[Big Mac]

I know, this is nit-picky, but it's a pet peeve of mine. In the new MBP 17" battery video (sorry, link not direct but easy enough to find at the bottom of the page), you'll be greeted with a classic grammatical error made by Dan Riccio, Apple Vice President of Product Design, found around the last minute of the video. For some fun, I won't say what it is until some people watch it for themselves, but if this thread doesn't go anywhere I'll point out the mistake and grouse about why it bothers me so much.

[TETENAL]

If it's less instead of fewer, then I don't see what the big deal is.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, that's it. I guess my irritation comes from being trained by my mother as a child to be sensitive to it.

[11011001]

Their were a lot less then 3 awkward sentences in the video. I feel like wasted my time.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by 11011001 

Their were a lot less then 3 awkward sentences in the video. I feel like wasted my time.

I hope you were just trying to be ironic, although deliberately poor grammar and spelling isn't really any better than accidental mistakes.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I hope you were just trying to be ironic, although deliberately poor grammar and spelling isn't really any better than accidental mistakes.

If I were too subtle, would people have recognized the irony? Perhaps it was too much. Death to grammar.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

deliberately poor grammar and spelling isn't really any better than accidental mistakes.

That's a matter of opinion.

[brassplayersrock²]

welcome back dakar, long time no see. *looks around for annoying tween posters and doesn't see them* hmm

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

welcome back dakar, long time no see. [COLOR="White"]*looks around for annoying tween posters and doesn't see them* hmm[/]

Yeah, he hasn't been in the Lounge since...like...yesterday.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah, he hasn't been in the Lounge since...like...yesterday.

But for a while, he was busy being Carla V, no ?

-t

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But for a while, he was busy being Carla V, no ?

-t

Yeah, that must be time consuming

[hyteckit]

Think Different™

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, that's it. I guess my irritation comes from being trained by my mother as a child to be sensitive to it.

They’d have to rewrite the entire phrase, though, since substituting ‘fewer’ for ‘less’ would make a sentence that’s not only grammatically incorrect, but also nonsense (“a lot fewer batteries”?!).

Also, if we’re picking nits about this video (and I’m assuming here that what these people are saying is scripted, not ad libbed), that odd sentence fragment thing in one of the very first lines in the video grates me a lot more. As well as the fact that Guy #3 doesn’t seem to have a name, which is just weird.

[hyteckit]

I wish there are/was/were a lot less fewer things to worry about.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

They’d have to rewrite the entire phrase, though, since substituting ‘fewer’ for ‘less’ would make a sentence that’s not only grammatically incorrect, but also nonsense (“a lot fewer batteries”?!).

Changing it from "That means less batteries in the landfill" to "That means fewer batteries in the landfill" would be so hard?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Changing it from "That means less batteries in the landfill" to "That means fewer batteries in the landfill" would be so hard?

Not at all. Recasting one phrase is hardly a lot of work for a copywriter. Just saying is all.

(I think it would be much harder to get the copywriter to agree to a rephrasing that got rid of an intensifier—now that might be hard work!)

[hyteckit]

We don't want to get the copywriter team and legal team involved.

[turtle777]

This can't be a mistake.

Steve would have never allowed this mistake to happen. It must be correct.

-t

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Think Different™

Damn, beat me to it.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I hope you were just trying to be ironic, although deliberately poor grammar and spelling isn't really any better than accidental mistakes.

[Big Mac]

That was a typo, obviously.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Just read that in Spanish-English. When you fully translate to english you can see that she really meant to say was: There are guys and I need some help.
She actually knew what she was doing, and you guys thought that was a typo
Don't worry Shifuimam we will help you and your situation with guys, you can tell us directly..... no need for subliminal messages

Just Kidding

[hyteckit]

Straight guys say: Hey
Gay guys say: Hay

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Just joking man, just joking.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Straight guys say: Hey
Gay guys say: Hay

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Just joking man, just joking.

Streyt guys?

[Laminar]

And gay horses say

[slugslugslug]

There's nothing wrong with using "less" and "fewer" interchangeably. Ask a linguist.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

There's nothing wrong with using "less" and "fewer" interchangeably. Ask a linguist.

Sorry, but that’s not really true. If we’re talking prescriptive grammar here (which we are, since descriptive grammar doesn’t really deal with notions of what’s ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’), then there’s no doubt that ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ are not interchangeable.

From a descriptive point of view, it’s a distinction that is disappearing, since more and more people fail to make it; but prescriptively speaking, it still exists and should be honoured in careful language usage.

(It’s a strange distinction, anyway. Why distinguish ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ if you don’t distinguish ‘more’ and, well, ‘more’? The Romance languages don’t make the distinction at all, while [all? I think?] the other Germanic languages distinguish in both directions, not only one. As usual, English is the odd one out.)

[slugslugslug]

Okay, I know you're a linguist, so maybe I'm getting in over my head, but there are totally descriptive ideas of correct and incorrect. That's why y'all put asterisks in front of some utterances in your papers.

And I was under the impression (which will probably be backed up by a bit of Language Log searching) that the less/fewer distinction is one that swelled up pretty recently among self-appointed rule-makers. That is, I appreciate that there are some rules about style that make sense in careful language use (e.g. avoid ambiguity, don't use too many really long sentences and parentheticals), but I don't think this is one of them. That is, I'm sure lots of attestations of the "wrong" use can be found among people who are considered masters of English prose.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

Okay, I know you're a linguist, so maybe I'm getting in over my head, but there are totally descriptive ideas of correct and incorrect. That's why y'all put asterisks in front of some utterances in your papers.

There are descriptive ideas of correct and incorrect, yes—but they deal with more with what is generally considered to sound right to a native speaker, and what is not, rather than what a grammar book based often on snobbish influences from French or Latin says.

And I was under the impression (which will probably be backed up by a bit of Language Log searching) that the less/fewer distinction is one that swelled up pretty recently among self-appointed rule-makers. That is, I appreciate that there are some rules about style that make sense in careful language use (e.g. avoid ambiguity, don't use too many really long sentences and parentheticals), but I don't think this is one of them. That is, I'm sure lots of attestations of the "wrong" use can be found among people who are considered masters of English prose.

No, the ‘less/fewer’ distinction is an old one. Semantic-etymologically speaking (though not strictly etymologically speaking, mind), ‘less’ is the comparative form of ‘little’, whereas ‘fewer’ is (transparently enough) the comparative form of ‘few’. No one would mistake ‘little’ and ‘few’ in the positive, only in the comparative and superlative (‘least/fewest’). Part of the reason for this is perhaps that ‘little’ becomes ambiguous (or rather, it’s not really ambiguous anymore because its ‘other’ meaning takes over completely) when used as an unqualified adjective with a plural noun; viz., “he has few apples” vs. “he has little apples”. Mistaking the two would change the meaning, since the apples are now not few in number, but small in size.

Anyway, that was beside the point. The point was that historically, English has done the same as the other Germanic languages, with two separate adjectives to be fully declined: few/fewer/fewest and little/less/least. There are many instances where scholars have deemed that, since the Proper Language (Latin or, occasionally, Greek or French) did not allow this or that, thus English must also rid herself of it—the split infinitive, the dangling preposition, etc.—but this particular one is not one of them.

(Also: I shall obdurately maintain that this post is fully on topic, since it deals with both grammar and apples!)

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

It’s a strange distinction, anyway. Why distinguish ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ if you don’t distinguish ‘more’ and, well, ‘more’? The Romance languages don’t make the distinction at all, while [all? I think?] the other Germanic languages distinguish in both directions, not only one.

German doesn't make this distinction at all in either direction.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

German doesn't make this distinction at all in either direction.

Huh, right you are. Dutch also seems to have lost the distinction almost completely, upon further checking. I guess that leaves only the NW Germanic languages to still really make the distinction fully.

(In my dictionary, for both ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, it gives weniger for both, but also gives the compound form minder-, though only for ‘less’—can minder- be joined with a countable noun, too?)

[Andrew Stephens]

this thread featuring the company that gave the world the funnest iPod ever.