[net.misc] Making less grammatical mistakes

grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (05/11/84)

[What are you reading ME for?]

	Another common mistake on the net and in the world is
    the use of the word "less" where the word "fewer" is appropriate.
    The most recent use of it that I saw was:

	"There would be less KGB agents..."

	Anything that comes in units (KGB agents, Donny Osmond lookalikes,
    Wombats, etc.) should be modified with the word "fewer"; anything that
    comes in a mass (like Rice Pudding, Time, Thyme, and Wombat purree)
    should be modified with the word "less".  "More" is the correct 
    opposite for both words, whence the confusion.

			    No cute signoff,
						-Glenn

nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (05/14/84)

[]

			    No cute signoff,
						-Glenn

Will somebody please mail this poor, underprivileged fellow a cute signoff?
It distresses me to see such poverty :-).
-- 

                                       Ed Nather
                                       ihnp4!{ut-sally,kpno}!utastro!nather
                                       Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austin

ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/15/84)

I thought the "No cute signoff" signoff was a contradiction.

-Ron

rpw3@fortune.UUCP (05/17/84)

#R:fortune:-328100:fortune:6700037:000:240
fortune!rpw3    May 16 19:47:00 1984

Are we back to oxymorons so soon?

"No cute signoff", indeed!



Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (05/17/84)

>>		    No cute signoff,
>>					-Glenn

>Will somebody please mail this poor, underprivileged fellow a cute signoff?
>It distresses me to see such poverty :-).
>				Ed Nather
>				ihnp4!{ut-sally,kpno}!utastro!nather
>				Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austin

There is nothing better than a cute signoff saying "No cute signoff". (-: :-)
-- 
Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls

kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (05/18/84)

#R:fortune:-328100:uiucdcs:10600163:000:143
uiucdcs!kaufman    May 18 12:29:00 1984

[no cute bug eater]

I'm afraid it's time for the Crucify the Cute Signoff of the Month Contest.

                  Anonymous and proud of it.

jlw@ariel.UUCP (J.WOOD) (05/19/84)

I don't know whether this is a true grammatical error or not,
but the title of this article grates on my ear.
I have always used the rule that the word fewer should be
used in cases like this.  I always use fewer when I'm talking
or writing about countable things.  For example, "Tom has
fewer dollars in his wallet than Bill."  On the other hand,
I would use the word less for those occasions when I'm
discussing uncountable amounts, as in, "Tom has less
money than Bill."



					Joseph L. Wood, III
					AT&T Information Systems
					Laboratories, Holmdel
					(201) 834-3759
					ariel!jlw


PS

I also removed the gratuitous ' - (nf)'.

					JLW