Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

Pross

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Before you go puncturing too many shibboleths, you might want to consider that only one use of less is synonymous with fewer. There are two other adjective uses and an adverb use. You might also want to consider that the following sentences have different meanings.

1. Their troubles are fewer than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so numerous as ours."
2. Their troubles are less than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so great as ours."

Both words are from Old English and less has indeed sometimes been used as a synonym for fewer since then, so it's unlikely to suddenly stop now.

I think it's the linguist David Crystal who observes that pedants can usually invent sentences to 'prove' their point: yours could easily be rephrased to:

1. We've got more troubles than them.
2. Our troubles are greater than theirs.

I'd be interested to know if any other languages have separate words for less/fewer. I'm not against 'shades of meaning' in almost-synonymous words, but I'll stick by my assertion that the supposed less/fewer distinction in English is, like most 'table manners', sustained by those who need signifiers for superiority over those not 'in the know'. It's unnecessary.

I think you're proving rjsterry's point with those two examples. They are subtly different in meaning. You could have both more troubles and lesser troubles than the other person. Without the similar but slightly differing meanings how would you differentiate which you meant?

rjsterry

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Before you go puncturing too many shibboleths, you might want to consider that only one use of less is synonymous with fewer. There are two other adjective uses and an adverb use. You might also want to consider that the following sentences have different meanings.

1. Their troubles are fewer than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so numerous as ours."
2. Their troubles are less than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so great as ours."

Both words are from Old English and less has indeed sometimes been used as a synonym for fewer since then, so it's unlikely to suddenly stop now.

I think it's the linguist David Crystal who observes that pedants can usually invent sentences to 'prove' their point: yours could easily be rephrased to:

1. We've got more troubles than them.
2. Our troubles are greater than theirs.

I'd be interested to know if any other languages have separate words for less/fewer. I'm not against 'shades of meaning' in almost-synonymous words, but I'll stick by my assertion that the supposed less/fewer distinction in English is, like most 'table manners', sustained by those who need signifiers for superiority over those not 'in the know'. It's unnecessary.

I think you're proving rjsterry's point with those two examples. They are subtly different in meaning. You could have both more troubles and lesser troubles than the other person. Without the similar but slightly differing meanings how would you differentiate which you meant?

Precisely. BT's alternatives are both ambiguous. He's correct to state that less can in some circumstances be used in place of fewer, but fewer is more specific.

Longshot

Blimey, I wished I'd never started this.

This thread has definitely got fewer interesting over the past page or two.

slowbike

strava said:

RELATIVE EFFORT
LAST WEEK
Holding Steady
Based on your heart rate data, your training last week kept pace with your typical intensity. Way to stay consistent.

Or in other words ... get your arse in gear and pedal harder ...

TheBigBean

I think I have said the same as briantrumpet on another thread. The main trouble with the less and fewer brigade, in my opinion, is that quite often they seem to have only learnt one grammar rule. No one gets upset about who/whom.

rjsterry

Different from versus different to?

rjsterry

longshot said:

Blimey, I wished I'd never started this.

This thread has definitely got fewer interesting over the past page or two.

But how do you feel about it now? 😛

Longshot

rjsterry said:

longshot said:

Blimey, I wished I'd never started this.

This thread has definitely got fewer interesting over the past page or two.

But how do you feel about it now? 😛

Hmmm

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Before you go puncturing too many shibboleths, you might want to consider that only one use of less is synonymous with fewer. There are two other adjective uses and an adverb use. You might also want to consider that the following sentences have different meanings.

1. Their troubles are fewer than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so numerous as ours."
2. Their troubles are less than ours, meaning "Their troubles are not so great as ours."

Both words are from Old English and less has indeed sometimes been used as a synonym for fewer since then, so it's unlikely to suddenly stop now.

I think it's the linguist David Crystal who observes that pedants can usually invent sentences to 'prove' their point: yours could easily be rephrased to:

1. We've got more troubles than them.
2. Our troubles are greater than theirs.

I'd be interested to know if any other languages have separate words for less/fewer. I'm not against 'shades of meaning' in almost-synonymous words, but I'll stick by my assertion that the supposed less/fewer distinction in English is, like most 'table manners', sustained by those who need signifiers for superiority over those not 'in the know'. It's unnecessary.

I think you're proving rjsterry's point with those two examples. They are subtly different in meaning. You could have both more troubles and lesser troubles than the other person. Without the similar but slightly differing meanings how would you differentiate which you meant?

Precisely. BT's alternatives are both ambiguous. He's correct to state that less can in some circumstances be used in place of fewer, but fewer is more specific.

I can't see how 'more troubles' is ambiguous: the plural of troubles clearly implies number for the 'more'; "more trouble" would be ambiguous, for sure. "Our troubles are greater" implies the sum total is greater - no less ambiguous than "their troubles are less than ours", which again implies the sum total of trouble. I might even suggest that "their trouble is less..." might be clearer.

If anyone can demonstrate that other languages without this pointless distinction lose subtlety of meaning, I might be persuaded, or, equally, if not having two separate words for 'more' in English doesn't allow us to be precise in our utterances.

Pross

OK I'll try to illustrate the point. Let's say I've got a few troubles:

1. I haven't got any beer money for a night out with my mates on Saturday.
2. I've got an ingrowing toe nail.
3. My favourite shoes just broke.

Meanwhile my friend only has two troubles:

1. He's terminally ill.
2. His house is about to be repossessed and his family will be homeless.

He has fewer troubles (2 to my 3) but I'm sure we can agree that my troubles are less?

briantrumpet

Pross said:

OK I'll try to illustrate the point. Let's say I've got a few troubles:

1. I haven't got any beer money for a night out with my mates on Saturday.
2. I've got an ingrowing toe nail.
3. My favourite shoes just broke.

Meanwhile my friend only has two troubles:

1. He's terminally ill.
2. His house is about to be repossessed and his family will be homeless.

He has fewer troubles (2 to my 3) but I'm sure we can agree that my troubles are less?

Yes agreed. You've got more troubles, his are greater.

briantrumpet

PS @Pinno... if you think I'm grumpy, this is me having fun.

briantrumpet

https://daily.jstor.org/grammar-rule-is-probably-fake/

I think fewer/less probably perfectly qualifies for 'trivial', but I think maybe we might leave it there, as there are probably other trivial things that are more interesting for most people...

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Different from versus different to?

Or even the US "different than". Prepositions are slippery sods.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Different from versus different to?

Or even the US "different than". Prepositions are slippery sods.

😱

briantrumpet said:

https://daily.jstor.org/grammar-rule-is-probably-fake/

I think fewer/less probably perfectly qualifies for 'trivial', but I think maybe we might leave it there, as there are probably other trivial things that are more interesting for most people...

Keeping it on topic, I do actually think it is interesting that the existence of both less and fewer, and the use of less to mean fewer dates back to the earliest forms of English. The page from which I stole those two examples cited some ninth century quotations. It does also appear to be a peculiarity of English, and not shared with Dutch or German.

The history of attempts to 'tidy up' English to be more like Latin (coz everyone has wanted to think of themselves as the next Rome) and the subsequent slightly nationalistic reactions about this being un-English are also interesting bits of cultural history.

rjsterry

I'll stop now.

bompington

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Different from versus different to?

Or even the US "different than". Prepositions are slippery sods.

😱

briantrumpet said:

https://daily.jstor.org/grammar-rule-is-probably-fake/

I think fewer/less probably perfectly qualifies for 'trivial', but I think maybe we might leave it there, as there are probably other trivial things that are more interesting for most people...

Keeping it on topic, I do actually think it is interesting that the existence of both less and fewer, and the use of less to mean fewer dates back to the earliest forms of English. The page from which I stole those two examples cited some ninth century quotations. It does also appear to be a peculiarity of English, and not shared with Dutch or German.

The history of attempts to 'tidy up' English to be more like Latin (coz everyone has wanted to think of themselves as the next Rome) and the subsequent slightly nationalistic reactions about this being un-English are also interesting bits of cultural history.

I'm no expert linguist, but as I understand it English has a huge and varied vocabulary - and associated variations in grammar - because of its mongrel origins: Germanic, French, Latin via French, Latin directly, Scandinavian.
Personally I blame all those immigrants.

The bit that fascinates me is the names for meats: the animals have Anglo-Saxon* names - cow, pig, sheep, deer - but the names of the meats come from the French (i.e. Norman aristocracy): beef /boeuf, pork/porc, mutton/mouton, venison/old french word for hunting.

*Apparently it's not politically correct to call it that any more

orraloon

bompington said:

...the animals have Anglo-Saxon* names

*Apparently it's not politically correct to call it that any more

Which bit? Anglo or Saxon?

rjsterry

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Different from versus different to?

Or even the US "different than". Prepositions are slippery sods.

😱

briantrumpet said:

https://daily.jstor.org/grammar-rule-is-probably-fake/

I think fewer/less probably perfectly qualifies for 'trivial', but I think maybe we might leave it there, as there are probably other trivial things that are more interesting for most people...

Keeping it on topic, I do actually think it is interesting that the existence of both less and fewer, and the use of less to mean fewer dates back to the earliest forms of English. The page from which I stole those two examples cited some ninth century quotations. It does also appear to be a peculiarity of English, and not shared with Dutch or German.

The history of attempts to 'tidy up' English to be more like Latin (coz everyone has wanted to think of themselves as the next Rome) and the subsequent slightly nationalistic reactions about this being un-English are also interesting bits of cultural history.

I'm no expert linguist, but as I understand it English has a huge and varied vocabulary - and associated variations in grammar - because of its mongrel origins: Germanic, French, Latin via French, Latin directly, Scandinavian.
Personally I blame all those immigrants.

The bit that fascinates me is the names for meats: the animals have Anglo-Saxon* names - cow, pig, sheep, deer - but the names of the meats come from the French (i.e. Norman aristocracy): beef /boeuf, pork/porc, mutton/mouton, venison/old french word for hunting.

*Apparently it's not politically correct to call it that any more

What are we supposed to call the Anglo-saxon Chronicle then?

Favourite bits of etymology: Downs, meaning uplands or hills, from dūn meaning hill. Down, the opposite of up was originally adūne, literally off-the-hill.

Also window comes from old Norse; literally wind-eye. I love the idea that a window was for checking the weather.

surrey_commuter

I am really intrigued by the number of Cake Stoppers who refer to reading political manifestos. I have never read a manifesto, I have never seen a manifesto and have no idea where I would get one from.

rjsterry

Google it. Download it.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Google it. Download it.

but I imagine it would look like a company annual report, 100 odd pages of boring detail that would take me several hours to read. Why do that when i can read the "highlights" in a newspaper?

pblakeney

Try it and find out. It’s the only sure way as all news agencies put their spin on any report. As I’m sure you know.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

Try it and find out. It’s the only sure way as all news agencies put their spin on any report. As I’m sure you know.

OK - let me rephrase my intrigue. Are Cake Stoppers disproportionately likely to read party manifestos?

I have no interest in reading one and am shocked that you all do.

surrey_commuter

according to this survey 10% of people always read manifestos and 23% read sometimes. Amazingly the headline reads that 67% never read a manifesto.
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-research-poll-10-people-dont-know-manifesto/

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

I am really intrigued by the number of Cake Stoppers who refer to reading political manifestos. I have never read a manifesto, I have never seen a manifesto and have no idea where I would get one from.

Some people don't seem to have much on at work? (Sadly I had to read the Labour party manfesto as part of my job to warn the board about what we might expect if Comrade Corbyn gets in).

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

Try it and find out. It’s the only sure way as all news agencies put their spin on any report. As I’m sure you know.

OK - let me rephrase my intrigue. Are Cake Stoppers disproportionately likely to read party manifestos?

I have no interest in reading one and am shocked that you all do.

I’d suggest that anyone intending to vote should read the manifesto of the party getting their vote. At least.
That they don’t goes part way to explaining the mess we are in and how easily they are manipulated by social media etc.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

What are we supposed to call the Anglo-saxon Chronicle then?

Favourite bits of etymology: Downs, meaning uplands or hills, from dūn meaning hill. Down, the opposite of up was originally adūne, literally off-the-hill.

Also window comes from old Norse; literally wind-eye. I love the idea that a window was for checking the weather.

If you've not read it, you'd probably find David Crystal's book 'Spell It Out' interesting, if you're into etymology. His books on punctuation (Making A Point) and grammar (The Glamour of Grammar) are also superb and very readable.

pinno

rjsterry said:

Also window comes from old Norse; literally wind-eye. I love the idea that a window was for checking the weather.

They say that Icelandic is very close to the old Norse.
But Icelandic of window is Glugga.

Interestingly*:
Swedish: fönster
French: fenêtre
Italian: finestra

...Norwegian: Vindu.
...and Spanish is closer to 'vent'. I guess that's because they have better weather.

So, I suppose that's closer to 'Window'.

*Not everyone would think so.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

What are we supposed to call the Anglo-saxon Chronicle then?

Favourite bits of etymology: Downs, meaning uplands or hills, from dūn meaning hill. Down, the opposite of up was originally adūne, literally off-the-hill.

Also window comes from old Norse; literally wind-eye. I love the idea that a window was for checking the weather.

If you've not read it, you'd probably find David Crystal's book 'Spell It Out' interesting, if you're into etymology. His books on punctuation (Making A Point) and grammar (The Glamour of Grammar) are also superb and very readable.

Thanks I'll look out for it. Someone who has thought about it more than me said that the nice thing about our apparently idiosyncratic English spelling is that as well as giving you phonetic information about how to pronounce a word it also gives you a little bit of the history of the word.