▲ 1220 ▼ Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone) submitted 2 years ago by Persona3Reload@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone 106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 105 points 2 years ago (4 children) Fewer. permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 42 points 2 years ago (6 children) Recently I've started to think that these and other similar battles are lost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] nova@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago (4 children) It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading "less cops" was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you're, its/it's, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 2 years ago Your write. Choose you're battle wisely permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'? It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago This one isn't even real. "Fewer" can only refer to countable things, but "less" can refer to both countable and uncountable things, and has been used that way for hundreds of years. It has never been wrong to say "less." permalink fedilink source parent [–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 years ago* They aren't "lost", because they were never yours to be "fighting" in the first place.. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago I’m a grammar loving curmudgeon. Even I check myself more often than not after I realized the kind of classist tones that come through when arguing against lexicon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Me trying to get people to say they "are doing well" not "doing good" when asked "how are you doing?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Tracy Jordan says it best in 30 Rock -"No, Superman does good. You're doing well." permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) "I'm doing goodly." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Eh, I'll take it permalink fedilink source parent [–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago What if you caught me in the middle of doing good works? permalink fedilink source parent [–] kspatlas@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Language prescriptivism is a useless endeavour, let the language evolve as it wants, I personally don't mind the use of less in this situation permalink fedilink source parent [–] casmael@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago* I actually kind of disagree in this context. Less is sharper and more readable while conveying the same meaning. The grammar books might say it’s technically incorrect, but I think it was the right word to use here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ahh, I went on a rant about this, and someone already did it for me much more concisely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, they used less words permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago It took fewer time, too. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less Essentially, fewer is normally used for discrete numbers of things (e.g. "fewer apples", "fewer boats", or "fewer cops") while less is used for amounts (e.g. "less water", "less sand", or "less money"). As noted in the above link, there are exceptions. However, the exceptions listed are all with "than" or "or" added. Specifically, it's pointing put that while "fewer items" is correct, "3 items or less" is also considered correct. In the case of the sign, it is referring to the specific number of officers in the city, so it should use "fewer". Does it matter? No, not really. Why did I bother saying anything? I got a chance to rep grammar and quote Stannis Baratheon at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago Good to know. Thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 42 points 2 years ago (6 children) Recently I've started to think that these and other similar battles are lost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] nova@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago (4 children) It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading "less cops" was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you're, its/it's, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 2 years ago Your write. Choose you're battle wisely permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'? It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago This one isn't even real. "Fewer" can only refer to countable things, but "less" can refer to both countable and uncountable things, and has been used that way for hundreds of years. It has never been wrong to say "less." permalink fedilink source parent [–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 years ago* They aren't "lost", because they were never yours to be "fighting" in the first place.. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago I’m a grammar loving curmudgeon. Even I check myself more often than not after I realized the kind of classist tones that come through when arguing against lexicon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Me trying to get people to say they "are doing well" not "doing good" when asked "how are you doing?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Tracy Jordan says it best in 30 Rock -"No, Superman does good. You're doing well." permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) "I'm doing goodly." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Eh, I'll take it permalink fedilink source parent [–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago What if you caught me in the middle of doing good works? permalink fedilink source parent [–] kspatlas@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Language prescriptivism is a useless endeavour, let the language evolve as it wants, I personally don't mind the use of less in this situation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nova@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago (4 children) It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading "less cops" was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you're, its/it's, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 2 years ago Your write. Choose you're battle wisely permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'? It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 2 years ago Your write. Choose you're battle wisely permalink fedilink source parent
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'? It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago This one isn't even real. "Fewer" can only refer to countable things, but "less" can refer to both countable and uncountable things, and has been used that way for hundreds of years. It has never been wrong to say "less." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 years ago* They aren't "lost", because they were never yours to be "fighting" in the first place.. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago I’m a grammar loving curmudgeon. Even I check myself more often than not after I realized the kind of classist tones that come through when arguing against lexicon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Me trying to get people to say they "are doing well" not "doing good" when asked "how are you doing?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Tracy Jordan says it best in 30 Rock -"No, Superman does good. You're doing well." permalink fedilink source parent [–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) "I'm doing goodly." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Eh, I'll take it permalink fedilink source parent [–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago What if you caught me in the middle of doing good works? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago Tracy Jordan says it best in 30 Rock -"No, Superman does good. You're doing well." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) "I'm doing goodly." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Eh, I'll take it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago What if you caught me in the middle of doing good works? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kspatlas@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Language prescriptivism is a useless endeavour, let the language evolve as it wants, I personally don't mind the use of less in this situation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] casmael@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago* I actually kind of disagree in this context. Less is sharper and more readable while conveying the same meaning. The grammar books might say it’s technically incorrect, but I think it was the right word to use here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ahh, I went on a rant about this, and someone already did it for me much more concisely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, they used less words permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago It took fewer time, too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, they used less words permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago It took fewer time, too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago It took fewer time, too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less Essentially, fewer is normally used for discrete numbers of things (e.g. "fewer apples", "fewer boats", or "fewer cops") while less is used for amounts (e.g. "less water", "less sand", or "less money"). As noted in the above link, there are exceptions. However, the exceptions listed are all with "than" or "or" added. Specifically, it's pointing put that while "fewer items" is correct, "3 items or less" is also considered correct. In the case of the sign, it is referring to the specific number of officers in the city, so it should use "fewer". Does it matter? No, not really. Why did I bother saying anything? I got a chance to rep grammar and quote Stannis Baratheon at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago Good to know. Thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less Essentially, fewer is normally used for discrete numbers of things (e.g. "fewer apples", "fewer boats", or "fewer cops") while less is used for amounts (e.g. "less water", "less sand", or "less money"). As noted in the above link, there are exceptions. However, the exceptions listed are all with "than" or "or" added. Specifically, it's pointing put that while "fewer items" is correct, "3 items or less" is also considered correct. In the case of the sign, it is referring to the specific number of officers in the city, so it should use "fewer". Does it matter? No, not really. Why did I bother saying anything? I got a chance to rep grammar and quote Stannis Baratheon at the same time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 2 points 2 years ago Good to know. Thanks permalink fedilink source parent