Less versus Fewer...Ah, the bane of EVERYONE's existence!

You hear it wrong in music, on reality TV, newscasts…worst of all, you even see the error in print!

Check out this headline: “Could Less Presidential Choices Help Voters?”

Or how about this one Nigeria: Nigeria Shut-in Crude Drops to Less Than 600000 Barrels per Day.

If these don’t sound wrong, then your ears have probably suffered permanent damage as a result of the grammatically-challenged world misusing less and fewer.

Partitive and Non-partitive Nouns

Yes, I am trying to scare you, but this is what lies behind the distinction between less and fewer. When the noun you are describing is partitive, you use fewer, while when the noun you are describing is non-partitive, you use less.

Like, okay, what the hell does that actually mean?

It’s easy: if you can count it, use fewer. If you can’t count it, use less. Things you can count: glasses of water, loaves of bread, pills, cotton balls. Things you can’t count: water, bread, medicine, cotton.

Okay, so how do I know if something is countable? Got any tricks?

The Few Trick

One easy trick is to test it out with “a few.” Fewer comes from “a few” (big surprise there). If it makes sense to say “a few” of anything, then it can be counted, because “a few” means (roughly) two or three. If saying “a few” doesn’t make sense…well, then you don’t have something you can count and you are in the less category.

Let’s try a few examples

A few…glasses of water? MAKES SENSE!
A few…water? DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

A few…pills? MAKES SENSE!
A few…medicine? DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

A few…loaves of bread? MAKES SENSE!
A few…bread? DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

Now, one could argue that “a few waters” does make sense, just like “a few cokes” makes sense. But in both of these instances you are implicitly referring to bottles or glasses of coke or water. So, the nouns are actually countable, and all is sane in the world of countable and uncountable nouns.

If you find that you can only use “some” then you are dealing with a noun that can’t be counted:

Some…water
Some…medicine
Some…bread

The Plurals Trick

Bouncing off the last trick, the noun you are modifying is probably countable if has an “s” at the end (as in, it’s plural). That’s because uncountable nouns can’t be plural – because they can’t be counted!


As soon as you figure out whether your noun is countable, you can decide whether to use less or fewer:

Countable:
“A few”
Plural
Verdict: FEWER

Uncountable:
“Some”
Not Plural
Verdict: LESS

So now let’s indict some grammar wrong-doers:

“Could Less Presidential Choices Help Voters?”

1. “A few” choices makes sense.
2. Choices is plural.
Verdict: FEWER, NOT LESS.


Now, a word to the wise: you are much less likely to make a mistake using “fewer” than using” less. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that people use “fewer” incorrectly much less frequently than they use “less” incorrectly.

Overall, you’re also likely to see “less” a lot more than “fewer.” Why’s that?

So here’s the complicated part I’ve been keeping secret: “less” is not only an adjective, but also an adverb. "Less” describes nouns as well as adjectives and other adverbs. (This kind of makes sense when you think about “less” describing uncountable nouns, but that’s another story…)

So let’s take an example: Less Motivated Ministries

So you see the word “ministries” and think: that’s definitely countable, and so the use of “less” is incorrect. Well, you are right and you are wrong. “Ministries” is countable, but that doesn’t really matter, because in this sentence, “motivated” is what’s being modified. What’s being conveyed here isn’t that there are fewer ministries that are motivated, it is that ministries are “less motivated.” Subtle, but I told this was the complicated part!

So let’s go back to our crazy headline of before: “Could Less Presidential Choices Help Voters?”

I assumed above that less was referring to “choices,” and given the content of the article, I believe that is a fair assumption. But…what if “less” is referring to “presidential” and not “choices”? Well, then in that case it certainly isn’t a grammatical error, but it does change the meaning of the question:

“Could Fewer Presidential Choices Help Voters?” In other words, will life be easier for me as a voter if I only have to pick between two candidates instead of among 10?
versus
Could Less Presidential Choices Help Voters?” So, will life be better for me as a voter if the choices I have are, well, crappy?

So, before you go handing out grammar tickets, you should be aware of what is being modified. If it’s a noun, go through the two tricks I’ve described here to figure out whether you should use fewer or less. If it's an adjective or an adverb, your job is easy: it’s always less.

Grammar Gets You a Free "Get Out of Jail" Card!

According to a story from ABC News, knowing the value of "literally" might be more valuable than a good lawyer. While other blogs lambast the liberal (my pun is intended) use of "literally," the importance of being earnestly literate was not lost on one savvy sex-offender lawyer.





Terry L. Rich was charged with violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act; sex offenders who move but fail to register in their new locales can expect a stiff 10-year prison term. While his attorney (strangely enough) remains unnamed, Rich (a seven time offender!) was released from custody and, moreover, is still not listed in the national sex offenders registry. Why? Because his smarty-pants lawyer worked some grammatical mojo, pointing out that the literal wording of the law implies that only sex offenders who moved once the law took effect were forced to register. Sex offenders who relocated before the law went into effect apparently do not have to register - so hold the "get out of jail free" pass, because they already got the "get out of sex offender registry free" pass.

The issue centers around verb tense; taught early-on in grade (some dare call it "grammar") school, verb tenses can nevertheless elude the most word-conscious of them all - that is, those who write law. While national debates about the legal meaning of "marriage" in 2004 should have tipped off lawmakers that words are worth worrying about, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act went into effect in 2006 with the word "travels" instead of "traveled" to describe sex offenders that move across state lines. Because present tense was used, the law - Unnamed Attorney successfully argued - only applies to those sex offenders who traveled while the law was in effect.

Sure, laws should be interpreted as they are written. But with sex offenders ranking among the most hot-button issues in the U.S. over the past decade or so, one wonders how our Unnamed Attorney calms his ethical qualms at having freed a sex offender that violates the spirit - if not the letter - of the law. However, lawyers don't have ethical qualms, and so the burden rests with the slack writing and proofreading in the arguably most sacred written arena. Lucky for us all, if the lawmakers can't catch a loophole, lawyers gladly will, at least for a fee. Who said good grammar never made anyone rich?

Submit This Post!

News Flash: PEOPLE STILL GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GRAMMAR!

Yes, my screaming title belies my better sense of netiquette. However, any public upheavel (however small) regarding bad grammar is welcomed, especially in a digital age in which both clever and clumsy subversions of grammar and diction are often more lauded than impeccable prose.

Lower Hudson Valley journalist Phil Reisman got nabbed by a "raft of e-mail" for an incorrect use of pronouns in the following phrase:

"By the time the illness struck my wife and I, it was a full-fledged Category 5 that brought me weeping to my knees."

As he notes, "It should haven been 'struck my wife and me.' Man, this kills me. A perfectly good line about throwing up was all but ruined by a dumb mistake. I don't know, but this could very well be a bad omen for the rest of 2008."

Well, I hate to say it, Reisman, but what kills one person might give another new faith in...well, something. Thank you, Reisman, for being the sacrificial lamb of good grammar.

Submit This Post!

A brief excursion into abbreviations...AKA, e.g., and i.e.

If you've spent time writing, you've probably figured out a simple maxim: using complicated phrasing, latin words, and cool abbreviations makes you sound smart. Unless, of course, you use them incorrectly, thereby obfuscating whatever point you are trying to get across and making you look like an ass.

E.g., aka, and i.e. are three abbreviations that are often used interchangeably - and thus incorrectly. While their meanings are similar, they are not synonyms. Let's review what these abbreviations literally stand for:


aka - short for "as known as."

e.g. - short for "exempli gratia," which literally translates to "for the sake of example."

i.e. - short for "id est," which literally translates to "that is."

AKA is used almost exclusively to denote aliases, psuedonyms, nicknames, or other monikers by which a person, event, or thing is known.

Roller derby skater Chessa Johnson, aka "Chesstosterone," punched her opponent in the face, thereby winning a trip to the penalty box.

E.G. is used to provide illustrative examples.

When you see "e.g." think "for example."

In roller derby, penalties (e.g., skating out of bounds, tripping another skater, punching a skater in the face) are categorized as major or minor.

I.E. is used to introduce new vocabulary or provide an additional explanation.

When you see "i.e." think "in short," "that is," "as in," or "in other words."

Roller derby games (i.e., bouts) are exciting, and often well-attended, events.

Moral of this Story?

Never, ever use "i.e." in place of "e.g." They mean two totally different things! If you are listing off examples, you need to use "e.g." If you are paraphrasing what you just wrote, providing new nomenclature, or providing some sort of explanation, you want to use "i.e."

Also, never, ever confuse "aka" with "e.g.," either, unless you want people really wondering what you were thinking! If you are ticking off nicknames or alternative slang for a specific person or event, then you should go with "aka;" if you are giving examples of some general phenomenon, then you need to go with "e.g."

Want to Be a President?

What is up with presidents' inability to speak cogently? Don't you have speechwriters or - perhaps - a brain? Aren't you supposed to be well-educated?

First, I thought the poor diction was just good ole Dubya's Texas ways, but I am beginning to think that part of being a president - whether that's president of a company, a country, or a university - involves speaking as cryptically, nonsensically, and ironically as possible, probably in hopes of covering one's future ass.

Or maybe not. Maybe presidents just like to screw with people, because they can. Either way, our quote of the day is by president of Indiana University, Adam W. Herbert: "The young adults of tomorrow will be citizens of the world. We need to help them prepare for that obligation."

Wait, so if you, Mr. Herbert, are talking about the "young adults of tomorrow," presumably children attend your university? Did you mean to say that "the young adults of today will be citizens of the world tomorrow"?

Sadly, Indiana University thought Herbie's insight was so great, that they plastered it all over various IU promotional materials. We hope that the IU English Department doesn't lose accreditation in the near future.