fewer no less

[RobMasters]

"He had managed to condense the entire saga into fewer than 500 words, no less."

Please comment.

 

[SoothingDave]

It's redundant. Stop the sentence after "words."

 

[TheParser]

Please comment.


NOT A TEACHER


(1) Personally, I like it.

(2) It means (to me) something like:

He had managed to condense the entire saga into fewer than 500 words,

believe it or not. / even though it's hard to believe./ I'm telling the

truth about his accomplishment./ Wow!

 

[RobMasters]

It's redundant. Stop the sentence after "words."

Not so. The thrust is that this is an exceptional accomplishment, as conveyed the the hugely-necessary non-redundant emphasis of "no less", without which the entire meaning would be lost.

 

[RobMasters]

Please comment.


NOT A TEACHER


(1) Personally, I like it.

(2) It means (to me) something like:

He had managed to condense the entire saga into fewer than 500 words,

believe it or not. / even though it's hard to believe./ I'm telling the

truth about his accomplishment./ Wow!

Quite so, my boy. :-D

 

[SoothingDave]

Not so. The thrust is that this is an exceptional accomplishment, as conveyed the the hugely-necessary non-redundant emphasis of "no less", without which the entire meaning would be lost.

Well, OK then. I didn't notice that you were a native speaker when I critiqued your work.

I would say "He had managed to condense the entire saga into 500 words, no less" if the point was to emphasize the feat.

 

[5jj]

Not so. The thrust is that this is an exceptional accomplishment, as conveyed by/through [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] the hugely-necessary non-redundant emphasis of "no less", without which the entire meaning would be lost.

If this was in your mind when you created the sentence, why did you ask us to comment?

 

[RobMasters]

If this was in your mind when you created the sentence, why did you ask us to comment?

Why do you assume I created it? I read this in a novel today it made me do a double-take. It just felt wrong somehow - it didn't flow and brought me (the reader) to a halt until I realised the import. I wondered how others would perceive it.

 

[Barb_D]

The problem with the sentence is that while "no less!" can be used to highlight an accomplishment, placing it directly after a numeral makes the reader feel that it relates to that number, not the task itself.

 

[SoothingDave]

The problem with the sentence is that while "no less!" can be used to highlight an accomplishment, placing it directly after a numeral makes the reader feel that it relates to that number, not the task itself.

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

 

[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.