Started by Cato, February 08, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Joe Barron on January 30, 2010, 07:40:46 PMWell, there is PDQ Bach's Erotica Variations. I'm surprised Schickele never unearthed the ms. for the Indistinguishable Symphony.
Quote from: Joe Barron on February 01, 2010, 09:04:35 AMAgain, the less-fewer distinction has always walked a fine line. We like to say the rule is "fewer" if we're talking about numbers, but of course that doesn't work if you're dealing with amounts like money or weight. "The new Chevy Malibu costs $5,000 less than the comparable Honda," is fine, for example. I would never say five thousand dollars fewer, though I would also never buy a Chevy. Now, does one recipe call for five less cups of milk than another, or five fewer? My gut says fewer, but I could go either way.
Quote from: Beethovenian on February 01, 2010, 09:16:52 AMI think they should both be "fewer". Technically.
Quote from: Joe Barron on February 01, 2010, 10:08:53 AMWell, that's the thing: technically how? Where does this "technically" come from, and is it followed in all cases? No language is 100 percent logical. Inconsistencies always creep in. And even "five dollars fewer" is technically correct, you will never hear anyone use it.
Quote from: Beethovenian on February 01, 2010, 10:10:30 AMExcept me and a few English teachers.
Quote from: Joe Barron on February 01, 2010, 10:13:38 AMWow, who wouldn't want to I'd love to be a fly on the the wall in that conversation, huh? But I definitely agree it should be "fewer commericals."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 01, 2010, 10:29:07 AMTastes great, fewer fillings
Quote from: Beethovenian on February 01, 2010, 10:14:47 AMYeah, that was bugging the hell out of me Saturday night and then my wife told me to get over it.
Quote from: Novi on February 07, 2010, 03:46:17 PM
Page created in 0.027 seconds with 22 queries.