Cato's Grammar Grumble

[The Six]

"Less" vs. "fewer" seems rather pointless. The opposite of both is "more," so why do we suddenly need a distinction when talking about a smaller quantity?

[Florestan]

"Less" vs. "fewer" seems rather pointless. The opposite of both is "more," so why do we suddenly need a distinction when talking about a smaller quantity?

I think "less" is for non-countable nouns: less pollution and unemployment would be fine and so would be fewer taxes and politicians. 

[Karl Henning]

Andrei's post raises another good point:  there is a valuable distinction between less taxes (a lesser sum paid in tax) and fewer taxes (fewer classes of article subject to taxation).

Cracked making the point that if it's on supermarket signage, it must be okay is caveman talk.

Parenthetically: When I was a teenager (it amuses me now to recall), I read Mad magazine a great deal, and even quite a few of their trade paperback offerings.  Some of it made my eyes roll (a good deal of it, even) but some of it really tickled me mentally.  Still, overall, my impression was that it was rather roughcut.

One day, on a whim (since I had seen it so many times on the newsstand) I tried an issue of Cracked.  I could not have put this into words at the time, but once I had read Cracked, I realized just how subtle the humor was, in Mad ; )

[Karl Henning]

Cor, Mad magazine may just have been my first guilty pleasure . . . .

[Cato]

I think "less" is for non-countable nouns: less pollution and unemployment would be fine and so would be fewer taxes and politicians. 

Amen!   0:)

Andrei's post raises another good point:  there is a valuable distinction between less taxes (a lesser sum paid in tax) and fewer taxes (fewer classes of article subject to taxation).

Cracked making the point that if it's on supermarket signage, it must be okay is caveman talk.

Parenthetically: When I was a teenager (it amuses me now to recall), I read Mad magazine a great deal, and even quite a few of their trade paperback offerings.  Some of it made my eyes roll (a good deal of it, even) but some of it really tickled me mentally.  Still, overall, my impression was that it was rather roughcut.

One day, on a whim (since I had seen it so many times on the newsstand) I tried an issue of Cracked.  I could not have put this into words at the time, but once I had read Cracked, I realized just how subtle the humor was, in Mad ; )

Oh yes!  I recall seeing the first issue of Cracked and like you knew it was a pale imitation of Mad. 

Friends had to show me the occasional issue of Mad, since my mother thought it was trash: I discovered in later years that it contains a subtle support of basic morality and is therefore not as subversive as one might think.  I recall seeing criticism of tobacco use as stupid, and of the idiocies coming out of Hollywood.

[The Six]

Andrei's post raises another good point:  there is a valuable distinction between less taxes (a lesser sum paid in tax) and fewer taxes (fewer classes of article subject to taxation).

Still, there is no such distinction for "more", and we seem to manage just fine.

Mad Magazine has had some brilliant stuff in the past. I picked up some compilations of stuff from the '50s-'80s and there's really clever stuff. Cracked was just a cheap rip-off, but looking through their website, it's actually pretty good now. It's pretty much nothing but lists, but there are some authors who are decent.

[Karl Henning]

Still, there is no such distinction for "more", and we seem to manage just fine.

Well, in Russian there's one word serves for both "arm" and "hand," one word for "dove" and "pigeon," one word for "oil" and "butter."  They manage just fine, too.  Crazy of us to have six words where three will serve adequately, right?

[The Six]

I wonder how you guys manage when you want to make that countable/non-countable distinction, but are talking about "more" of something. Must be rough. 

[Karl Henning]

Mime, mostly.

[DavidW]

I liked Mad Magazine when I was a kid, I never knew about Cracked back then.

[kishnevi]

One pair of usages that often get me confused are the expressions "a couple of..." and "a few", which are often used and abused to the point of utter distortion.  One would expect "a couple of" to mean two or (reasonable amplification) three or four, and "a few" to mean more than "a couple of" but not too many more (or else one would say "a bunch", which is vague but at least suggests a sizeable number)--say, in the neighborhood of five or six,  although context may make the number larger.  But vernacular English seems to feel that "a couple" and "a few" are synonymous, and often equivalent to "a bunch".  Result is that when someone says "I'll be back in a couple of minutes"  they may mean anything from two minutes up to the rest of the day, and "It's just a few dollars more" may really mean  a hundred dollars more.....and so when I hear those phrases,  I get no real information, and am annoyed no end...

[/rant]

[eyeresist]

My own bugbear (well, one of them) is "who" vs. "that". "Who" is for people (and personified entities); "That" is for objects. I hate people that get that wrong!

Impoceros!

Inconceivable!

I wonder how you guys manage when you want to make that countable/non-countable distinction, but are talking about "more" of something. Must be rough. 

Well, yeah - why bother using words with meaning when we can just gesticulate and grunt?

[The Six]

Well, yeah - why bother using words with meaning when we can just gesticulate and grunt?

Not sure what this has to do with my point of view here, but OK.

We are headed down that road, by the way. Vocabularies aren't just shrinking, but also patience for lengthy means of communication. Shorthand isn't just for texting and message boards, anymore.

[eyeresist]

tl;dr

[Kontrapunctus]

[Karl Henning]

Saw that on fb. Borrowing Chas Schultz's classic images to call people nasty names: how classy!

[Cato]

My own bugbear (well, one of them) is "who" vs. "that". "Who" is for people (and personified entities); "That" is for objects. I hate people that get that wrong!


Well, yeah - why bother using words with meaning when we can just gesticulate and grunt?

When they are trying to sound smarter than they are, my less intelligent 6th, 7th, and 8th Graders too often choose "which" to refer to people.  One would think that it is an easy distinction to keep straight: one would be wrong!

The inarticulate nature of some of our young people, and middle-aged ones as well, with their constant: "Yeah, well, you know, it was kind of like, I don't knoooow, somethinnnnn', you know?  And so I was like, I don't knoooow, it was just...kind of ....weird...I guess."

That is an actual quote from one of 14-year old girls not long ago!  Again, she is not one of the higher wattage students, but there are a good number similar to her.

[Karl Henning]

tl;dr

I dig. (* grunt *)

[Karl Henning]

Friends had to show me the occasional issue of Mad, since my mother thought it was trash: I discovered in later years that it contains a subtle support of basic morality and is therefore not as subversive as one might think.  I recall seeing criticism of tobacco use as stupid, and of the idiocies coming out of Hollywood.

Curiously, I don't think I had paid all that much attention to (this will seem a non sequitur) Pogo, until after reading a Mad parody (not one of their more withering efforts).  Still, it's only this year that I am applying myself to reading Pogo . . . and the seed for this, I must own, was planted long decades ago by Mad.

Also: It is just possible that I should never have known the word schlemiel at all, were it not for reading it (and being sore puzzled by it) in Mad . . . .

[Cato]

Also: It is just possible that I should never have known the word schlemiel at all, were it not for reading it (and being sore puzzled by it) in Mad . . . .

Oy!  Kids these days!  I should a stood in bed!