less/fewer

[navi tasan]

Which is correct:

1-I had one bishop less than him.
2-I had one less bishop than him.

3-I had one bishop fewer than him.
4-I had one fewer bishop than him.


5-I had one less bishop.
6-I had one fewer bishop.
(The context is obviously chess and I was one bishop down.)

 

[5jj]

1-I had one bishop less than him. 2-I had one less bishop than him.

3-I had one bishop fewer than him. 4-I had one fewer bishop than him.

5-I had one less bishop. 6-I had one fewer bishop.

In 1-4, some would insist on 'he' or 'he had' rather than 'him', though 'him' is very commonly used.

There is no real difference between 1 and 2 or between 3 and 4.

5 and 6 are fine, given appropriate context.

There may be some discussion about 'less' and 'fewer' to come. I am happy with either word.

 

[navi tasan]

Thanks.

Yes I know the almost-never-respected rule about 'less' and 'fewer'. I think there are two more possibilities but I am not quite sure they work:

7-I had one bishop less.
8-I had one bishop fewer.

 

[5jj]

7-I had one bishop less.
8-I had one bishop fewer.

Fine, in my opinion.

 

[Allen165]

In 1-4, some would insist on 'he' or 'he had' rather than 'him', though 'him' is very commonly used.

There is no real difference between 1 and 2 or between 3 and 4.

5 and 6 are fine, given appropriate context.

There may be some discussion about 'less' and 'fewer' to come. I am happy with either word.

NOT A TEACHER.

Why are you happy with either word? Bishops on a chess board are obviously countable (there are two on each side), so only "fewer" should be correct.

 

[5jj]

Why are you happy with either word? Bishops on a chess board are obviously countable (there are two on each side), so only "fewer" should be correct.

I am happy because I think both forms are acceptable today.

1. For many native speakers of Br E, whether we like it or not, the less/fewer difference is dying. 'Less' is the popular choice.

2. Personally, I stick with 'fewer' when we are clearly dealing wiith plurals, as in "The Scottish church has fewer bishops than its English counterpart". I don't like "less bishops", but I recognise that I am probably in a minority.
In navi's examples, however:

1-I had one bishop less than him
2-I had one less bishop than him,

the singular for "bishop" makes the solecism (if it be one) less glaring and, in my opinion, it is acceptable.

 

[Tdol]

the almost-never-respected rule about 'less' and 'fewer'

It's hard to know where this rule will go; it's simpler with something like whom, which has simply fallen largely into disuse in many cases, though surviving after prepositions. With less/fewer there are two possibilities and some do still make a distinction, thoughit blurs a lot, but it seems unlikely that less will simply replace fewer. It's breached so frequently, that calling it a rule seems almost pointless, but the few/little distinction is in good health, so where this will end up is anyone's guess IMO.

 

[Richard1]

It's hard to know where this rule will go; it's simpler with something like whom, which has simply fallen largely into disuse in many cases, though surviving after prepositions. With less/fewer there are two possibilities and some do still make a distinction, thoughit blurs a lot, but it seems unlikely that less will simply replace fewer. It's breached so frequently, that calling it a rule seems almost pointless, but the few/little distinction is in good health, so where this will end up is anyone's guess IMO.

Ouch!

I just have to but in.

Less is for liquid, fewer is for countable items. No ifs or buts. That's it.

I'd also argue that 'some do still make a distinction'. All my contemporaries would have a blue fit at the thought of only 'some'. In my circles this is just one of those inviolable rules. Language has to change of course, that's why English is so rich, but at the same time meanings that help describe or make valid distinctions should be preserved IMO.

Maybe it's an age thing. ;-)

 

[5jj]

With less/fewer there are two possibilities and some do still make a distinction, though it blurs a lot, but it seems unlikely that less will simply replace fewer. It's breached so frequently, that calling it a rule seems almost pointless, but the few/little distinction is in good health, so where this will end up is anyone's guess IMO.

It's interesting that while 'less people' is commonly heard, 'little people isn't heard at all.

This is probably because 'little' people could suggest the idea of 'small' people, but I suspect it's largely because not many people outside the classroom use 'few' and 'little'. I might have used 'few' instead of my italicised words in the preceding sentence in more formal situations, but 'not many' is more natural in everyday speech and writing, I feel.

I often thought, when course books had units on 'little' and 'few,' that some of the example sentences sounded a little stilted to me - and I think I actually use the words more than many.

 

[5jj]

Less is for liquid, fewer is for countable items. No ifs or buts. That's it. For you - and, indeed, for me, in my own speech and writing. It's not true for a lot of people, though.

All my contemporaries would have a blue fit at the thought of only 'some'. In my circles this is just one of those inviolable rules.
It is among my older friends, but I had to explain the 'rule' to surprisingly many of the reasonably-educated native speakers who were trainees on Cert TESOL courses when I was a trainer. These trainees included my own son, who grew up in a family where the rule was observed, and went to a reasonable school and university for his first degree and MA. Nonetheless, he and many of his peers are (were, in his case) unaware that there was anything suspect about 'less people'.

I've just tried the British National Corpus. 161 citations for 'fewer people' and only 27 for 'less people' (including a couple of 'the more they... the less people will..' which don't count). This would seem to argue against me. However, I suspect that the corpus does not truly reflect the percentage of 'less people' utterances in everyday conversation.

 

[TheParser]

Which is correct:

1-I had one bishop less than him.
2-I had one less bishop than him.

3-I had one bishop fewer than him.
4-I had one fewer bishop than him.


5-I had one less bishop.
6-I had one fewer bishop.
(The context is obviously chess and I was one bishop down.)

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Mr. Tasan,


You probably already know of this, but just in case that you do not,

Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (Springfield, Massachusetts:

Merriam-Webster, 1989), page 594:

And of course [my emphasis] it ["less"] follows one:

... one less scholarship.

One less reporter.


***** NOT A TEACHER *****

 

[Barb_D]

However, I suspect that the corpus does not truly reflect the percentage of ... utterances in everyday conversation.

This is so true of so many of the "rules" that some people fight to preserve and others argue against trying to hold on to.

I'm a firm differentiator on the less/fewer front. In fact, when the local grocery store changed from the sign on the express checkout aisle from "12 items or less" to "12 items or fewer," I was very happy. However, explaining my happiness to the checkout girl was like explaining quantum physics to a six-year-old. She couldn't care less. Neither could the guy I was dating at the time, so naturally I ended it with him. Since I can't break up with the world, I will have to accept 5jj's assessment that most people don't give a rat's patooty about this any longer.

 

[5jj]

I will have to accept 5jj's assessment that most people don't give a rat's patooty about this any longer.

Wilde (or was it Shaw*) once said, "Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language".

I know how they felt. Rat's patooty! There are various things that I might have said that people don't give about this, but the murine patooty is not one of them. It sounds delightful, but is completely unknown to me.

* see: Two nations divided by a common language - WordReference Forums

 

[Barb_D]

Well, less refined ladies might say "a rat's ass" but that's... that's so vulgar! (Where, or where, is the emoticon that shows batting eyelashes?)

The other phrase I use is "I don't give a flying fish" with fish substituting for another four-letter word starting with F.


I posted the link to the article about only swearing creatively? I"m trying to remember to follow that.

Oh my stars and garters, I need a fainting couch now! ;-)

 

[Richard1]

Wilde (or was it Shaw*) once said, "Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language".

I know how they felt. Rat's patooty! There are various things that I might have said that people don't give about this, but the murine patooty is not one of them. It sounds delightful, but is completely unknown to me.

* see: Two nations divided by a common language - WordReference Forums

I totally agree. It was such a delightful turn of phrase and brought a smile to my face. As indeed did the throway line of Barb's about kicking into touch the guy she was dating at the time. I trust that even if true that was said with tongue in cheek.

Isn't this a wonderful forum. (Which is a rhetorical Q.)

 

[Barb_D]

Well, I didn't actually end it BECAUSE of his lack of awe over a grammatical improvement, but it did end soon after! Perhaps it was a subliminal contributing factor. (A bigger issue was the fact that he continually referred to my children as "the wee ones" as if they didn't have names and weren't distinct individuals.)

 

[Richard1]

'Wee ones'. Was he Scottish by any chance?

 

[Barb_D]

No! If he had been, the accent might have bought him some more time. It was just condescending.

Dating advice to men seeing women who have children: Her children are the most important people in the world to her. Acknowledge that they are human beings and do not say stupid things that depersonalize them.

Geez, we've gotten far off-base here! Sorry.

He should have said that LESS often or made that comment FEWER times.

There!

 

[5jj]

Geez, we've gotten far off-base here! Sorry.

No problem, m'dear. Women tend to get a little emotional about this sort of thing.


;-)

 

[navi tasan]

Now you don't have to apologize at all Barb-d. That is good advice!

How did TheParser figure out I was a guy?
Why did I always think Barb-d was a guy?

What is wrong with:

I had one bishop fewer.
("than him" being implied)

What does "kicking into touch" mean? Kicking out of the pitch? Is this a soccer expression?