Hacker News Reader

Comment by shawabawa3 | Hacker News Reader

There's no reason to use fewest instead of least here (or fewer instead of less more generally)

A few people have decided to start a strange grammatical crusade on the usage of less and fewer, despite the fact that for all recorded history with the usage of these words up and including modern day, less is used for both countable and uncountable nouns. Some people have a preference for using fewer instead but that doesn't make the usage of less incorrect

View on HN

I’d argue there could be a reason to use ‘least’ over ‘fewer’: they may be intending to emphasize the lesser impact of some changes over others, and not simply be referring to the number of changes that were made. It is possible to have a larger number of changes to a route and still end up with a lower impact to riders than another route than technically has fewer changes.

Completely agree on the language crusade, we have these fads and memes all the time where some people decide there’s only one way and try to forcefully correct others without understanding the history of these words. I have even been guilty of doing this on occasion in the past but have learned over time that language policing is almost never correct. It is not wrong to say “myriad of”. The word “literally” has been used for figurative emphasis for hundreds of years by some of our greatest writers. Responding to a ‘how are you?’ with “I’m good” or “I’m doing good” rather than “well” is not incorrect and does not communicate that you’re an angel. People, all of us I think, are just prone to getting notions about what’s right and wanting to demonstrate our found knowledge, but it’s easy to not be aware of alternatives.

I’m a descriptivist as much as the next guy, but fewer to me sounds better with countables. Like I still use things like “less cars” to sound casual but it does sound wrong to my ear.

As a descriptivist[1] I’m sure you understand that languages evolve. Just as the learn/teach distinction was made up by grammarians, so was the least/fewest one. Likewise it stuck. Most attempts at linguistic innovation fail. This one didn’t.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/descript...

> Most attempts at linguistic innovation fail. This one didn’t.

Didn't it? I've never seen a "10 items or fewer" lane at a supermarket but I sure see "10 items or less"

In terms of language I see and read daily I see less occurrences of fewer than less (In London, UK. I'm sure it varies slightly by region)

> I see fewer occurrences of fewer than less

Fixed that for you

Last time I was in a supermarket (Tesco near blackpool) I saw a sign for "5 items or fewer". I don't remember seeing an "or less" sign for a long time.

I often see "up to 10 items" which sidesteps the issue neatly.

From the point of view of a foreigner who attempts to speak correct English, this is a beautiful nightmare. Even the natives cannot agree among themselves.

Neverthefewer (/s), I try to use fewer when the items are obviously countable. But less seems to have a natural advantage of having one syllable only; people usually try to express their point as quickly as possible, and -1 syllable is better.

Hannaford supermarkets in New England has "10 items or fewer". At first it seems strange since "10 items or less" is so common.

Do you have any information on the learn/teach distinction you mention? I couldn't find anything by googling - although those are very common words. Those two words seem very distinct in my mind, so it would be interesting to learn that it didn't used to be the case.

Someone just needs to learn you some better Google skills.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14778/is-learn-t...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/teach-em-or-le...

In some languages, "learn" and "teach" are the same word.

For example in Czech, the former is in reflexive form, to "teach oneself".

  učit se (learn) and učit (teach)

And in other languages, the meaning of "teach" can be expressed using the word for "learn", by adding the learner as indirect/transitive object:

  to learn someone how to play the piano

But I don't know what the parent comment meant by this:

> the learn/teach distinction was made up by grammarians

That distinction exists in some languages, and not in others. Perhaps they mean that this difference didn't used to exist in English, but in later years grammarians popularized it..?

Looking up the etymology of "learn", I found the answer.

> Transitive use (He learned me (how) to read), now considered vulgar (except in reflexive expressions, I learn English), was acceptable from c. 1200 until early 19c.

While language can evolve, "Language Evolves" is very often just used as a blanket excuse for incorrect usage. Both can be true.

This is a disgusting perspective. The same people who champion descriptivism conveniently tend also to champion prescriptivism selectively, such as with the transexual madness over pronouns. No, I'm a prescriptivist, and I feel so strongly about it that I'd kill. Languages have rules, damn it, and damn those who disagree with this.

Tell me, do either of us see people championing this for other languages? I don't. I think, if a white man learned Chinese and butchered it, and a Chinese man corrected him, that would be fine. Why is it different for English?

Without prescriptivism, we'll see "Me love you long time" be considered to be as acceptable as "I will love you for a long time" and the very thought sickens me.

Disgusting? Get a grip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com