fewer no less

[BobSmith]

Yes, that's it! To make logical/mathematical sense, it should say "500, no more."

No, saying that it was condensed means the effort was towards fewer words, therefore “no fewer” correctly limits the accomplishment. The problem is the conflation of “fewer than 500 words”, which is approximate, with “no less" which is precise; it grates the ear. Kind of like hearing, “why don’t you invite your entire friend [sic] to the party.”

[SoothingDave]

It's a poor choice of expression for amazement when used right after a numerical figure.

[BobSmith]

It's a poor choice of expression for amazement when used right after a numerical figure.

Again, no it's not, in my opinion. "He condensed the work down to 493 words, no less." reads much better with an exact numerical figure.

[Barb_D]

But Bob, the point was "no less" was being used to show excitement over the act, not to quanitfy the number of words.

If you replaced "no less" with "by Jove!" you'd have the same sentiment expressed, but no one would try to pair "by Jove" with a number.

[SoothingDave]

He condensed the work down to 493 words, no less.

Do you think "no less" is a comment on the number of words? I did originally, but for that to make sense it must be "no more."

Instead, it seems that "no less" is used as an expression to mean "can you believe it?" or something similar.

If I wrote "You must write an essay of 500 words, no less" you would (hopefully) understand that I mean that you must have 500 words as a minimum.

This literal meaning is what my mind goes to when reading this sentence. Since it was meant as an expression of wonder and not a literal limitation on the number that precedes it, I find it a poor expression to choose.

[BobSmith]

Do you think "no less" is a comment on the number of words? I did originally, but for that to make sense it must be "no more."

I stand by my comment that "no more" is incorrect. "No less", if reference to cardinality, is correct, unless you think that "no more" means "no more condensing", which to me is even more odd.

[BobSmith]

But Bob, the point was "no less" was being used to show excitement over the act, not to quanitfy the number of words.

Ah, I see now, but I still think the same sort of conflation is occurring here. "No less" can invoke cardinality (although I see now that that is not the intent), which conflicts with the ambiguity of “less than 500”. I like the “by jove” suggestion.

[SoothingDave]

I stand by my comment that "no more" is incorrect. "No less", if reference to cardinality, is correct, unless you think that "no more" means "no more condensing", which to me is even more odd.

"It was condensed to no more than 500 words."

[BobSmith]

"It was condensed to no more than 500 words."

That is not the original construct. Try this:

"He had managed to expand his vocabulary by 100 words, no more."

[SoothingDave]

The point of "fewer" is an upper limit. "No more" is also an upper limit. It was condensed to fewer than 500 words, no more.