TGM comments on What Is Signaling, Really? - Less Wrong

74 Post author: Yvain 12 July 2012 05:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (169)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Zaine 10 July 2012 09:05:34PM *  7 points [-]

I had not heard of the less versus fewer distinction mentioned above, and so checked the dictionary; here is the usage note:

Usage note
Even though less has been used before plural nouns ( less words; less men ) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns ( less sugar; less money ) and singular abstract nouns ( less honesty; less love ). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states.
Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction. When followed by than, less occurs at least as often as fewer in modifying plural nouns that are not units or groups, and the use of less in this construction is increasing in all varieties of English: less than eight million people; no less than 31 of the 50 states. When not followed by than, fewer is more frequent only in formal written English, and in this construction also the use of less is increasing: This year we have had less crimes, less accidents, and less fires than in any of the last five years.

Comment author: TGM 10 July 2012 09:41:00PM 3 points [-]

Certainly in the circles I'm from in the UK, less/fewer is very much used as a signal. I don't think I could use the 'wrong' one without getting corrected if the audience is sufficiently large.

Question: In casual conversation, does the proportion of the time I am corrected increase with the number of people as if they each corrected as iid Bernoulli random variables? (i.e. if I get corrected 1/2 of the time with one other person, then it's 3/4 of the time with 2, 7/8ths of the time with 3 etc.)

I suspect that I would be corrected more often than that model predicts in larger groups, because there are more people to signal status to.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 12 July 2012 09:44:12PM 7 points [-]

This is precisely why I don't correct people's grammar in public settings even when I might in a one-on-one conversation - I don't want to signal being pedantic.

Comment author: MTGandP 08 November 2012 05:09:45AM 1 point [-]

That's another thing. Precise grammar used to indicate education, but now it mostly signals pedantism.

I've noticed that different groups correct grammar to different degrees. Many people (e.g. almost everyone on reddit) will correct you if you mix up they're/there/their or use an apostrophe incorrectly, but not very many people will say anything if you dangle a modifier or split an infinitive. And the same people who readily correct well-known errors (they're/there/their) don't like it if you correct a more obscure error.

Comment author: PetjaY 17 October 2016 07:58:16PM 0 points [-]

There´s a difference there though. Less & fewer mean same thing, so writer using those abnormally isn´t really an error, it´s just something people don´t usually do. They´re , there, their mean different things so correcting those really makes the world better.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 18 October 2016 08:33:02AM *  1 point [-]

The rule as usually understood is that fewer relates to discrete quantities, fewer apples, and less to continuous quantities, less milk. It's possibly rather artificial, and noticeably lacking a counterpart in "more".

Comment author: graviton 17 October 2012 12:21:36AM 0 points [-]

Or inversely, they could be less likely to correct you in a larger group because they assume someone else will do it.