apostrophes

stevebrassett said:
GPSs seems fine to me.

Fewer is generally used with discrete numbers - e.g. There are fewer lorries than cars on the road.

Less is used more with non-discrete amounts - e.g. there is less sugar in a cake than flour.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely with your English. The problem is that quantum physics teaches us that there are actually no non-discrete amounts of either matter or energy. (If you know of something non abstract that is neither matter nor energy there are some gentlemen in CERN who would be interested!)

So logically, "less" can only apply to abstract things and "fewer" must apply to all real quantities.
Trying this out in my head though, i think i will stick with conventional usage according to the "logical" rules you quoted.
 
John the kiwi said:
I agree absolutely with your English. The problem is that quantum physics teaches us that there are actually no non-discrete amounts of either matter or energy. (If you know of something non abstract that is neither matter nor energy there are some gentlemen in CERN who would be interested!)

So logically, "less" can only apply to abstract things and "fewer" must apply to all real quantities.
Trying this out in my head though, i think i will stick with conventional usage according to the "logical" rules you quoted.
Click to expand...

I don't think the rules of English developed within an awareness of 20th century quantum physics.
It would however be reasonable to say if the subject could be counted one should say would be fewer, if it has to be measured one should say less.
It is unreasonable for the discoveries of CERN et al to influence grammar.
 
chewi said:
I don't think the rules of English developed within an awareness of 20th century quantum physics.
It would however be reasonable to say if the subject could be counted one should say would be fewer, if it has to be measured one should say less.
It is unreasonable for the discoveries of CERN et al to influence grammar.
Click to expand...

As said, I do plan to stick with the rule as you describe it, but my point was that every"thing" that can be measured can be counted if you have a sufficiently fine instrument.
This does kind of mess with the rule and make it somewhat subject to interpretation.
Should we call for less immigration or fewer immigration? Immigration does come in discrete packets of one person and can be counted as opposed to measured after all.
 
My English teacher gave me a good way of remembering the difference between "less" and "fewer".
1. A journalist has been writing contentious articles, and the editor wishes him to reduce the vehemence of his output. The instruction would be: "Jones, please write less inflammatory articles" (implied: "you can write the same number of articles, but in a less aggressive style").
2. The journalist has been writing contentious articles, and the editor, this time, has no objection to the content, but with the frequency with which the articles are submitted. In this case, the instruction would be: "Jones, please write fewer inflammatory articles"
The difference is that in the first case "less" refers to the standard of the articles, (the "inflammatori-ness", if there is such a word), which cannot be counted in numbers, whereas in the second case "fewer" refers to the quantity of the articles, which can be counted.
So, to reply to the previous post, "less" for "immigration" in general, "fewer" for "immigrants" - I suggest.

As regards the plural of GPS, I've only got one GPS on my boat, so I don't have to consider how to write more than one!

Cheers.
 
Welcome to the forum Andrew, to maintain the quality of the forums (fora) the more McEwens the better!

It is often said that a McEwen's input is always of the highest quality. Only by me admittedly.
 
John the kiwi said:
As said, I do plan to stick with the rule as you describe it, but my point was that every"thing" that can be measured can be counted if you have a sufficiently fine instrument.
This does kind of mess with the rule and make it somewhat subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Firstly this is purely within the realm of grammar. "fewer" applies to count nouns, "less" applies to singular nouns. Physics has nothing to do with it: "Less" or "fewer" applies to the grammatical properties of a noun and not physical properties of anything.

More interestingly though, let's take what I will call Seajet's paradox of the Anderson 22.

We take as an initial stance that an A22 takes 12 hours to cover the distance from Cherbourg to Salcombe. With time as a continuous concept, it would be impossible for a cruising couple of fast track yachtmasters in a 40' starter boat to cover that distance in less time. It would be grammatically impossible for them to cover the distance in "fewer" time.

Now imagine that time is composed of discrete units. At any one point in time the A22 and 40' starter boats are frozen. Thus at all the points of time throughout the passage the speed of either boat is 0. So even if time is seen as a measurable set of discrete units, it is still impossible for the 40' starter boat couple to cover any distance in "fewer" time than an A22 (because they both have equal speed, ie 0, throughout the passage)

Which I think proves what Seajet has been saying all along.

(Edit: Oh, and it's a paradox because in the latter case the A22 never gets to salcombe, which clearly it did. I'm assured this applies equally, or even better, in Greek waters)
 
Last edited:
Andrew_McEwen said:
As regards the plural of GPS, I've only got one GPS on my boat, so I don't have to consider how to write more than one!

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Really? That surprises me. The other day I was idly counting the number of GPS receivers on board:

chart plotter
main GPS
GPS dongle for VHF
GPS dongle for PC
ipad
3 mobile phones
Garmin "runner's watch"

9 GPSsss
 
Last edited:
Amulet said:
Yes if you are speaking Latin, but we're not. I have found English dictionaries which allow "fora" as a plural but never one that prefers it over "forums". By the way - would you correct the "which" in my previous sentence to "that"? Most editors would I think. I can't work out whether this is a Scottish construction in my language or whether I'm just wrong, but things I write always come back from editors with most of the whiches turned to thats.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything that I thought should be corrected.
 
laika said:
I disagree. Firstly this is purely within the realm of grammar. "fewer" applies to count nouns, "less" applies to singular nouns. Physics has nothing to do with it: "Less" or "fewer" applies to the grammatical properties of a noun and not physical properties of anything.

More interestingly though, let's take what I will call Seajet's paradox of the Anderson 22.

We take as an initial stance that an A22 takes 12 hours to cover the distance from Cherbourg to Salcombe. With time as a continuous concept, it would be impossible for a cruising couple of fast track yachtmasters in a 40' starter boat to cover that distance in less time. It would be grammatically impossible for them to cover the distance in "fewer" time.

Now imagine that time is composed of discrete units. At any one point in time the A22 and 40' starter boats are frozen. Thus at all the points of time throughout the passage the speed of either boat is 0. So even if time is seen as a measurable set of discrete units, it is still impossible for the 40' starter boat couple to cover any distance in "fewer" time than an A22 (because they both have equal speed, ie 0, throughout the passage)

Which I think proves what Seajet has been saying all along.

(Edit: Oh, and it's a paradox because in the latter case the A22 never gets to salcombe, which clearly it did. I'm assured this applies equally, or even better, in Greek waters)
Click to expand...

But time isn't countable any more than distance or weight. We tend to make it countable by referring to units - Seajet made the crossing in 12 hours; the larger boat completed the journey in fewer hours - sounds a bit clumsy, but is grammatically correct.
 
Assuming the universe is infinite, there's probably an English Usage forum somewhere where the longest thread of the week is a discussion of the heavy weather capabilities of the Anderson 22.
 
lpdsn said:
Assuming the universe is infinite, there's probably an English Usage forum somewhere where the longest thread of the week is a discussion of the heavy weather capabilities of the Anderson 22.
Click to expand...

I hope you noted my brave attempt to bring the thread to a boat-related theme.
 
Just read this thread with interest particularly having seen the reference early on to Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gowers. It brought back memories of my first day at work in 1974 when the training partner gave me this and told me to read it. It was very good advice and should be compulsory reading for anyone who uses words as the tools of their trade.
 
Apostrophes don't matter, some say. Insisting on their correct usage is "pedantic". (tip . look up pedantic in a dictionary. being correct is NOT pedantic)

Anyway, so you say. If I owe you £1000 I'll just pay you £10.00 and you'd be an obsessively pedantic arse for correcting my punctuation would you?

You'd sail 34.5 degrees instead of 345 would you, or vv?

Right...

It is neither impressive, clever nor cool to be incorrect (ie wrong) or sloppy, nor to defend being wrong. The glorification of mediocrity is one of the least impressive aspects of our society and wallowing in illiteracy, as a large proportion of our population does is equally so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top