Fewer* people. If you can count it, it’s fewer. If not, it’s less, e.g. less money, fewer dollars.
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)
Videos
14294 readers
276 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thanks Stannis
What the equivalent opposite of fewer?
manyer
More.
Language is defined by how it's used, if it's common for people to say "less" then that is correct. Trying to define the only "correct" usage counter to how people actually use the language is prescriptivism, which rarely changes how people actually speak. The only real use of prescriptivism is elitism.
You clearly understood what was said, you just wanted to announce you're "better" at English.
I would normally agree with you.
But just as it's okay for people to speak the way they want, it's also okay for people to spread language knowledge. Then let the people decide whether they want to use that knowledge or not.
It's not like OP said "it's 'fewer', you idiot!" In that case, I'd say it's elitism. Otherwise, it's just a useful lemmy comment.
Hard disagree; it's not a useful comment precisely because it's prescriptivism. It's suggesting people are incorrect because they're using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that's just not how language works.
Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The "less vs fewer" rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn't actually hold true, "less" has been used this way for far longer. It's the epitome of "I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else".
Interesting! Today I learned, then. Thanks.
Now, and this I'm going to say in a sort-of tongue-in-cheek manner, what's your opinion on the recent change of the meaning of "literally"? Because that one is definitely less (ha!) than 200 years old.
According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it's probably less than 300 years in writing? It's moot either way, if you're going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis "of or belonging to letters or writing".
I wasn't going for an ethymological argument. Plenty of examples of words whose meaning veered away from its ethymology.
But the recent popularization of literally as a synonym of figuratively, well, it literally rustles my jimmies.
yu dont even not understand how to not speak good yerself
Edit: *talk
Pretty much all dating apps are owned by Match. If that monopoly is broken, it'll be good for everyone.
Commenting to remind myself to come back to this later.
Kinda sad they didn't cover Thursday as it's got a unique feature set compared to the incumbents with most of your interaction being offline.