196

16476 readers

2129 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1222

Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You wanted a lecture, here you go:

You can use less for countable nouns, any of them. We've been doing it for literally centuries. In fact, it has never been used only for uncountable nouns (unlike fewer, which has generally only been used for countable nouns). Correct language is determined by what native speakers use on purpose, not what a textbook or teacher says.

At least read the Wikipedia and the dictionary if you want to keep a strong opinion about this:

However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less. As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

OK, so I'm a prescriptivist and don't agree. As mentioned in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm? Why not spell it "definately"? It's very common and everyone understands it.

I'm all for evolving language, but the fewer words we use, the less elegant it becomes. IMO of course.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Common usage the the norm are literally the same thing.

Prescriptivists act like 'the norm' is some ordained perfection and everything in their own lifetime is an aberration, but that's just temporal exceptionalism. Do you really think you just happened to be born at a time when the people writing style guides pointed at the be all the all of the English language and all advances are just corruption?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm?

Yes.

Why not spell it "definately"? It's very common and everyone understands it.

I don't think that quite meets the threshold yet, since most people who do that would still agree that it's not correct. However, it's close, and I wouldn't be against recording it as an alternative spelling.

It's a bit tangential, but English spelling is awful anyway, it bears hardly any relationship to the pronunciation, and I think it's great if it evolves to be a bit less unintuitive.

I suppose you probably do accept the existence of American spellings, even if you aren't from there? So the only difference between us is time, and how many people use a variant. Everyone is a descriptivist, some people just also think they should force their opinions on others, which is wrong. ;)