Grammer people why is this wrong?

[furryman]

Why is "Ten Items or Less" wrong and "Ten Items or Fewer" correct?

[Gary T]

"More" or "less" refers to an amount of a substance - "there's less water in that glass."

"More" or "fewer" refers to a quantity of things - "there are fewer ice cubes in this glass."

[Colophon]

Grammer people why is this wrong?

Because "grammar" doesn't have an "e" in it, and you're missing some punctuation. ;)

[Bosstone]

To add on to what Gary T said, if you can say "There's two <whatever>," and have it make sense, such as "There's two ice cubes," then fewer is appropriate. If it doesn't make sense, such as "There's two water," then less is appropriate.

Of course, these days the distinction is relegated to more formal contexts, with less doing double duty in informal contexts. Most people don't give a damn about grocery store signs, but you can bet it'll be noticed in a published study.

[pulykamell]

"Fewer" goes with count nouns, and "less" with non-count nouns. Well, in general. However, it seems to me that the usage "ten items or less" is probably more natural sounding than "ten items or fewer" to most people.

However, as with many grammatical issues, there is some controversy surrounding this, especially because it does sound a bit pedantic and stilted to many speakers of English.

Here's an excerpt (WARNING: PDF) (http://ldc.upenn.edu//myl/llog/MY_LessFewer.pdf) from Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage.


less/fewer Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount, among things that are measured. [...] It has only one fault -- it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer [...] [h]owever, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.

[...]

As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:

"This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better."

[...]

Baker's remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly--"I should think," "appears to me"--his own taste and preference.

[...]

How Baker's opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know.

[...]

The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great [...] [s]o essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language.

[Chefguy]

To add on to what Gary T said, if you can say "There's two <whatever>," and have it make sense, such as "There's two ice cubes," then fewer is appropriate. If it doesn't make sense, such as "There's two water," then less is appropriate.



I believe you mean "There're two ice cubes."

[Bosstone]

I believe you mean "There're two ice cubes."Well, sure, if you want to get all pedantic about it. :p

[Indistinguishable]

Of course, these days the distinction is relegated to more formal contexts, with less doing double duty in informal contexts. Most people don't give a damn about grocery store signs, but you can bet it'll be noticed in a published study.
Well, not necessarily, and if it is noticed, it won't be because it stands out as awkward to English ears, but because some people have trained themselves, for whatever silly reason, to notice such things from time to time and get irrationally upset over them.

As pulykamell's cite explains, what we have here is a feature of English that has been thoroughly ordinary for more than a millennium. About two hundred years ago, some guy came along and expressed his own idiosyncratic preferences, but this never really took on with the English speaking public at large, and thus never really became a true rule of English grammar, though it ended up being codified nonetheless in an awful lot of wrongheaded usage guides, the sort which rarely bother to take a glance at reality. (Another choice quote from the excerpt: "This approach is quite common in handbooks and schoolbooks; many pedagogues seem reluctant to share the often complicated facts about English with their students."). Basically, this is the sort of "rule" which you could never hope to learn by observation of the actual speech of English speakers and their natural linguistic judgements; it only survives vestigially, as a kind of virus, self-reproducing in ill-founded proscription-tomes, misguided admonishments, and other sources of prescriptivist propaganda, in a ritual quite detached from the realities of the language.

[Dr. Drake]

Either is correct, depending on how you imagine the rest of the phrase:

Ten items or fewer [items].
Ten items or less [than ten items].

Arguably, the former is better as the omitted portion is directly parallel to the stated portion, but since it's not a complete sentence as it stands, pick your favorite.

ETA: It occurs to me that someone may suggest that the second sentence should be "Ten items or fewer [than ten items]," but as a native speaker that sounds wrong, and I do make the less / fewer distinction in ordinary speech. I'm trying to figure out why, and the best that I can come up with is than a dependent clause fits better in the non-count category than in the count-category. Anyone have an explanation?

[Colophon]

ETA: It occurs to me that someone may suggest that the second sentence should be "Ten items or fewer [than ten items]," but as a native speaker that sounds wrong, and I do make the less / fewer distinction in ordinary speech. I'm trying to figure out why, and the best that I can come up with is than a dependent clause fits better in the non-count category than in the count-category. Anyone have an explanation?
It should definitely be "fewer than ten items". Just adding in the rest of the phrase that is understood doesn't alter the countable versus non-countable distinction.

"Ten items" is countable, so it's "fewer than ten items", simple as that.

[Rhythmdvl]

I believe you mean "There're two ice cubes."
However, note that Bosstone is located in Arizona. Between 2:45 and 2:50 (your posting times), the ice cubes melted. Therefore, there’s a puddle of water is correct.

Unless the cubes were at some distance from each other, then there’re two puddles of water on the table would be right.

Perhaps, though, the cubes weren’t actually Bosstone’s to begin with, but belonged to his friends. Then they’re rather upset that there’s nothing left of their ice cubes would be appropriate.

Except that the cubes actually belonged to a New England poet, so Thayer’s soothsayer predicted there’d be no joy in Phoenix, as Bosstone, mighty Bosstone was advancing toward the pair...


I need help.

[Indistinguishable]

ETA: It occurs to me that someone may suggest that the second sentence should be "Ten items or fewer [than ten items]," but as a native speaker that sounds wrong, and I do make the less / fewer distinction in ordinary speech. I'm trying to figure out why, and the best that I can come up with is than a dependent clause fits better in the non-count category than in the count-category. Anyone have an explanation?
There's no "dependent clause" around there; indeed, there's no clause at all. We can see this by noting that a clause contains a subject and a predicate, while "ten items or fewer [than ten items]" does not even contain a verb.
It should definitely be "fewer than ten items". Just adding in the rest of the phrase that is understood doesn't alter the countable versus non-countable distinction.

"Ten items" is countable, so it's "fewer than ten items", simple as that.

As per pulykamell's cite, "less than ten items" is perfectly grammatical as well, even though "items" is indeed countable.

[Terminus Est]

It should definitely be "fewer than ten items". Just adding in the rest of the phrase that is understood doesn't alter the countable versus non-countable distinction.

"Ten items" is countable, so it's "fewer than ten items", simple as that.
Artificial, prescriptive, pedantic nonsense up with which I shall not put.

[pulykamell]

ETA: It occurs to me that someone may suggest that the second sentence should be "Ten items or fewer [than ten items]," but as a native speaker that sounds wrong, and I do make the less / fewer distinction in ordinary speech. I'm trying to figure out why, and the best that I can come up with is than a dependent clause fits better in the non-count category than in the count-category. Anyone have an explanation?

I don't. If "ten items or fewer" sounds good to you, I don't see why "ten items or fewer than ten items" sounds wrong to you. They both sound equally pedantic, but "correct" (as defined by the count vs. non-count distinction) to me.

If you want to go the ellipses explanation for "less than," the usually argument is that it is interpreted as:

"Ten items or less [than that amount]."

"[Than ten items]" should still take "fewer" by the usual rule.

[Bosstone]

I need help.
:D

[commasense]

An aspect of "countableness" that is sometimes missed is that "fewer" is used when the things counted are objects, not continuous quantities. Hence, "I have fewer apples than Joe," but "It's less than (not fewer than) ten miles from here."

Although you can count miles, pounds, etc., when speaking of distance, weight, time, and other divisible quantities use "less" instead of "fewer."

[Manduck]

I get to be the first to point out that it's not a grammar question, it's a usage question. Either form is equally correct gramatically.

[Philster]

Think about how many of us learned math.

Five is less than 10. A < B. Etc.

It is not such a leap to go from that to "ten items or less''.

[Dr. Drake]

I feel stupid now about calling it a "dependent clause." Oh well.

I've always assumed the less / fewer thing was a distinction I made natively, but I wonder now if I didn't just learn that rule as a hypercorrection some point in childhood, and therefore don't apply it consistently.

It's painful, but I do love the way this board takes me down a peg and challenges my assumptions about what I think I know.

[bordelond]

I get to be the first to point out that it's not a grammar question, it's a usage question. Either form is equally correct gramatically.
Right on. It's a style thing.

[Chronos]

If count nouns required "fewer", as some pedants claim, then < would be called the "fewer than sign". But so long as the statement "four is less than ten" is correct, I maintain that "four items of groceries is less than ten items of groceries" is also correct, and that therefore the person in the express lane with four items may be said to have less than ten items.

[Indistinguishable]

I feel stupid now about calling it a "dependent clause." Oh well.
No worries; as you say, the great thing about this board is the way it constantly leads to learning new things.

[Bearflag70]

Someone else around here gave this example of how "less" is correct:

10 Items or less [than that amount of shopping]

[pulykamell]

Someone else around here gave this example of how "less" is correct:

10 Items or less [than that amount of shopping]

Yes. I did in post number 14. ;)

[Quercus]

Artificial, prescriptive, pedantic nonsense up with which I shall not put.Hear, hear!! <banging on tables and enthusiastic waving of cigars>

[robardin]

Well, sure, if you want to get all pedantic about it. :p
You know, I could care fewer.

[Chefguy]

You know, I could care fewer.

"Couldn't".

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Well, not necessarily, and if it is noticed, it won't be because it stands out as awkward to English ears, but because some people have trained themselves, for whatever silly reason, to notice such things from time to time and get irrationally upset over them.

I agree that in the example "10 items or less/fewer", either is perfectly correct depending on how you parse out the sentence. On the other hand, if an add for a mortgage company says they will give you a loan with "less hassles", it just sounds wrong to me. It isn't because I've been taught it, at least not that I remember, it's because it reflects the usage to which I've been exposed, in contexts where correct usage was expected.

One problem I have with with careless misuse in situations such as this, is that the effect is ultimately to combine two words, formerly understood with distinct meanings into an interchangeable pair of words that have the same meaning. Flaunt/flout, compose/comprise are additional examples of this. Losing fine and not-so-fine distinctions between word meanings is not in any way desirable.




and other sources of prescriptivist propaganda, in a ritual quite detached from the realities of the language.

How do you know it's necessarily prescriptivist propaganda? Yes, I know that somebody tried to get everybody to use it a couple of hundred years ago, but he essentially succeeded, and to many Anglophones today, the fewer/less distinction is necessary and correct. In debates over usage there are always those who assert that however people want to speak or write, is fine, but how do you decide which distinctions and rules are necessary and which ones aren't? The natural grammars of all languages have some markings that are redundant. They serve to ensure the conveyance of meaning. Does German "need" to have five different ways of saying the word the? Probably not, in some contexts; a foreign speaker of German can often still be understood if they use the wrong gender or case. But the case markings are still there. Just because sometimes, or even most times, it's possible to violate a usage rule and be understood is no reason to assume that the rule is unnecessary.

[postcards]

My easy way to remember the less/fewer argument is simple:

Fewer cookies, less pudding.

[Celyn]

Fewer pennies, less of anything. :(

[Indistinguishable]

I agree that in the example "10 items or less/fewer", either is perfectly correct depending on how you parse out the sentence. On the other hand, if an add for a mortgage company says they will give you a loan with "less hassles", it just sounds wrong to me. It isn't because I've been taught it, at least not that I remember, it's because it reflects the usage to which I've been exposed, in contexts where correct usage was expected.
My own ears are such that I generally wouldn't say "less hassles" or "fewer hassles", preferring to say "less hassle" (i.e., taking "hassle" as a non-count noun). Google seems to back this up as by far the most popular of the three. Are you sure it's not something about the word "hassle" in particular, and the ambiguity over whether to take it as a count noun or not, which is influencing your judgement here? (I.e., if an ad for a mortgage company says they will give you a loan with "less forms to fill out", will it sound just as wrong to you?)

One problem I have with with careless misuse in situations such as this, is that the effect is ultimately to combine two words, formerly understood with distinct meanings into an interchangeable pair of words that have the same meaning. Flaunt/flout, compose/comprise are additional examples of this. Losing fine and not-so-fine distinctions between word meanings is not in any way desirable.
Of course, my argument is grounded in the fact that the "distinction" being lost is not one which is or has ever been widely naturally followed, so there's not really a loss. (That having been said, there will continue to be the following distinction, either way: "fewer" cannot be used with non-countables. No one disputes this.)

How do you know it's necessarily prescriptivist propaganda? Yes, I know that somebody tried to get everybody to use it a couple of hundred years ago, but he essentially succeeded, and to many Anglophones today, the fewer/less distinction is necessary and correct.
My standard of evidence would be empirical studies of the usage of actual speakers, which, to the best of my knowledge, come nowhere near supporting modern widespread adoption of the proposed "less"/"fewer" distinction as a native English norm (certainly not on the level of "'Less' is verboten for use with countables").

In debates over usage there are always those who assert that however people want to speak or write, is fine, but how do you decide which distinctions and rules are necessary and which ones aren't?
I propose nothing but that native speakers of a language are free to employ their spoken language as naturally comes to them; rules need not be imposed extrinsically. People who have never been exposed to a whit of formal education get along speaking perfectly fine. (As for written language, there are some more rules there, it being a less natural human activity, but certainly, where the issues present overlap with those of spoken language (such as in matters of syntax, word choice, etc., as opposed to spelling or punctuation), there is no need to straitjacket it further).

The natural grammars of all languages have some markings that are redundant. They serve to ensure the conveyance of meaning. Does German "need" to have five different ways of saying the word the? Probably not, in some contexts; a foreign speaker of German can often still be understood if they use the wrong gender or case. But the case markings are still there. Just because sometimes, or even most times, it's possible to violate a usage rule and be understood is no reason to assume that the rule is unnecessary.
But I've never said the standard is "be understood". My standard is "speech in the natural manner of a native speaker is perfectly cromulent." I can easily accept that there are sentences which are readily understood and yet thoroughly ungrammatical (say, "Please, bathroom where to the can find I would like some?", whose intent is readily grasped, and yet no native speaker would ever straightforwardly utter it).

[Ponderoid]

Think about how many of us learned math.
Five is less than 10. A < B. Etc.

If count nouns required "fewer", as some pedants claim, then < would be called the "fewer than sign". But so long as the statement "four is less than ten" is correct,

"<" is called "less than" because in a mathematical context, those become real numbers, not discrete quantities. Four is less than nine point one. I suppose you could say "five is fewer than eight point seven" but that sounds very weird to me.

*** Ponder

[iturntoyou]

Well meanings get lost in time, and English changes, so I don't think one can correctly say anything is wrong.

Obviously we don't talk like we did in the 1600s or before then. But that doesn't make all our speech now wrong.

It's like the phrase "Hopefully it won't rain." That's wrong, because hope implies aspiration, and one can not aspire to making it not rain. One can say "Hopefully I'll be a good dancer," because one can aspire to become a good dancer.

Yet I don't think anyone except an linguist Nazi would say "Hopefully it won't rain" is so incorrect it shouldn't be used.

[pulykamell]

Well meanings get lost in time, and English changes, so I don't think one can correctly say anything is wrong.

Obviously we don't talk like we did in the 1600s or before then. But that doesn't make all our speech now wrong.

It's like the phrase "Hopefully it won't rain." That's wrong, because hope implies aspiration, and one can not aspire to making it not rain. One can say "Hopefully I'll be a good dancer," because one can aspire to become a good dancer.

Yet I don't think anyone except an linguist Nazi would say "Hopefully it won't rain" is so incorrect it shouldn't be used.

"Hopefully" used to be considered wrong by some (and some still consider it non-standard (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000223.htm), although I think it's standard) because they insist "hopefully" is an adverb that's supposed to modify a verb (meaning "in a hopeful manner.") They would say that the word is only used correctly in sentences like "Hopefully, he looked up at his mother." (In this case, "hopefully" modifies the verb "looked.")

I've never heard an objection to it because of hope implying aspiration, or anything like that. It's its use as a sentence adverb that some critics object to. Oddly enough, these critics don't seem to object to other sentence adverbs, like "frankly," "apparently," "certainly," or similar.

[panache45]

Think about how many of us learned math.

Five is less than 10. A < B. Etc.

It is not such a leap to go from that to "ten items or less''.
There's a difference between a number and a number of something. The number 5 is less than the number 10, but 5 apples are fewer than 10 apples.

[Myglaren]

Could the whole controversy not be circumvented bu substituting "Under" and "Over"?





Mine's the asbestos one