Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
This morning driving to work I was listening to the local community college's radio station. At the top of the hour, Headline News from NPR came on. Something was said about the economy, and someone's sound bite was played. He was talking about disparities between economic and unemployment recovery, saying employers have been finding ways to get by with fewer resources. What he said hit one of my exposed nerve endings. His sentence ended with "making do with less employees."
Well, if the employees are capable of more than they used to, how can they be less? Less how? Less intelligent? Less skilled? Less physically fit perhaps? What?
Or perhaps he meant to say that businesses were getting by using fewer employees.
Geez. I know that language evolves. But when did words like less and greater become synonyms for fewer and more? There was a time when a news director would have scrapped a quote like that and found someone with better language skills. Are we getting sloppy, or do they really not know the difference?
Grumpy this morning in Chicago
Carla Ann
Comments
Literacy
I agree, and the media are the worst culprits. 'We've got', 'you've got', 'I've got', and other iterations, just drive me up the wall. There's a promo for a movie or show where one of the protagonists says something about the other person "... leaving the house all covered in blood." What the person meant to say was that the person was caight covered in blood and leaving the house. The person was covered in blood, not the house. Oh well. Portia
Portia
Caught!
Was what I believe you meant?
Rita
Age is an issue of mind over matter.
If you don't mind, it doesn't matter!
(Mark Twain)
LoL
Rita
Caught
Yeah, I cant tipe and i dont right very good to. ;) Portia
Portia
That Particular Usage...
...was particularly awkward. But in general, the use of "less" in place of "fewer" seems to me to go way back, here in the U.S., anyway.
One that comes to mind off the top, since you're talking about radio: the ubiquitous L&M Cigarettes slogan of the 1950s: "Less tars, More taste." Granting that using the product's initials was the point of the whole thing, it's difficult for me to imagine someone saying "fewer tars", conversationally at least, in that context.
Eric
Tar=mass noun
It should be "less tar" because tar is a mass noun (describe any amount of the object and can't be counted ,only quantified i.e. water) and not a count noun ( which can be counted i.e. bananas).
You can't say three tar/water , but you can say three bananas
This also explain why you use less instead of few for mass noun (as the only change here is in the quantity of tar and not the number of tar),for example :
"There is less water in this fountain now then twenty years ago"
versus
"There is fewer water ..." Which is a severe grammatical mistake
To sum up:
Use fewer for count nouns ("fewer benches")
Use less for mass nouns ("less water
Then vs Than
"There is less water in this fountain now THEN twenty years ago"
"There is less water in this fountain now THAN twenty years ago"
If... THEN...
Do a, THEN do b
more THAN or less THAN
You're driving me bonkers (a bar in Wisconsin).
Linda Jeffries
Too soon old, too late smart.
Linda Jeffries
Too soon old, too late smart.
In this case perhaps they were correct.
Cigarette smoke contains several different tars. Grammatically, I have always thought the phrase meant less volume or total mass of these various tars in the smoke. To say fewer tars would imply that the filtering system's ability to completely mediate some of the tars from the smoke altogether.
More to your point however, you are probably right. Radio and TV have not been good for the language, and the advertising industry is a big part of the problem. And don't get me started on rap music. Cole Porter and Ira Gershwin these kids are not!
Hugs
Carla
What sets my teeth on edge is
"One of the only".
Oxymoron alert! "Only" means singular, unique, by itself, the sole instance of, and so on. If these people intend to say "one of the few", then why can't they?
Bah. English, either side of the pond, is going to the dogs. Now get off my lawn!
Penny
Less is more
less |lɛs|
• a smaller amount of; not as much : [as adj. ] the less time spent there, the better | [as pron. ] storage is less of a problem than it used to be | ready in less than an hour.
• fewer in number : [as adj. ] short hair presented less problems than long hair | [as pron.] a population of less than 200,000.
These are modern times.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
ACK!
Another of my exposed nerves is the fact that dictionaries now seem to be reactionary rather than definitive. Perhaps that was always the case, but it seems the editors of these tomes are far less discretionary than they were. We need more cranky spinster English teachers with red pencils in our secondary schools!
How's Your Grammar? (Fine, when her arthritis ain't acting up.)
Less has pretty much always included the meaning of fewer, check Shakespeare and other writers of pre-Victorian ages. What happened was that this inconstancy annoyed 19th century types who could not stand English's messiness and tried to make things all proper and straight and formal with anti-macassars on every greasy uncle's bald head.
Those of us who grew up in the twentieth century (that's everyone here, right?) were taught by teachers who got their instruction mostly from the victims of this 19th century grammar revolution. The thing is, the revolution largely failed.
Came the counter-revolution, beginning with the sixties, really, and all those cranky spinster English teachers went up against the wall with a blindfold to wear and a red pencil to smoke.
Using less in the way that you cite pretty much puts my teeth on edge, too. But I'm not cutout to be a counter-revolutionary guerilla and so I've escaped over the river to live with the gentle bonobos. It's all about the verbs, man.
If you're going to take up railing against the dictionary, though, maybe you should apply for a curmudgeon license. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Not only ...
... is there confusion between 'less' and 'few' (and even the BBC gets it wrong sometimes) but the confusion between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' deprives the language of a useful word.
'Uninterested' - unconcerned about something
'disinterested' - not influenced by something or impartial. Note that you can be both interested in a subject whilst at the same time being 'disinterested' ie impartial.
Geoff
While I tend to prefer
While I tend to prefer "fewer" in the example you cited, "less" is just as correct, and has been used in that context for as just about as long as English has been a written language. Many of the "rules" we learn in school aren't actual rules, but reflections of the preferences of the person promulgating them. Language Log has looked at the linguistics of less vs. fewer on a number of occasions, and debunks the notion that fewer is the only correct form for countable items.
Exactly!
"Proper" language is what comes out of people's mouths, not what the English teachers say it "should" be. Or, more accurately, what is being promulgated is a specific dialect, with the stigmatization of other, legitimate variants, and, I'm embarrassed to say, given the values of inclusiveness and diversity we claim to care so much about, by extension the speakers thereof. The elitist, pretentious bias presented in these threads routinely astounds me, infuriates me, and so leads me to not comment, lest I write something that will offend someone else.
Further, the only thing "the media" are really guilty of in this is >not< the "promulgation of "bad grammar"", but rather of allowing so many more people to speak where you all can hear or read that it is almost guaranteed that someone will violate your closely-held, religiously dogmatic views of what is "good" language.
Really, people. Do any of you not ever make "mistakes" re the "rules" of language you espouse? Do you speak, or even write, "perfectly" all the time (or ever)? Do any of you ever speak or write in a mode different than the one in which you normally converse? In a different language? With members of a different culture, or even sub-culture? What good your claimed tolerance, if it doesn't extend here?
Grow up!
>.<
-Liz
Erin or Sephy, if this is too incendiary, feel free to delete it. I apologize for the offense I may give, but not for the frustration the very immature discussion of these topics by people who should know better causes me. I >did< take time, walked away to cool off, and sought second opinions before posting, but I find myself still just so upset, as usual, by the tone of threads like these, and of this one in particular, on this wonderful site dedicated to the exact opposite principles of tolerance, understanding, and diversity. I'm aware of the paradox of my own intolerance of others' intolerance, but that is a philosophical issue of an entirely different sort.
-Liz
Successor to the LToC
Formerly known as "momonoimoto"
Whether You're Right or Wrong
I love that you care so pasionately.
My sore spot is "very unique". Or maybe it's when people misuse anxious for eager.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Have you ever visited West Virginia?
Natives sometimes use the word 'onliest'. And sometimes it's worse. As in,
"I swear, that's the absolutely onliest way to get there from here."
Ironic emphasis
"Onliest" is used in Arkansas, too. It's merely an emphatic version of "only", it's part of colloquial speech and it communicates. There's no reason to sound like a text book written in 1834 during everyday exchanges. It is not ignorant or wrong, it's just a dialectal difference. And since it's built by English rules of emphatic construction, its meaning is obvious even to furriners. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
It was all neatly summed up
It was all neatly summed up by Bill Clinton in his famous or imfamous statement "it all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is". Ain't that so true? I can remember when using the word "ain't" was considered nearly the same as the end of the world as we knew. English, whether American style or Queen's English is a continually evolving, living language and no-one knows when a particular word or phrase will be added or removed from daily use. Here is a good one from Minnesota that used to drive me up the wall. I am going to (fill in the blank), do you want to go with? Go with what?
Or if you are going to the (fill in the blank), can I come with? Come with what?
And as Arty Johnson used to say on "Laugh In", Veeeeeeery Interesting. Jan
I Yust Go Nuts Thinkin' About MN Speak
Thens I start in a laughin' cuz someone from Whiz-skon-sohn opens her mouth. Paint thinner must put a damper on your vohkabullery.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
literacy in professional language speakers.
I always sends me over the edge when I hear people who are paid to speak english reduce their language skills to less than my own weak skills.
It specially bothers me when the person is writing a story (like a newspaper) because in print they had time to edit and their editor had time to edit and their proof reader/fact checker had time to critique ... and crap like this still makes it into the press.
*sigh*
Nobody.
To make it more clear instead of less
Less includes fewer, this is ancient usage in English. Is seven less than nine or is it fewer? I suppose it depends on how tight the costume is. :) Sometimes it can be more.
But this was a radio program, a sound bite of someone responding out loud to a question, I think. In formal speech, because of the Victorians, one should probably use fewer for countable quantities -- but in casual and colloquial speech, less is wrong in only a few situations. Don't use it if it sounds wrong to you, but remember, we don't wear furbelows anymore, either. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Furbelows...
Speak for yourself... I have on a skirt with a furbelow right this very minute. It's only a gathered decorative border on a skirt or dress, after all.
Here's one, and it doesn't look at all like the sort of thing Queen Victoria might have worn:
Not many people call them that these days, because literacy has gone all to hell in a handbasket, but most competent seamstresses still have the word lurking somewhere in their vocabulary.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Considering The Dismal Condition
...of the average language ability of the country as a whole, that wasn't particularly egregious. It was certainly more communicative than the word salad that passes for the profundities of Sarah Palin.
I think there are different standards in published print and in spoken language. It wasn't presented in writing, so on a pure technicality might escape the label "illiterate." Ungrammatical is another issue. Yet, if you substitute a singular noun representing the aggregate concept of multiple employees, such as "workforce", it works just fine.
Here's a spectacular example of poor literacy to be found in the sludge at the bottom of the American barrel:
http://www.therejectionist.com/2009/12/another-brief-note-on...
Wow!
There's enough excess apostrophes there for a Farmers' Market. LOL.
But to make it perfectly clear again, while there is a difference between less and fewer in formal writing, in speech, and particularly character speech in fiction, you're better served by not adhering too rigidly to the Oxfordian standard. The spoken language had different rules to the written one and making people sound alive sometimes forces you to choose which rule to adhere to.
Just as a note: I would have said "fewer employees" automatically, this rule having been pounded into me about the seventh grade. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
She had less patience...
noting that there were fewer Excedrin Sinus tablets in the bottle. I've got a migraine dear, heart, but it seems that the day's comments and such have been less stressful, giving you fewer reasons to need said Excedrin! Yes?
She was born for all the wrong reasons but grew up for all the right ones.
Possa Dio riccamente vi benedica, tutto il mio amore, Andrea
Love, Andrea Lena
10 items or less
Tesco, at least, are listening: http://tr.im/HPcr
Then again, if you think people are bad enough at literacy in their own language, just imagine the havoc when they translate into others...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7702913.stm
English: No entry for heavy goods vehicles. Residential site only.
Welsh: Nid wyf yn y swyddfa ar hyn o bryd. Anfonwch unrhyw waith i'w gyfieithu.
(I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4794753.stm
English: Cyclists dismount
Welsh: llid y bledren dymchwelyd (bladder inflammation upset)
And unsurprisingly, translations from non Latin alphabets into English often provide odd translations - there are oodles of sites detailing them (so I won't link - you can search yourselves!)
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
Proper language
That's what you get when fooling around with all those fer-rin languages. The entire world needs to be like the U.S., and speak Spanish. ;-)
No apostrophes were harmed in the writing of this message.
(I did, however, abuse a few commas and a hyphen.)
KJT
"Being a girl is wonderful and to torture someone into that would be like the exact opposite of what it's like. I don’t know how anyone could act that way." College Girl - poetheather
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Lynne Truss
Well, with all this talk of punctuation, someone had to mention either her or the panda joke...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_shoots_and_leaves
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
literacy and its death
It was killed primarily by the media, but schools had something to do with the death.Most newspapers have done away with copy editors, relying on the weak support provided by spell checks (artificial stupidity) and grammar checkers ( less than 70 % accurate) on computers. The other contributing factor is a general lack of interest among communicators
(just count the number of " you knows" in an interview)
For several years I was a member of SPELL (Society for the Preservation of the English Language and Literature), but it became another case of "preaching to the choir". The members cared, but very few other people seemed to.
Sheesh!
Talk about opening the peeve bucket!
When I want an authoritative answer to a usage question, I turn to two usage dictionaries (not ordinary dictionaries!) Meriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (2002), and Garner's Modern American English Usage (3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009). The first is descriptivist, the second prescriptivist.
On less vs fewer. MW(C)DEU spends 1 1/2 pages to point out that the "rule" originated in a clearly marked personal opinion by someone named Baker in 1770, and got elevated to the status of Holy Writ sometime later. It also points out that the OED says less was used for countables by no less august a person than King Alfred the Great, in about 888 AD.
Garner (the prescriptivist) gives the received wisdom -- fewer for count nouns, less for plurals and mass nouns, and then points out that there are lots of exceptions. He puts using less instead of fewer at language change stage 3 - lots and lots of educated people do it, so don't sweat it. Being a prescriptivist, he vastly prefers that well edited text preserve the distinction, and he blames the usual sign at checkout counters for the change: "fifteen items or less."
On disinterested vs uninterested. MW(C)DEU traces the first mention of a distinction back to 1889, and lamentations about the distinction being lost to 1950. Otherwise, it claims that the distinction is alive and well.
Garner likes the distinction (he's a traditionalist, after all) but says that the misuse of disinterested for uninterested is at language state 4: the battle is lost. Get over it.
The unfortunate fact is that language changes. I think there are more important things to get worked up over, frankly.
Xaltatun
It's all part of the insidious "dumbing down" of our language.
There are more examples of this than I could possibly list here, but I believe that it is based in laziness. It's too much trouble for some to speak correctly, so they take the "easy" way out. have always tried to be as correct, without being pedantic or stuffy about it, as clearly and competently as I know how to do, yet every day I am bombarded with lazy english. Unfortunately, I often find myself falling into "easyspeak" while conversing with others.
I've always contended that, the way one speaks, reflects directly upon their educational level. I am NOT an elitist, and yet, when I hear someone using "easyspeak" I can't help but wonder about the dumbing down of our language, and it's effect on future language usage. Will there come a time when we older folks can no longer comprehend what the kids are saying?
Well, I say: Ebonics my ASS! It's laziness!
Happy Holidays,
Catherine Linda MIchel
As a T-woman, I do have a Y chromosome... it's just in cursive, pink script.
I think it's worse than that
"I've always contended that, the way one speaks, reflects directly upon their educational level. I am NOT an elitist, and yet, when I hear someone using "easyspeak" I can't help but wonder about the dumbing down of our language, and it's effect on future language usage."
The stuff that comes out of your mouth is the same stuff you think with. If you don't have a proper vocabulary, and you sound like a country hick or a member of a street gang, then the listener automatically assumes a level of intelligence and comprehension based on what she hears. With good reason, one can't attribute it all to simple stereotyping.
If you don't know the words, you can't form the thoughts. If you're not exposed to as wide a vocabulary as possible, then you're going to be limited in how you make sense of the world. I am forever thankful that I was a voracious reader when I was a child, then again I didn't have the distraction of the idiot box (TV or PC - take your pick).
It makes me very worried for the future given the current standard of education here.
Penny - who married a librarian!
It's dead, Jim!
dnt 4gt dat d en lang S bn furthA eroded by d advent of "Txt Spk", wich S evn findin its wA N2 kid's schlwrk...
Don't forget that the English Language is being further eroded by the advent of "Text Speak", which is even finding its way into children's schoolwork.
And yes, I did resort to using an online "translator" to create the text above. I insist on using proper English in the text messages I send - even including punctuation and capitals where appropriate.
(Sorry, couldn't resist the Star Trekkin' quote in the title)
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
More on Moronic Usage
What about 'very unique'? Portia
Portia
Literacy has gone right into the dustbin...
My own preference is to discard all these modern innovations and lapses from grammatical perfection and, to start out our new policy, humbly offer an example of the sort of pristine pellucidity — from the relatively recent past — that any competent speaker of English should be able to emulate today:
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah, egsode eorlas.
Syððan ærest wearð feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad, weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah, oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra ofer hronrade hyran scolde, gomban gyldan.
þæt wæs god cyning! ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned, geong in geardum, þone god sende folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat þe hie ær drugon aldorlease lange hwile.
Him þæs liffrea, wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf; Beowulf wæs breme (blæd wide sprang), Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
Seriously, we got here for a reason: People play with language and make it fresh and new in every generation. Listen to young people, especially, if you want to know where the language is going, and admire their creativity. It was young men and women back in the time of Alfred the Great who started us on the road to where we are today, speakers of the most flexible, expressive, and powerful language in the world, whose total vocabulary is many times the size of any other living language.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
literacy
All you have to do is go on to any chat room on the internet to see how literacy has evaporated. Is there anybody out there who still knows the distinction between "there", "their", and "they're"?
Actually, it is more than a loss of literacy -- it is a loss of the ability to make fine distinctions. As has been pointed out before, what at first seems like an incorrect and sloppy formulation of a thought is. unfortunately, often a perfectly correct formulation of a sloppy thought.
Wow I'm gonna quit writing stories!
This is much more fun and I seem to have a knack for hitting people's sore spots.
We sure got a lot of mileage from my original grumpiness. And we haven't even touched on "affect" vs "effect."
Hugs
Carla Ann
"gonna" Insidious riddiculous wordism (Is that a word?)
We seem to have these correctness debates on a semiregular basis here in BC. I believe the debate is healthy, it reminds us all that language in common use is not necessarily clean or proper. There was mention of dictionaries and their inclusion of vernacular. I believe this is a necessity, as some of us OLD fogies have no idea of the meaning of some of the newly coined wordisms. (There I've used it twice now, once in pluralizes form, so that makes it an officially recognized word.) On the other hand I FIRMLY believe dictionaries NEED to be perfectly proper and correct in order to provide a reference for anyone desiring to improve their language skills. (Oh, there is no dichotomy in these two thoughts - all slang and "streetspeak" terms should be labeled as such.)
I detest the use of "gonna" and yet it is so insidious I find myself usinng it. "I'm gonna go..." in place of "I'll go..." or "I'm going..." As shown I cannot cite laziness, as the former phrase is actuall longer than either of the latter two. It is, though, a slang contraction for "going to" meaning 'will' I have yet to think of ANY sentance where the "gonna" is in any way shorter than a properly thought out contraction of 'will'. It seems the laziness is only in the thinking process. (Which SHOULD be done before the speaking or writing actually happens, as recommended by the old saw, "Start your brain and let it warm up before putting your mouth in gear."
I try very hard to improve my language - believe it or not I edit almost all out-going corresponence. Do I catch all my errors? --- Not by a long shot!!! (It's very difficult to edit one's own writing, most of us see what we THOUGHT while writing rather than what actually is written. BTW - I have found the effectiveness of self-editing to be in direct proportion to the length of the time between the writing and the editing.) But I do try.
with love,
Hope
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
I have no pretence to a higher education
having just qualified at the lowest level at grammar school.
I have encountered some horrors but, as was pointed out, English is constantly evolving. Consider the influences of the members of races who over the years have enriched our cultures, not least by the many 'foreign' words that have been introduced into English.
I recently had occasion to re-visit a city in which I grew up and spent much of my life. I listened to a group of young people and realised that I couldn't understand their conversation. Not only were they speaking much faster that I could interpret their words, but also their words, and the order in which they spoke them, sounded to me like an alien language.
I struggle with words and phrases, such as 'there', 'their' and 'they're' and 'I cannot help but...' instead of 'I cannot but...' or 'I cannot help...' and what I perceive to be the misuse thereof. 'Very unique'? Either something is unique or is not.
I have learned much from reading stories on this site, and thank those readers and editors, whose command of English is so much better than mine. I know that I have developed a greater interest in, and knowledge of, English and its usage.
I was saddened to read that one needs to know but 200 words in order to read a tabloid newspaper.
Susie
Please ignore the rant behind the curtain!
Even the Jeffersons couldn't keep up with the laundry list of terms that cause peeves among people who were taught to speak and write proper English.
Even you, Carol Ann, touched upon a peeve of mine in your original post.
To "make due" is to deliver what is expected. One must achieve (make) a parameter (the due).
To "make do" is not logically describable as it is two verbs. I suppose one could "make (it) do." That might be better said as "make it work," but that is ranging a bit far afield for an explanation if you have to change a word to make the phrase valid.
As for less and fewer, I concur that fewer sounds better, makes more sense, and would cause less confusion among our children who see and hear bad English, only to be held to the higher standard of writing book-perfect English. I would also put out there that saying "ten items or more" sounds even worse than "ten items or less," but it probably follows the practice of "hammered grammar," as I like to call it.
In mathematics, the < and > are "less than" and "greater than," respectively. We were told that these symbols pertain to numbers of finite value, but here is where hammered grammar comes into play. The sign designer has a limited space, so they use the numerals for ten, rather than spelling it out. In the mind of the sign designer, the numerals touch off that square peg which they summarily hammer into the round hole upon the face of the sign. The sign also costs less this way, as an added benefit.
Mathematical grammar meets English grammar, resulting in the crinkled noses of those of us who know better. "10 items or less (than that number)" seems to be the screwy logic behind making a verbal indication follow "less" rather than "fewer." As with using "10" in the stead of "ten", it costs less this way, as fewer characters are used. 8)
Did you also know that in the sign business, most manufacturers ascribe a different value to each letter, much like in the board game, Scrabble? The less a letter is used, the higher the production cost, since fewer of that particular letter are run. Supply and demand are the usual factors and it is a fine company indeed who offers all letters at the same cost.
Sign spelling and grammar is always looking for the cheap and easy, much like cellular phone texting. Efficiency rules over logic, every time. It is up to the individual who hopes to uphold some modicum of educational respectability to sweep such crutches of sign makers, video game chat rooms, and texting out of her or his daily dialogue.
Does anyone else cringe when someone actually says "lol" as an acronym?
Ooh, there's another peeve to blow steam over: acronyms versus initialisms.
- Eclectic Kitty
And he never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
The Fool on the Hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning 'round
- Eclectic Kitty
Oh, that magic feeling - nowhere to go.
Wow! Quite a nerve has been struck.
I agree with many of the comments here, both specifically in regards to the less/fewer issue and language usage in general. While I agree that all languages evolve with use--and we should be open to that change--there is a difference between embracing vibrant new elements in a language and simply accepting the mundane degradation that seems to occur more and more frequently these days.
Having NO standards is just as bad as having an absolutely rigid mindset closed to innovation. With a completely laissez-faire approach to language we quickly end up in a situation where it is impossible to communicate meaning between individuals.
Flair and passion in written or spoken language is laudable...when we can understand it.
SuZie
SuZie
You agree but with who? :)
I've mentioned several times on this thread that the less/fewer thing is rather wrong-headed. Less includes the meaning of fewer and always has, it's only in formal writing where you will be judged by the standards dreamed up in Victorian times that it makes a difference. Truly. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I agree that language is often abused...
I also feel that flexibility is desirable as long as meaning is not lost. As you say, less includes the meaning of fewer, but I would add that fewer does not include the meaning of less. They are not equivalent in all instances.
SuZie
SuZie
Evolution
Language is constantly in a process of evolving... even one that people 'think' is static, like English. It isn't... or we wouldn't have a way to indicate to someone that we would like them to 'text' us. Our friends and fans wouldn't have a clue how to track our progress through life (via blog, myspace, facebook, or tweets... depending on which of the last several years you're going by).
As such, we need to be reminded (some of us on a regular basis) that when we look at the younger generations and start to complain about their atrocities with the language (and probably music too); that our parents and grandparents said the same about us. Strangely enough, both language and music still manage to communicate issues to other members of the species... they just happen to be coded to be generation exclusive.
In that sense... its not that the young are doing more horrid things to them, its simply that at some point, you stopped being flexible and adapting along with it. Give yourself a sound kick and go with the flow or the next thing you know, you'll be complaining about walking up hill both going to and coming home from school... and we all know you rode the bus both ways.