| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Difference between 'less' and 'fewer' Thread poster: Jackie Bowman
|
|---|
mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 02:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Oh yes it is! | Oct 16, 2006 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
But if I write ‘trade between Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador’, that’s not OK.
"Between" is correct in this case because trade is bilateral, regardless of the number of countries mentioned as participants.
In the case in point, there is trade between Honduras and El Salvador, between Nicaragua and El Salvador, and between Nicaragua and Honduras.
And the countries may have agreed among themselves that such trade shall be subject to special tariffs, for example.
MediaMatrix
| | | | Angela Dickson (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:32
French to English
+ ...
| not confusing apples with oranges | Oct 16, 2006 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
If English native people say and write less instead of fewer, what can be wrong with it? Rules must adapt, not people.
In one way, I am inclined to agree with this - however, as a native English translator, I am not merely reproducing what I or my fellow native speakers say from day to day, I am producing a *written* text, with all that this implies. In any case, there is so much variation in what people actually do say that any attempt to reproduce this accurately in writing would be futile.
Given all this, a decent writer has to adhere to some set of rules, which will inevitably not reflect up-to-date usage (which is not consistent in any case). I try to reflect such 'proper' use of language in my writing - although I think the 'rule' that would have us avoid split infinitives is complete rubbish, I still try to avoid them, as I know a certain portion of my readership will be annoyed if I split an infinitive. Similarly with 'less' and 'fewer' (I see the point of this rule, and it annoys me to see it broken, although I can think of no example of a case where meaning will be obscured if 'less' is used in place of 'fewer' - anyone care to rise to that challenge?).
I do try to keep a level head, but the very common confusion between 'discreet' and 'discrete' does annoy me quite a lot, and it's so prevalent.
While I was composing this, Kim posted his reply, and I completely agree.
[Edited at 2006-10-16 15:54]
[Edited at 2006-10-16 15:55]
| | | | | To rise to the challenge :-) And set a new one | Oct 16, 2006 |
Angela Dickson wrote:
Similarly with 'less' and 'fewer' (I see the point of this rule, and it annoys me to see it broken, although I can think of no example of a case where meaning will be obscured if 'less' is used in place of 'fewer' - anyone care to rise to that challenge?).
Well, actually, I thought I had, with the lorry-loads of bricks (and thanks to mediamatrix for his explanation of one possible difference, I personally was already aware of it, but I'm sure others might find his example helpful). Sand might be an even better example, since you definitely can't count sand
There is, more generally, as case for saying that there is a distinction between:
a) less than X [quantity as measured by a container] of [uncountable substance]
and
b) fewer than X [[quantity as measured by a container] of [uncountable substance]
The thing about all the rules* of English grammar of which I am aware is that they all do have a point. In all cases, it is possible to think of a situation where not following the rules can cause ambiguity or confusion.
For example, there is a growing trend in the UK to form comparitive adjectives using both "more" and the "-er" suffix when either one by itself would suffice. That house was more prettier. I ran more faster than last season. Sounds monsterous to me! But you can hear it on the TV and radio every day. Does it change the meaning? In context, no, not really. But more + -er already has a meaning, i.e. an increased number of a thing which possess an increased amount of the quality in question.
But imagine this usage becomes acceptable or even the standard. Where then, does that leave the person who wishes, for example, to express the need for an increased number of cars that were purchased more recently. At the moment, I can say "our fleet needs more newer cars" (by implication, it needs fewer (!) older ones, proportionally). But if this trend continues unbridled, in a few years time, people will have to say "our fleet needs more more newer cars".... the mind boggles!
So, my challenge would be - is there any rule of English grammar which serves NO useful purpose whatsoever? i.e. for which NO circumstances exist where there is a difference in meaning when you abide by the rule compared to when you don't.
* by which I mean genuine rules, not the nonsense about split infinitives and not ending sentences with prepositions, devised by Victorian grammarians taking Latin as their point of reference. English doesn't even have infinitives in the true sense
| | | | Jackie Bowman
Local time: 01:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Genuine rules | Oct 16, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
So, my challenge would be - is there any rule of English grammar which serves NO useful purpose whatsoever? i.e. for which NO circumstances exist where there is a difference in meaning when you abide by the rule compared to when you don't.
* by which I mean genuine rules, not the nonsense about split infinitives and not ending sentences with prepositions, devised by Victorian grammarians taking Latin as their point of reference. English doesn't even have infinitives in the true sense
Excellent post, Charlie. Enjoyed it a lot. But it does raise the question about what 'genuine rules' are.
| | |
|
|
|
Jackie Bowman
Local time: 01:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | On being discreet | Oct 16, 2006 |
Angela Dickson wrote (among other things):
the very common confusion between 'discreet' and 'discrete' does annoy me quite a lot, and it's so prevalent.
I’ve noticed this a few times, too, and I’ve noticed it in two very specific contexts. In the first, the writer simply doesn’t know how to spell the word ‘discreet’, and can’t be bothered to check the spelling, and so writes ‘discrete’.
In the second, the writer has been subjected to the early-1990s explosion in the use of ‘discrete’ in social science contexts, and finds the word amenable, and joins the herd of independent minds in using it a lot, and then forgets the distinction between ‘discrete’ and ‘discreet’.
Both phenomena are widespread, even among native English speakers who write for a living. I venture, for example, that the reason why ‘impact’ is so prevalent as a verb in American English (‘that decision impacted the policy’) is that enough people who write for a living couldn’t be bothered to check the difference between the verbs ‘affect’ and ‘effect’, and so avoided them, and so wrote ‘impact’ instead.
People forget how they used to say things, or how things used to be said. I’m editing a book at the moment. Most of the sentences make grammatical sense. The book is about how to get people in non-democratic countries to talk about how their countries should be more democratic. Repeatedly, the book says things like this: “In a democracy dialogue, arrange small seminars to ensure the participants’ buy-in of the process”.
Among my editorial questions for the author was a request for an explanation of what the noun ‘buy-in’ means here. Eight emails later, she still hasn’t been able to explain to me what this means in non-jargon. (The book also features the ‘discrete/discreet’ confusion several times.) The vast majority of the book’s intended readership will be non-native readers of English. I can sort-of-see what she’s trying to say, but to leave the phrase as it is imposes a burden on readers and constrains the comprehensibility of the text. As far as I can tell, once the term ‘buy-in’ became acceptable as an American noun, the author simply lost track of how to express the same idea without that invented noun.
I could go on about this at length, but it’s time for something else …
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
If English native people say and write less instead of fewer, what can be wrong with it? Rules must adapt, not people.
What indeed?
There are (dare I say) discrete differences between the words ‘discreet’ and ‘discrete’. But if English native people say and write ‘discrete’ instead of ‘discreet’, what can be wrong with it? Well, my own view is that the distinction between the two words is worth preserving – just as it’s worth preserving the distinction between ‘would’ and ‘wood’.
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 02:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
| how about this? | Oct 16, 2006 |
Charlie asked:
... is there any rule of English grammar which serves NO useful purpose whatsoever?
how about the one saying that sentences must begin with a capital letter?
the rule is perhaps not 'useless' per se, but it is certainly redundant in as much as there is another rule saying sentences must end with a full-stop (period, if you will) or one of a limited number of other signs.
as we cannot do away with the rule about ending sentences - otherwise, we could no longer differentiate 'twixt declaractions, questions, exclamations and suspension... - the capital letter rule would be the first one to go if we really wanted to trim down the rules.
MediaMatrix
[Edited at 2006-10-16 17:59]
| | | | | Genuine rules, circular arguments, and other such meanderings of the mind | Oct 16, 2006 |
The layout of my last post could have caused confusion, I see. The comment marked * was intended to refer to the reference to "rules" somewhat earlier in my ramblings, not the para immediately above.
To take the first notorious example:
Why should one never split an infinitive? I'm dashed if I can think of a good reason. Does splitting or not splitting make a blind bit of difference to the meaning? At best, I would view it as a stylistic recommendation, not a rule of gr... See more The layout of my last post could have caused confusion, I see. The comment marked * was intended to refer to the reference to "rules" somewhat earlier in my ramblings, not the para immediately above.
To take the first notorious example:
Why should one never split an infinitive? I'm dashed if I can think of a good reason. Does splitting or not splitting make a blind bit of difference to the meaning? At best, I would view it as a stylistic recommendation, not a rule of grammar, and only a recommendation because there are people out there who think you shouldn't split them, and so it may be worth avoiding so that misguided proof-readers or wrong-headed pedants don't correct it. Indeed, I seem to recall seeing somewhere a couple of good examples where the "rule" was counter productive, in that the split and unsplit versions did actually mean something materially different.
Pretty much the same applies to not ending a sentence with a preposition.
This then becomes something of a circular argument, notwithstanding the fact that "genuine" was not intended to refer to the rules included within the scope of my "challenge". If a rule serves a purpose, it's genuine, and if it don't, it ain't. But, that said, are there then any "rules" (rather than stylistic recommendations) that serve no purpose whatsoever? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jackie Bowman
Local time: 01:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If a rule serves a purpose, it's genuine, and if it don't, it ain't. But, that said, are there then any "rules" (rather than stylistic recommendations) that serve no purpose whatsoever?
In the English language: no, there aren’t any such rules – which makes it even more baffling why anybody who claims to be a professional writer of English, or a professor of linguistics (not you, obviously, Charlie), should suggest that there are.
In most (not all) cases there is precisely one reason not to split an infinitive. It’s that dullard-pedants who don’t read enough and who have a tin ear for the rhythm of prose will object to it. And if those dullard-pedants have any say about your future, you should consider compromising and just go ahead and split the infinitive. At least, that’s what I used to tell my students.
But now I live in Washington DC. And to paraphrase a previous poster: if enough native English speakers in Washington DC say something, what’s wrong with it?
Hmmnnn … very tough question. I used to live in north Liverpool. And if someone had asked me ‘if enough native English speakers in north Liverpool say something, what’s wrong with it?’ I would only smile.
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 06:32
Italian to English
In memoriam | Prescription and description | Oct 16, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Why should one never split an infinitive? I'm dashed if I can think of a good reason. Does splitting or not splitting make a blind bit of difference to the meaning?
Yes, it can.
The difference of course lies not in the "split" infinitive as such but in the sequence in which the notions are presented in the clause:
"To hopefully go" is not quite the same thing as "hopefully to go" or "to go hopefully", although in real life punctuation or pronunciation would assist the reader or listener.
Robert Burchfield's excellent OUP book "The English Language", for example, notes that the split infinitive "shades off into antiquity", quoting examples from the 15th century.
Pretty much the same applies to not ending a sentence with a preposition.
This is a construction up with which I will not put (one of the examples I am sure you had in mind, Charlie, to say nothing of the little boy who complains to his parent, about to read a bedtime story, "Why did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?").
If a rule serves a purpose, it's genuine, and if it don't, it ain't. But, that said, are there then any "rules" (rather than stylistic recommendations) that serve no purpose whatsoever?
"Rules" are set by usage and identified by the discussions of descriptive grammarians. Anything else is prescription, and as such very "un-English".
Good thread, by the way.
All the best,
Giles
[Edited at 2006-10-16 19:47]
| | | | Jackie Bowman
Local time: 01:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Prescription in English | Oct 16, 2006 |
Giles,
I was very much enjoying your contribution – indeed, indulging in it – right up to this bit
Giles Watson wrote:
"Rules" are set by usage and identified by the discussions of descriptive grammarians. Anything else is prescription, and as such very "un-English".
What are Descriptive Grammarians? Are they like Klingons? Have they reached Mars yet? Are they already AMONG us??
Why is prescriptiveness so un-English? Love it, myself ...
| | | | | You can get some more in there! | Oct 16, 2006 |
[quote]Giles Watson wrote:
This is a construction up with which I will not put (one of the examples I am sure you had in mind, Charlie, to say nothing of the little boy who complains to his parent, about to read a bedtime story, "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?").
[quote]
Well, old chap, that is entirely your choice
In the Guinness Book of Records I had as kid (circa 1972), an addition was mentioned whereby yet more prepositions could be inserted, namely, if we add the detail that the book concerns Australia, then you could add "about Down Under" after "read to" (or indeed, I suppose, after "out of").
The compilers did concede, however, that "Down Under" was a proper noun here so technically the words weren't used as prepositions.
As I recall, they reckoned this was the absolute limit in terms of ending a sentence with prepositions, but I'm not gonna set two challenges in one thread
| | | | | Less than words can say | Oct 16, 2006 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
Among my editorial questions for the author was a request for an explanation of what the noun ‘buy-in’ means here. Eight emails later, she still hasn’t been able to explain to me what this means in non-jargon. (The book also features the ‘discrete/discreet’ confusion several times.) The vast majority of the book’s intended readership will be non-native readers of English.
I can sort-of-see what she’s trying to say, but to leave the phrase as it is imposes a burden on readers and constrains the comprehensibility of the text. As far as I can tell, once the term ‘buy-in’ became acceptable as an American noun, the author simply lost track of how to express the same idea without that invented noun.
If anyone's interested in reading a good book on the subject of jargon, I highly recommend Richard Mitchell's "Less Than Words Can Say"
http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/less-than-words-can-say/index.html
"The propensity for borrowed jargon is always a mark of limited ability in the technique of discursive thought. It comes from a poor education. A poor education is not simply a matter of thinking that components and elements might just as well be called factors; it is the inability to manipulate that elaborate symbol system that permits us to make fine distinctions among such things."
"Spirits from the Vasty Deep
"Bad writing is like any other form of crime; most of it is unimaginative and tiresomely predictable. The professor of education seeking a grant and the neighborhood lout looking for a score simply go and do as their predecessors have done. The one litanizes about carefully unspecified developments in philosophy, psychology, and communications theory, and the other sticks up the candy store."
[Edited at 2006-10-16 21:11]
[Edited at 2006-10-16 21:48]
| | |
|
|
|
Jackie Bowman
Local time: 01:32
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Jargon and its uselessness | Oct 16, 2006 |
In respnse to something I wrote, Kim Metzger quoted a book that said: "The propensity for borrowed jargon is always a mark of limited ability in the technique of discursive thought.
It's one of those things that I'd always thought but never said quite so concisely. I'll be buying that one. Thanks, Kim.
| | | | | US/UK difference? | Oct 16, 2006 |
mediamatrix wrote:
Charlie asked:
... where does that leave the small but possibly important distinction in pairs such as "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" and "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks"?
This is very nice example, not least because both phrases can be correct in the appropriate context. Of course, their meanings are quite different. And if you're a cost-conscious road-haulage contractor, you'll need to make sure you've understood.
fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks
means that:
- you will always travel with a full load of bricks, except if the actual number of lorry-loads is not an integer (in which case one trip - probably the last - will be a part-load)
- you will need to make between 0 and 5 trips, but not 6 or more
- you could chose to make more than 5 trips if you chose to carry one or more part loads (for example, to stagger arrival times at a building site, or to deliver bricks and tiles in the same trip)
In other words, this phrase quantifies the bricks.
less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks
means that:
- you might make some or all trips with a part-load of bricks
- if you're prepared to overload your lorry, you might get away with making less than 5 trips.
In other words, this phrase quantifies the trips.
Less obvious from the above is that "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" immediately conjours up (in my mind at least, maybe because as a kid I spent ages watching hoards of men heaving bricks and rubble on a hospital building site across the road from my home) the image of a brand new lorry filled with bright red bricks freshly delivered from the brickworks, whilst "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" conjours up the image of battered tip-up lorries carrying rubble away from the site.
So, what about fewer/less substitution?
On the basis of the above observations, I venture to suggest that "fewer" could substitute for "less" in the case of lorry-loads of rubble, but "less" should not substitute for "fewer" in the case of lorry-loads of new bricks.
MediaMatrix
This may be a UK/US difference (and it certainly wouldn't be the first one).
I understand "fewer than 5 truckloads of bricks" as quantifying the trips. The trucks may or may not be full. And the size of the truck is irrelevant.
I understand "less than 5 truckloads of bricks" as quantifying the volume of bricks. I assume that the context indicates the size of the truck and it is possible that the bricks aren't carried in trucks at all (but all the bricks indicated would fit in five of the "standard trucks".
| | | | | Buying into descriptive grammar | Oct 16, 2006 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
What are Descriptive Grammarians? Are they like Klingons? Have they reached Mars yet? Are they already AMONG us??
Why is prescriptiveness so un-English? Love it, myself ...
Yer descriptive grammarian will wander all over the shop taking note of how people say stuff, an' mebbe write it down in a big clever book, but won't say whether it's "right" or "wrong", on account of that being the prescriptive grammarians' job, and there is such a thing as a demarcation dispute, doancha know.
Hence, they will perhaps observe that large numbers of English speakers are increasingly using "less" wherever and whenever a reduced quantity is implied, to the detriment of "fewer". And then they will stop. Then a prescriptive grammarian can start foaming at the mouth about it, and bang on about how at this rate we'll all be communicating in grunts by the time our grandchildren are adults.
Personally, I adopt a middle ground, content to merely observe, as you may have spotted, that far be it for me to tell people how to speak or write, but if you start playing fast and loose with rules which have been finely honed over time, you run the risk of loosing shades of meaning that may be of use. Hence my search for a “rule” that serves no purpose, to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.
(NB: in my private life, I’m much in favour of some “ungrammatical” developments such as use of “they” for an individual of unknown sex. Professionally, I’m more conservative)
Oh yeah, “buy in”. I actually suggested this as a translation in kudoz the other day (it was for a management bullshit text, honest). Another answerer suggested “acceptance of, and acting on that acceptance” (roughly). Which sums it up jus’ fine. Makes me wonder how the devil we used to cope without “buy in”; I dunno about you, but scarcely a day goes by without my accepting something and then acting accordingly. Before I’d heard “buy in”, I used to accept a thing, then loll around on the sofa wondering what to do next. Or perhaps I’d do something, and then wonder why on earth why. Lord knows how we got this far without “buy in”, but you gotta say, it’s done wonders for us now we got it.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Difference between 'less' and 'fewer' | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
