Split Thread Grammar: few v less

[Planigale]

250,000 subscribers left after Bezo's halted WaPo's endorsement of Harris. No offense, but you can suspect anything you want, but this is directly related.

He acted.
That action had a result.
That result was 250,000less; subscribers.
I'm seeing a WaPo sub is $140/yr on the cheap end, which is around $35 million/yr in lost revenue from his one action.

That's not because of (sad) print media, that's not because of standard subscriber loss, that's $35 million a year lost because Bezo's decided to be a bitch.

I was going to comment on your Amazon stuff but it's honestly not worth it to me. If you think Bezo's playing the bitch is worth it to please his shareholders and make Trump happy then you and I can just differ. That's where I'm lucky. I don't have to think about making sure my company is successful by sucking the toes of our government, and I'd rather have a few hundred million dollars vs a few billion dollars if it meant keeping some of my dignity intact.


All of this might be true, but it has nothing to do with why the 250k left in 2024. The NYT didn't have 250k cancel in 2024. On a smaller scale the LA Times also lost 18,000+ subs because of the same thing (last I saw, it might have been more). These are unforced errors. They aren't because of anything else other than the ownership of the newspaper.

[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.

 

[arthwollipot]

Good lard, he doesn't even understand the basic mechanics of the market.

This, to you, is a surprise?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

 

[psionl0]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4.

In counting, "fewer" is the correct word. But this is about grammar rather than mathematics.

 

[Darat]

It's about a totally made up rule.

 

[Planigale]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.

 

[Planigale]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.
ETA
Although mathematically they may be correct grammatically we are looking at integers, countable numbers, mathematically there are an infinite number of numbers between 3 and 4 so not countable. So mathematically 3 is less than 4; grammatically three objects are fewer than four objects.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's about a totally made up rule.

Everything in English is made up.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's about a totally made up rule.

In the end, aren't all rules made up?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I would not rely on mathematicians for an expert opinion on grammar. In fact they're probably the least reliable 'expert' opinion.
ETA
Although mathematically they may be correct grammatically we are looking at integers, countable numbers, mathematically there are an infinite number of numbers between 3 and 4 so not countable. So mathematically 3 is less than 4; grammatically three objects are fewer than four objects.

I would not rely on grammar nazis for an expert opinion on proper mathematical terminology. Especially if those grammar nazis are revealing a knowledge of mathematics that barely exceeds the MAGA level.

In what you wrote above, for example, your argument relies upon there being only one kind of number in the world. FYI, the cardinality of the set of numbers between 3 and 4 depends upon what kind of numbers we're talking about. If we're talking about integers, there are no numbers between 3 and 4. (BTW, the null set is countable.) If we're talking about rationals, there are infinitely many numbers between 3 and 4. (But that infinite set is also countable.) If we're talking about reals, there are a hell of a lot more reals between 3 and 4 than there are rationals between 3 and 4. (Because the set of real numbers that lie between 3 and 4 is uncountable.)

We use the same less-than sign (<) for all three total orderings, even though the three total orderings are distinct.

Such situations never arise in English, of course, because using the same word to mean three entirely different things would be ridiculous.


(Edited to add the parentheticals in red, just in case some grammar nazi was not aware of those facts.)

 

[DallasDad]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

3 is both less than 4 and fewer than 4. When referring to countable objects, it's fewer. When referring to magnitude, it's less. This is 5th grade grammar.

 

[dirtywick]

fewer than or equal to

 

[W.D.Clinger]

At the risk of returning to matters of greater (rather than fewer) relevance to this thread, let's go back to the original context:

250,000 subscribers left after Bezo's halted WaPo's endorsement of Harris.

Then @Planigale objected:

[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.

And @DallasDad contributed this:

3 is both less than 4 and fewer than 4. When referring to countable objects, it's fewer. When referring to magnitude, it's less. This is 5th grade grammar.

Let's see what Merriam-Webster says about this. With my highlighting:

Despite the rule, less used of things that are countable is standard in many contexts, and in fact is more likely than fewer in a few common constructions, especially ones involving distances (as in "less than three miles"), sums of money (as in "less than twenty dollars"), units of time and weight (as in "less than five years" and "less than ten ounces"), and statistical enumerations (as in "less than 50,000 people") —all things which are often thought of as amounts rather than numbers.

And so, according to Merriam-Webster, @plague311's usage was entirely correct, and @Planigale erred (which I pronounce to rhyme with "bird", because that is the preferred pronunciation according to my copy of the Second Printing of the original edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; as I understand it, the most recent edition has decided to prefer making it rhyme with "haired"; it's enough to make you doubt whether such rules were carved into sufficiently durable stone) when he/she alleged @plague311's grammar was incorrect.

Furthermore, Merriam-Webster explains that the alleged rule itself arose from treating one person's personal preference as though it were a rule of English grammar, which it most certainly was not and had not been for well over a thousand years:

This isn't an example of how modern English is going to the dogs. Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there's been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it's not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule.

I think we could do with less pedantry and fewer pretensions.

Or should I say fewer pedantry and less pretensions? After all, the word "pedantry" can refer to one or more discrete instances of pedantry and so, if that's how I'm using the word (and who can say I'm not?), @Planigale's rule would have me say "fewer pedantry". And "pretensions" can refer to a vast conceptual morass of pretensions and so, if that's how I'm using the word (and who can say I'm not?), @Planigale's rule would have me say "less pretensions".

What's important here, and relevant to this thread, is that 250,000 subscribers left after Bezos halted WaPo's endorsement of Harris. If we're going to criticize any aspect of @plague311's grammar, let's criticize his misspelling of Jeff Bezos's last name.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

Numbers when used as nouns are uncountable nouns, hence why you use less than and why they are spoken of in the third person singular.

 

[DallasDad]

At the risk of returning to matters of greater (rather than fewer) relevance to this thread, let's go back to the original context: [remainder of fewer vs less discussion snipped]

As Damon Knight once said to me after I made similar points on a different topic, "I don't care what your toy dictionary says."

Kinda sums it up. I miss Damon's wit and brevity.

 

[angrysoba]

[Pedant] Countable number = fewer; 250.000 fewer subscribers. Lesser non-countable quantity e.g. there is less support for the WaPo. [/Pedant]

ETA I also message the BBC when their journalists make this error.

This is one of those "rules" that only came into being about a couple of hundred years ago with people writing their own grammars and deciding that you can only use fewer with countable nouns despite the great mass of English speakers using "less" whenever they wanted and without being "corrected".

While it is probably useful to point this out if someone is writing an academic paper and you want the writer to have less problems with reviewer 2 if they (or should I say he, or she?) can help it, it is a completely unnecessary thing to point out in most other contexts and looks faintly obnoxious.

 

[Planigale]

This is one of those "rules" that only came into being about a couple of hundred years ago with people writing their own grammars and deciding that you can only use fewer with countable nouns despite the great mass of English speakers using "less" whenever they wanted and without being "corrected".

While it is probably useful to point this out if someone is writing an academic paper and you want the writer to have less problems with reviewer 2 if they (or should I say he, or she?) can help it, it is a completely unnecessary thing to point out in most other contexts and looks faintly obnoxious.

And dictionaries. We could advocate to free the English language; no more imposed rules on grammar or spelling that are just made up. There is a subtle difference, three potatoes will always be fewer than four. But if those four potatoes are little new potatoes and the three are big baking potatoes, the four potatoes will be less than the three when feeding the family.

It may be true if we consider the US that Spanish speakers are fewer than English speakers, but are Spanish speakers less than English speakers?

 

[Planigale]

This is one of those "rules" that only came into being about a couple of hundred years ago with people writing their own grammars and deciding that you can only use fewer with countable nouns despite the great mass of English speakers using "less" whenever they wanted and without being "corrected".

While it is probably useful to point this out if someone is writing an academic paper and you want the writer to have less problems with reviewer 2 if they (or should I say he, or she?) can help it, it is a completely unnecessary thing to point out in most other contexts and looksfaintly obnoxious.

Hence I did use the [Pedant]...[/Pedant] to indicate my failings at appropriate social niceties.

 

[angrysoba]

And dictionaries. We could advocate to free the English language; no more imposed rules on grammar or spelling that are just made up.

There are two ways to play that game. We could insist on rules that nobody follows. That would also be silly.

There is a subtle difference, three potatoes will always be fewer than four. But if those four potatoes are little new potatoes and the three are big baking potatoes, the four potatoes will be less than the three when feeding the family.

There is really no ambiguity being cleared up here.

It may be true if we consider the US that Spanish speakers are fewer than English speakers, but are Spanish speakers less than English speakers?

Let's look at this.... "Spanish speakers are fewer than English speakers." Is that a sentence? As in a sentence that anyone would ever utter outside the exercise of trying to justify pendantry?

There are fewer Spanish speakers than English speakers.
There are less Spanish speakers than English speakers.
Spanish speakers are fewer than English speakers.

I would say that the third sentence is the most unnatural, or least natural, of all of them. The second is only jarring to those who have been indoctrinated to believe it is wrong.

 

[jimbob]

I have heard professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4.

I do not recall hearing professional mathematicians say 3 is fewer than 4. It is of course possible that someone said that within my hearing and I just forgot or didn't even notice.

By and large, however, professional mathematicians say 3 is less than 4, and refer to the less than sign (<) as the less than sign, not as the fewer than sign, even in the context of discussing < as a strict total ordering on the natural numbers, integers, ordinals, or cardinals.

Which is why I laugh at your pedantry, and counter it with my own.

(ETA: added links.)

True but that is because those are not necessarily countable objects.

A 1 Farad capacitor at 1V has less charge than a 1 Farad capacitor at 2V because it has fewer charge carriers.