But for the sake of brevity I’ll simply say that hearing (or reading) less in cases where fewer would be more appropriate is like driving an ice pick into my brain.
Yes…both are technically correct, but I have to fight the urge to be that guy whenever I hear it.
but the argument nowadays is that common usage dictates that both are now “acceptable”, similar to how apparently “literally” now effectively means “figuratively” because everyone uses it.
Ha! How much time have you got?
Shallow and pedantic is my speciality.
But for the sake of brevity I’ll simply say that hearing (or reading) less in cases where fewer would be more appropriate is like driving an ice pick into my brain.
Yes…both are technically correct, but I have to fight the urge to be that guy whenever I hear it.
My stupid mental trick for keeping these straight: fewer potatoes means less mashed potatoes.
Less could historically be used in any case and still can today. The distinction was first suggested by a guy a couple hundred years ago.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
They’re not interchangeable. ‘Fewer’ is for countable nouns and ‘less’ is for aggregate nouns, just like ‘how many’ and ‘how much’.
E.g:
Aggregate:
“How much sand? Less sand.”
Countable:
“How many grains of sand? Fewer grains of sand.”
Oh believe me, I know. I agree.
but the argument nowadays is that common usage dictates that both are now “acceptable”, similar to how apparently “literally” now effectively means “figuratively” because everyone uses it.
Along with that, I’ll add in “number” vs “amount”:
deleted by creator