Scared vs. Scarred

[AsylumSeeker]

You really know how to make a person cringe, don't you?

Since I don't have the background to follow that up, I must resort to the dog business:

Imagine giving a haircut to a ten-pound Cocker Spanial Poodle mix that bites especially hard when it hears any of that goody-goody, "ooh, what a cute doggie!" high-pitched squeally noise.

Check your weapons at the door.

Just saying.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Sticky one. This from Harry Shaw's Dictionary of Problem Words and Expressions:

"Since none is derived from not one, a long-standing rule provides that it should always be followed by a singular verb: 'None of us is planning to go.' Unfortunately for the sake of simplicity, this rule is neither grammatical nor logical: none can mean 'not any' and 'no amount' at least as often as it does 'not one.' A reason exists to regard it as singular. When none is followed by a singular noun, then the verb should be singular: 'None of the money was paid to us.' If you wish to stress the idea of a singular, then use a singular verb: 'We were packed in the bus but none was hurt when we crashed.' (Here none is emphasized as not one, but the sentence might better have employed not one, or no one if the sense is to be 'nobody at all.') . . . Recommendation: always follow none with a verb in the singular when the clear and unmistakable meaning of none is 'not one' or 'no one.' In all other situations, use a plural verb."

The etymology is clear and definitely in the singular. The root is ne- 'not' and an- 'any', so any usage of none should be in the singular. Basic logic confirms that ' none', less than two, is singular.

Sr, with respect, I think you conflate none with no-one, which can be plural in the sense of 'no-one of us'. Even 'not one of us' is plural, but never none, surely.

 

[CopperSkink]

*Fewer than two.

 

[sr71plt]

Sr, with respect, I think you conflate none with no-one, which can be plural in the sense of 'no-one of us'. Even 'not one of us' is plural, but never none, surely.

Excuse me. This was wholly a direct quote from Harry Shaw. "I" didn't do anything but provide a quote on someone else's guidance. (Reaching pretty far into the inane just to backbite, Elfin. )

 

[sr71plt]

*Fewer than two.

Thanks. Elfin nearly always bites off more than she can chew.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

*Fewer than two.

Err, um, I think you have got it wrong. Sure 'fewer' is used when referring to plural people or things;

Fewer than ten people, fewer than 10 apples.

Cardinal numbers, aka nouns, always take 'less'. One is less than two, none is less than two - it doesn't matter I didn't use 'zero'.

sr needn't take a pop.

However, I have a mea culpa on my main point. My etymology was fine but I missed the main point because 'none' (no-one) is not semantically equivalent to 'none' (none of us). The accented use in Middle English allowed the confusion beteween the singular and plural word.

Merriam-Webster explains it well.

To decide between the singular and the plural, it doesn't matter for a lot of verbs, you need to do the test of whether you can replace 'none' with 'not one' (singular invariably). Try this;

None of the readers liked each other
Not one of the readers liked each other (- eh?)

None of the readers liked the story
Not one of the readers liked the story

Just saying.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

A Clash of the Titans

Err, um, I think you have got it wrong. Sure 'fewer' is used when referring to plural people or things;

Fewer than ten people, fewer than 10 apples.

Cardinal numbers, aka nouns, always take 'less'. One is less than two, none is less than two - it doesn't matter I didn't use 'zero'.

sr needn't take a pop.

However, I have a mea culpa on my main point. My etymology was fine but I missed the main point because 'none' (no-one) is not semantically equivalent to 'none' (none of us). The accented use in Middle English allowed the confusion beteween the singular and plural word.

Merriam-Webster explains it well.

To decide between the singular and the plural, it doesn't matter for a lot of verbs, you need to do the test of whether you can replace 'none' with 'not one' (singular invariably). Try this;

None of the readers liked each other
Not one of the readers liked each other (- eh?)

None of the readers liked the story
Not one of the readers liked the story

Just saying.

This is why I bill myself as a "decent" editor. I don't want to mislead anyone.

I appreciate the command of the language you demonstrate. I am a bit jealous, admittedly. I like being the Subject Matter Expert, which I am where I work. Not with grammar, but I enjoy being respected. But here at Lit I don't have that same expertise. But I would like to express my respect for you, and for those who have gained such a command of this subject.

Hats off.

I'm not being a wiseguy or anything, my comment is from the heart.

Thanks for sharing, for making some of us smarter. This is all I'm saying. I say this not only to you but SR as well.

Thanks to all of you "smart" people for making Lit the place it is.

Now, if you look at the light-orange bars on the back of letters you get, that's what I know best!

 

[sr71plt]

Err, um, I think you have got it wrong. Sure 'fewer' is used when referring to plural people or things;

Fewer than ten people, fewer than 10 apples.

Cardinal numbers, aka nouns, always take 'less'. One is less than two, none is less than two - it doesn't matter I didn't use 'zero'.

Umm, no (of course). Fewer is for things you can count. Your reference was to things you could count. Being a cardinal number has nothing to do with the fewer/less choice.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Umm, no (of course). Fewer is for things you can count. Your reference was to things you could count. Being a cardinal number has nothing to do with the fewer/less choice.

Sure, sr, I agree. You can count two people, and that is strictly using two in an adjectival sense. The cardinal number is a noun - which explains the difference between fewer and less. One cannot ever have 'fewer' than a cardinal number used as a noun. It is always 'less' than.

You can't say, I am fewer than 18, anymore than you can say, there were less than 18 people in the room. (Less than 18 in the room works).

 

[sr71plt]

Sure, sr, I agree. You can count two people, and that is strictly using two in an adjectival sense. The cardinal number is a noun - which explains the difference between fewer and less. One cannot ever have 'fewer' than a cardinal number used as a noun. It is always 'less' than.

You can't say, I am fewer than 18, anymore than you can say, there were less than 18 people in the room. (Less than 18 in the room works).

Years of age isn't a "thing." So your example is irrelevant (or, rather, highlights the difference). Whenever even the object of the noun is a "thing/object," the number becomes an adjective in this construct. ("Less than 18 in the room" does not work, because the understood objects of the 18 are people--who are "things" that can be counted.)

It's just the way it is. Do as you wish, though, and if it goes to a publisher, it will be changed by those who understand the workings of English better.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Quite simply sr, you are totally wrong.

 

[sr71plt]

Quite simply sr, you are totally wrong.

Do whatever inane thing you want to do with English that you want to do. Then see how it flies in the real publishing world. Those reading the various opinions here can pick and choose the advice and take their chances too.

 

[PacoFear]

For what it's worth, the Chicago Manual of Style says the following:

"Less" gets used for mass nouns or amounts - for example, less salt, dirt, water. Reserve fewer for countable things - people, calories, gocery items, suggestions. One easy guideline is to use "less" with singular nouns and "fewer" with plural nouns.

-CMS 5.202

Is the mass vs. countable distinction the one you're referring to SR? That's also the one I'm familiar with.

Unfortunately, CMS does not elaborate on what it means by "amounts." Perhaps this refers to quantities, e.g., fifty pounds? My inclination would be be to say "He lost less than fifty pounds" rather than "He lost fewer than fifty pounds."

Anyone have a citable reference to provide that clarifies? Pointing to authorities might make for a more friendly discussion.

 

[CopperSkink]

The issue here is that "I'm fewer than eighteen" or "I'm less than eighteen" is improper in the first place because a person and eighteen are not quantities with comparable measurements.

If you like, you could add more context thusly: "How old you is?" "I is less than Sara Palin's eldest daughter." Given an example of age, "eighteen" begins to mean something. Still, given that "eighteen" is understood to be a quantity of years, "less than eighteen" fails to live up to the job.

Still, "fewer than eighteen" still looks like shit. It's bad English in the first place, so trying to dictate "fewer than vs. less than" won't get you anywhere. "Eighteen" is a quantity, necesetating "fewer". Since "fewer than eighteen" looks stupid, "fewer than eighteen years" would be correct.

But neither wanting to go the extra mile by saying as much and likewise not wanting to get stuck with the likewise-inept "less than eighteen", I'd cheat by saying "under eighteen".

 

[sr71plt]

For what it's worth, the Chicago Manual of Style says the following:

"Less" gets used for mass nouns or amounts - for example, less salt, dirt, water. Reserve fewer for countable things - people, calories, gocery items, suggestions. One easy guideline is to use "less" with singular nouns and "fewer" with plural nouns.

-CMS 5.202

Is the mass vs. countable distinction the one you're referring to SR? That's also the one I'm familiar with.

Unfortunately, CMS does not elaborate on what it means by "amounts." Perhaps this refers to quantities, e.g., fifty pounds? My inclination would be be to say "He lost less than fifty pounds" rather than "He lost fewer than fifty pounds."

Anyone have a citable reference to provide that clarifies? Pointing to authorities might make for a more friendly discussion.

Yes, that's the guidance I learned. At some point it becomes largely intuitive (with the exception of what I note at the end below).

The "pounds" one is interesting.

"I lost less than fifty pounds" would be referencing body weight.

"I lost fewer than fifty pounds" would relate to someone betting on a horse in a race with British currency and the horse didn't win. (Although in this case, "less than fifty pounds" would also be acceptable--because, as you found out with the CMS, time, money, and distance are iffy applications).

 

[CopperSkink]

I have to disagree on money. You can count the pounds, therefore "fewer". This of course is my instinct and in no way reflects any understanding that may have been come to that exempts quantitudes of cash from being treated as quantitudable. If we don't count money, why count anything else?

 

[sr71plt]

If we don't count money, why count anything else?

You thought the English language adhered to logic?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Oxford Dictionaries say :-

'Less' or 'fewer'?

People often don’t know when to use less and when to use fewer in a sentence. Here’s how to get it right.


Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children). For example:


People these days are buying fewer newspapers.

Fewer students are opting to study science-related subjects.

Fewer than thirty children each year develop the disease.

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain). For example:

It’s a better job but they pay you less money.

People want to spend less time in traffic jams.

Ironically, when I’m on tour, I listen to less music.

Less is also used with numbers when they are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time, e.g.:

His weight fell from 18 stone to less than 12.

Their marriage lasted less than two years.

Heath Square is less than four miles away from Dublin city centre

However through gritted teeth, sr, a mea culpa would be taken in good spirit.

 

[sr71plt]

Oxford Dictionaries say :-

However through gritted teeth, sr, a mea culpa would be taken in good spirit.

First, you never seem to understand that this is an American-based Web site and you continue to act like the only guidance is the British form. The Oxford dictionary is for the British market. You're in the miniority here, Elfin, so when there are differences between the two, we need to track down the system that we're using--and that the question is couched in. You never are able to manage that reality.

That said, the Oxford conforms to what I've been saying, so I'll happily accept your mea culpa--based on your inability to actually understand what others are posting.

 

[CopperSkink]

You got me there. Like I said, I stick to what makes sense to me, and sometimes the rules seem to get in the way.

For example: Why, when we intend to not terminate a quote, i.e. "'What in the fuck, bitch? asked some motherfucker," is the question mark not utilizing a comma rather than a period? Same with the excimation point. When we want to continue after quotes, we put a comma in place of a period. What's stopping us from altering other forms of punctuation?

 

[sr71plt]

You got me there. Like I said, I stick to what makes sense to me, and sometimes the rules seem to get in the way.

For example: Why, when we intend to not terminate a quote, i.e. "'What in the fuck, bitch? asked some motherfucker," is the question mark not utilizing a comma rather than a period? Same with the excimation point. When we want to continue after quotes, we put a comma in place of a period. What's stopping us from altering other forms of punctuation?

I don't understand what you're asking.

This sentence:

"What in the fuck, bitch?" asked some motherfucker.

is correct.

(the punctuation of your example isn't correct, so I can't follow the question. Among other things, including a quote mark being misplace, there should be a comma after the i.e.--and I'm not sure you used the right form here anyway--i.e. stands for "that is." It seems you intended to use "e.g.," which means "for example")

Are you asking why there isn't also a comma behind the question mark? Because you don't double up punctuation marks.

And I don't understand the "What's stopping us from altering other forms of punctuation" question.


An editor doesn't really stick to what makes sense to the editor. An editor finds out what conveys what the author wants to convey within the guidelines provided by the publisher. No one promised editors a rose garden.

 

[CopperSkink]

My question can be simplified I think by a simple comparison between two punctuat... umm... what's the word for a punctu... damn. A mark? A stroke? The things you punctuate with. Punctuation mark, let's say.

You have a colon that looks like two dots. :

Then there's the semicolon ;

They serve different functions, but please focus on the difference between the two marks. One has a period on the bottom (I know it's not an actual period; but it looks like one, so work with me here) and the other has a comma. I suggest there be new "marks": one for the exclimation mark and one for the question mark. With commas on the bottom instead of periods, they would indicate that the sentence doesn't end after they get closed up behinds quotes.

"Fuck the what, bitch?" he asked.

can be replaced with

"Fuck the what, bitch," he asked.

We have a comma to replace a period when we wish to continue. Why not with ! and ?

?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

First, you never seem to understand that this is an American-based Web site and you continue to act like the only guidance is the British form. The Oxford dictionary is for the British market. You're in the miniority here, Elfin, so when there are differences between the two, we need to track down the system that we're using--and that the question is couched in. You never are able to manage that reality.

That said, the Oxford conforms to what I've been saying, so I'll happily accept your mea culpa--based on your inability to actually understand what others are posting.

No, and you hide behind not answering the question. CMS agrees with the Oxford on less and fewer. I used the Oxford quote as being more prosaic. It is not an 'Harvard comma' issue.

The differences between US, British, even Australian styles are myriad. Spelling, punctuation and even vocabulary vary a lot but on the subject of 'less v. fewer' all anglophone grammar guides I've seen seem to be in agreement with Oxford. Oxford does not just address the British market, they claim to differentiate between regional usages.

I'm not after blood. Just, for once, be man enough to admit your visceral hatred of me let you make an atypical error when you saw Copper's post. She was not right and you jumped on the incorrect post to gratuitously insult me. You never "said" anything about 'less and fewer', just threw bricks at the players from the bleachers.

I love locking horns with you, it keeps me sharp and I have a deep respect for your knowlege. Please can we continue to joust (I will never give up my advice to noobies to avoid 1st person POV) but ratchet down the spleen?

Elle

 

[CopperSkink]

"I love locking horns with you, it keeps me sharp"

You'll want a semi-colon there rather than a comma.

 

[sr71plt]

No, and you hide behind not answering the question. CMS agrees with the Oxford on less and fewer. I used the Oxford quote as being more prosaic. It is not an 'Harvard comma' issue.

And as I already noted, both agree with what I've been posting. So, you're just being your usual lalaland silly cow self (who, as Copper points out, apparently doesn't know how to use semicolons either).