Cecil, in a fit of insanity, titled this column “Does it take less muscles to smile than it does to frown?” Now, we all know that “less” is used with mass nouns, and “fewer” with nouns referring to discrete entities. “Muscles” are discrete, so “fewer” would be correct here, not “less”. At least he said “fewer” in the text of the column.
Shame on you, Cecil, for abusing the English language so!
How we get by with “more” for both is beyond me.
I noticed this, too, but decided to give Cecil the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he is personally responsible for the wording of the headlines of the column, and you’ll note that in the text of the column he correctly uses “fewer.”
Yep. Titles you blame on the editor. Poor Ed.
Methinks he quoted the original question verbatim, and didn’t gang up on it in the text because he’s getting kind in his middle age.
I’ll bet he did quote the original question verbatim, but it doesn’t use the word “less.”
but Cecil did not object when the questioner stated that not smiling is pretty much the same as frowning.
We don’t. Properly, the pair for “fewer” is “greater.”
According to my dictionary, more is the proper comparative form of many, just as fewer is the proper comparative form of few. Greater doesn’t even make sense.
You understand, of course, that the author of the column (and of most newspaper articles, for that matter) doesn’t write the headline. I have directed my henchmen to make the necessary change.
Ahh, so this is what it takes to bring out the Perfect Master!
For anyone who might think Mr. Adams doesn’t really take these things seriously, heed ye the following from The FAQ: “Veteran Straight Dope readers may remember that a column once referred to ‘talking books for the deaf.’ Very funny. It was a new copyboy’s first day on the job. His body has never been found.”
I sure hope Unca Cece brought his his smiting stick w/ him. He promised me way back last August to do so. That was before that terrible day the ball landed foul out on the grass or somewhere it shouldn’t have been. 
Hi, UC
So rather than “Does it take fewer muscles to smile than it does to frown?” the question could have been “Does it take greater muscles to frown than it does to smile?” This is clearly horribly wrong. I think the correct pair for both “fewer” and “less” in terms of mass or count nouns is “more”.
Now, now, I’ve argued with you about this before, KellyM: “less” with count nouns is a totally valid dialectal usage, and very common.
I suppose, though, that the objection is marginally valid in that a column and its title might be presumed to be in standard English… still, though, I get a bit annoyed whenever anyone makes this particular ‘correction’.
I was all ready to jump on YOU for using “discrete” until I noticed that you actually USED IT CORRECTLY. Thank you!
I swear, if I see one more post with something like “I want to keep this relationship discrete” meaning “discreet,” I will go postal.
The whole less vs. fewer thing is a personal pet peeve. It annoys me no end. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one.
Hail Cecil!
I know we’ve had this argument before, and I still disagree with you. I don’t care how many people use “less” with discrete plurals, it’s still wrong.
Someone has to defend the English language.
Just a quick observation, not intended to contradict KellyM’s desire for accuracy in language: there are (rare but real) occasions when “less” is proper with discrete objects – when the particular category of object comes in variable sizes or weights, and what is desired to be stressed is the aggregate quantity, not the specific number of objects.
“Be sure to use at least 200 pounds of bricks; do not use less” is accurate – it does not matter whether you use 200 one-pound bricks or 20 ten-pound bricks, which is certainly fewer in quantity; what is being stressed is the minimum aggregate weight of bricks needed.