I would say it’s “fewer” not “less”, but every time I do, I get a lecture and downvoted.
Even though this time it’s quite clearly a case where “fewer” is the proper choice as “cop” is most definitely a countable noun (yes, I know there are exceptions, this is generally not one.)
I can’t tell if you made this example randomly, or were actually present for the last discussion of this exact same thing. Either way, it’s pretty funny. How many gallons in your average cop? They look pretty voluminous in general.
Does lol have downvoting? Because, for some weird federation thing, I can definitely downvote and see others having been downvoted if their instance allows downvotes. Here, have a downvote. :D
You can use less for countable nouns, any of them. We’ve been doing it for literally centuries. In fact, it has never been used only for uncountable nouns (unlike fewer, which has generally only been used for countable nouns). Correct language is determined by what native speakers use on purpose, not what a textbook or teacher says.
At least read the Wikipedia and the dictionary if you want to keep a strong opinion about this:
However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less. As Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.”
OK, so I’m a prescriptivist and don’t agree. As mentioned in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm? Why not spell it “definately”? It’s very common and everyone understands it.
I’m all for evolving language, but the fewer words we use, the less elegant it becomes. IMO of course.
Common usage the the norm are literally the same thing.
Prescriptivists act like ‘the norm’ is some ordained perfection and everything in their own lifetime is an aberration, but that’s just temporal exceptionalism. Do you really think you just happened to be born at a time when the people writing style guides pointed at the be all the all of the English language and all advances are just corruption?
Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm?
Yes.
Why not spell it “definately”? It’s very common and everyone understands it.
I don’t think that quite meets the threshold yet, since most people who do that would still agree that it’s not correct. However, it’s close, and I wouldn’t be against recording it as an alternative spelling.
It’s a bit tangential, but English spelling is awful anyway, it bears hardly any relationship to the pronunciation, and I think it’s great if it evolves to be a bit less unintuitive.
I suppose you probably do accept the existence of American spellings, even if you aren’t from there? So the only difference between us is time, and how many people use a variant. Everyone is a descriptivist, some people just also think they should force their opinions on others, which is wrong. ;)
it’s a joke that a lot of people copyedit or mark students’ work in red pen, a pun on the thin X line, a(n arguably risible) belief that those in a particular uniform are the only thing keeping society intact.
I would say it’s “fewer” not “less”, but every time I do, I get a lecture and downvoted.
Even though this time it’s quite clearly a case where “fewer” is the proper choice as “cop” is most definitely a countable noun (yes, I know there are exceptions, this is generally not one.)
Bring on the downvotes.
I agree with the sentiment.
Well when you have 81,000 gallons of cops you need less cops for sure. I think the sign is right.
I can’t tell if you made this example randomly, or were actually present for the last discussion of this exact same thing. Either way, it’s pretty funny. How many gallons in your average cop? They look pretty voluminous in general.
You can count numbers but they use < in maths. QED.
Oh, you mean the “fewer than” symbol? (Some people do call it that.)
You can count numbers? How many are there?
At least 7
You can’t be downvoted because this is on blåhaj.
Does lol have downvoting? Because, for some weird federation thing, I can definitely downvote and see others having been downvoted if their instance allows downvotes. Here, have a downvote. :D
You can only see downvotes from people on your instance. To get to other instances, they have to go through blahaj lemmy, and it just ignores them
Yes, lemy.lol has downvotes.
And no, I don’t see them here.
no downvotes on blahaj
Less cops --> Fewer racism
Less cops
Fewer racism
Very better society
Wow!
Hey man, do you want to be grammatically correct, or do you want to speak clearly to people who want to be a cop? Sometimes you have to make a choice.
Haha! Fair enough.
You wanted a lecture, here you go:
You can use less for countable nouns, any of them. We’ve been doing it for literally centuries. In fact, it has never been used only for uncountable nouns (unlike fewer, which has generally only been used for countable nouns). Correct language is determined by what native speakers use on purpose, not what a textbook or teacher says.
At least read the Wikipedia and the dictionary if you want to keep a strong opinion about this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
OK, so I’m a prescriptivist and don’t agree. As mentioned in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm? Why not spell it “definately”? It’s very common and everyone understands it.
I’m all for evolving language, but the fewer words we use, the less elegant it becomes. IMO of course.
Common usage the the norm are literally the same thing.
Prescriptivists act like ‘the norm’ is some ordained perfection and everything in their own lifetime is an aberration, but that’s just temporal exceptionalism. Do you really think you just happened to be born at a time when the people writing style guides pointed at the be all the all of the English language and all advances are just corruption?
Yes.
I don’t think that quite meets the threshold yet, since most people who do that would still agree that it’s not correct. However, it’s close, and I wouldn’t be against recording it as an alternative spelling.
It’s a bit tangential, but English spelling is awful anyway, it bears hardly any relationship to the pronunciation, and I think it’s great if it evolves to be a bit less unintuitive.
I suppose you probably do accept the existence of American spellings, even if you aren’t from there? So the only difference between us is time, and how many people use a variant. Everyone is a descriptivist, some people just also think they should force their opinions on others, which is wrong. ;)
Literal grammar police.
ACAB.
The thin red line
? That’s usually a reference to British soldiers especially during the musket era. What’s it mean here?
it’s a joke that a lot of people copyedit or mark students’ work in red pen, a pun on the thin X line, a(n arguably risible) belief that those in a particular uniform are the only thing keeping society intact.
The squiggly line that spell check draws
Uberunder misspelled wordsIt draws under words usually, not über them