ of pennies, you'd
>use "fewer."

Speak for yourself.  Most people would not.

>	"He paid for his bike with $300 in *pennies*!  We brought them
>	 to the bank to be counted and rolled.  The teller put them in the
>	 machine and there were exactly 30,000!  Not a penny more, not
>	 a penny fewer....exactly 30,000."

Bernstein would laugh at you.  And he is/was a very conservative
writer.

>>>Right:  Not fewer than 10 applicants called. (Individuals.)

>>Stilted.  Try speaking this!

>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?

>>These guides are mainly useful to editors, as they make their work
>>easier and more regular.

>No, these guides are mainly used to correct grammatical errors....

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 know of no guide that claims that it mainly corrects grammatical
errors.  These guides are explicit in their use of words such as "style"
and "usage;" very rarely does the word "Grammar" ever pop up.

>Are we having fun yet?

You tell me, Gabe.  I had fun going to the library.  Learned quite a
bit, too.  Found a neat new book I didn't know.  You should try it.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english