| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Difference between 'less' and 'fewer' Thread poster: Jackie Bowman
|
|---|
| Logic, maths, and stuff | Oct 16, 2006 |
I would say that up to a point I agree with the comment in the first post, insofar as in the wider world, "less" is taking over from "fewer" in informal or perhaps more accurately, casual, usage.
I say "up to a point" since, while the trend is certainly there, I'm not sure how "acceptable" it is. The point about "less amateurs" meaning the same as "fewer amateurs" may be valid, but "I goed to the shops" means the same as "I went to the shops", so is that OK? I think perhaps not.
... See more I would say that up to a point I agree with the comment in the first post, insofar as in the wider world, "less" is taking over from "fewer" in informal or perhaps more accurately, casual, usage.
I say "up to a point" since, while the trend is certainly there, I'm not sure how "acceptable" it is. The point about "less amateurs" meaning the same as "fewer amateurs" may be valid, but "I goed to the shops" means the same as "I went to the shops", so is that OK? I think perhaps not.
More importantly, if we extend the apparent logic such that "fewer" becomes redundant, where does that leave the small but possibly important distinction in pairs such as "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" and "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks"?
My own view is that we should aim to be conservative about these matters, in purely practical terms, since no client can ever justifiably object to "fewer amateurs", whereas they can to "less amateurs" (unless, as was mentioned, it's dialogue, etc. where people do use such constructions more often).
RobinB wrote:
If a translation came across my desk for revision (and I revise a lot, upwards of a million words a year), I would certainly correct "less amateurs" to "fewer amateurs", in the same way that I'd correct "less than one translator in ten" to "fewer than one translator in ten".
This has set me thinking You appear here to be treating translators as countable units, ergo surely "fewer than one" = zero, with the translator as an indivisible unit? Is this not, then, hypercorrection? Surely the idea of fewer/less than 1 translator in ten is simply another way of saying "a figure under 10%", such as 7% or 0.7 of a translator in ten, thus the translator becomes uncountable and it should be "less than"...? Shouldn't it?
Or has my reasoning been influenced by too much study of maths in my youth? Where " ▲ Collapse
| | | | RobinB 
United States
Local time: 03:37
German to English
| Countable translators | Oct 16, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:You appear here to be treating translators as countable units
All too countable, I'm afraid. The number of really good De-En financial translators worldwide is so small, for example, that they'd all fit comfortably into my living room (the "seven sheep" rather than than "500 sheep", as the old accounting joke goes). So I wouldn't say "fewer than one in ten" here, because we'd fast be approaching negative territory
But essentially "fewer than one in ten" does indeed mean a fraction between zero and one. Would it have been clearer if I'd written "fewer than 10 in 100"?
I used to be utterly crap at maths (grade 6 at O-level 35 years ago), but funnily enough, I've become so much better at it over the past 15 years or so. Must be something to do with running a business, doing the books, billing customers and hanging out with accountants.
Robin
| | | | | I once had this "corrected" | Oct 16, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
What about "between and among"? I was always taught that between was for two and among for anything in excess of two. But who gets it right these days?
Increasingly you hear those who say: between you and I. Am I the only one who finds this shocking?
Doubtless, I shall once again be classed as a dinosaur....
I once had a perfectly acceptable "you and I" corrected. I gave a lengthy explanation back saying why "you and me" was correct, since I've had this discussion with many people who are convinced that "you and me" is ALWAYS wrong. The problem is, I remember at school the teacher telling us that we shouldn't say "Peter and me went shopping", but he didn't tell us that we shouldn't say "Peter came shopping with Jane and I", and I think a lot of other people weren't taught this either.
| | | | | I had wondered about that | Oct 16, 2006 |
RobinB wrote:
But essentially "fewer than one in ten" does indeed mean a fraction between zero and one. Would it have been clearer if I'd written "fewer than 10 in 100"?
Robin
Ah, we agree on what fewer than one in 10 is intended to mean (as I suspected we did ).
I guess my point is that "fewer", by virtue of its "countability", implies, to me, whole numbers. Therefore, fewer than 10 in 100 of to me means 1,2,3,...9, whereas less than 10 in 100 could mean 4.3245, 2.002948, etc.
Therefore, as I said, fewer than 1 (in 10, or otherwise) can only logically mean 0, because fewer => countable units, and the only unit (integer) of a value inferior to 1 is zero, whereas less than 1 (in 10, or otherwise) can mean anything between 0 [or even minus infinity, mathematically] and 0.99999 recurring.
This is, indeed, to me not far removed from my previous example of "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" versus "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks", which, as I said, represent different things.
Note the above is peppered with "to me"; I'm not sure of my ground, and it's true to say that I have much less of a problem with the very similar construction of, say, fewer than 3 in 10 translators (but that is perhaps because it allows for 1 or 2 in 10 translators so it 'makes sense').
I think it all boils down to: how do you interpret "fewer than 1"? Can it only mean zero (as I think) because of the countability => integers only aspect, or does it mean the same as "less than 1" in the mathematical sense?
| | |
|
|
|
momo savino
Switzerland
Local time: 10:37
Italian
+ ...
| difference between "between" and "among" | Oct 16, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
What about "between and among"? I was always taught that between was for two and among for anything in excess of two. But who gets it right these days?
Increasingly you hear those who say: between you and I. Am I the only one who finds this shocking?
Doubtless, I shall once again be classed as a dinosaur....
| | | | Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 11:37
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| Can native speakers be "Wrong"? | Oct 16, 2006 |
These discussions always can be reduced to the statement, that native speakers of a language define the proper use of it, not compilations of rules.
If English native people say and write less instead of fewer, what can be wrong with it? Rules must adapt, not people.
Cheers
Heinrich
| | | | | A bit off topic: language use in Proz.com forums | Oct 16, 2006 |
Hi Jackie and all,
Jackie, I am glad you started this thread, because I feel that it is indirectly (?) related to something that I have always wondered about these Proz.com forums: if we are supposed to be language experts, should we somehow reflect that in our writing when we participate in these forums?
I personally think that even if we are not native speakers of a forum's given language, we should somehow make an effort to express ourselves as accurately as possible... See more Hi Jackie and all,
Jackie, I am glad you started this thread, because I feel that it is indirectly (?) related to something that I have always wondered about these Proz.com forums: if we are supposed to be language experts, should we somehow reflect that in our writing when we participate in these forums?
I personally think that even if we are not native speakers of a forum's given language, we should somehow make an effort to express ourselves as accurately as possible when we decide to participate, including spelling and grammar, and especially when we are talking about language capabilities or linguistic issues in general.
Of course, I understand that sometimes what moves us to participate in forums is more the desire to share ideas and to just have some fun, but I think that even in these cases, the fact that we are translators/language experts should also weigh on any writing we publish, even if we are just writing colloquially.
I mean, I can write "I dunno" and this might be "correct" from the "colloquial" point of view, but if I write "I donnu" and I keep writing "I donnu" throughout a whole paragraph, then it might look "suspicious" that I claimed, for example, to be a proofreader or that I am detailed-oriented.
So I definitely agree with Robin's following comment:
RobinB wrote:
n it comes to command of the language, including writing skills - grammar, punctuation, expression, etc. - translators have to be in the top 2% or so of their language community. This means that they have to be substantially better than the average educated speaker/writer of the language [...].
[/quote]
But I guess we also need to take into account other factors such as typing skills, which for some might make writing a nightmare, even though they could have a wonderful command of all languages they use.
Still, I would say that if you claim to be a translator who can produce X number of words per day, unless you use a voice-recognition program that converts your speech into written text, typing skills are also part of the qualifications required to produce your work. Therefore, if your typing is not so great, maybe you should use more the spelling function of most word processors.
One thing I find positive about taking more time to check spelling/grammar before we publish something in forums is that it allows us to reflect a bit longer about what we are going to say, a pause that sometimes can make a difference.
Anyways, just in case, no offense intended to anyone, just my 2 "eurocents"....
Regards,
Ivette
P.S.: I hope I didn't make any spelling/grammar mistakes, he he he... ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sonia Dorais
Canada
Local time: 04:37
French to English
+ ...
| This made me laugh so hard I had to tell you! | Oct 16, 2006 |
RobinB wrote:
... are language geeks. Nothing to be ashamed of, either. Real translators are bad insurance risks, too. You're driving down the Autobahn at 200 kph and suddenly turn your head to look at a large advertising hoarding, muttering "Hey, there shouldn't be a comma thaaaaaaagh".
I love this joke! It is hilarious! Thank you for posting it!
[Edited at 2006-10-16 13:19]
| | |
|
|
|
PRen (X)
Local time: 04:37
French to English
+ ...
Kevin Kelly wrote:
A lot of crap is becoming 'acceptable' in informal/colloquial English. Although I personally would not bother to correct anyone on this point, I personally firmly hold to a very simple rule: if you can count it, it's "fewer," if you can't, it's "less."
Period.
Anything else is simply poor English, regardless of who says it.
And don't even get me started on "lay" and "lie"
Paula
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 04:37
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Forum posts - a reflection of our expertise? - Most certainly yes! | Oct 16, 2006 |
ICL wrote:
...I feel that it is indirectly (?) related to something that I have always wondered about these Proz.com forums: if we are supposed to be language experts, should we somehow reflect that in our writing when we participate in these forums?
A few weeks ago, here: http://www.proz.com/topic/55617?post_id=426678 I suggested, in the context of the on-going 'native language' debate:
... it would be possible to set up a mechanism where Proziens who have doubts about another user's claims and competence could discretely draw such people to the attention of a staff member who, with the assistance of the moderator(s) in the relevant languages, could assess the 'defendent's' contributions to this website (answers to Kudoz, forum posts, sample translations, etc.). And where the quality of writing is not 'native' then require that user to downgrade their 'native' status.
With encouragement from other contributors, that idea was subsequently submitted to the "Let's improve ProZ.com!" thread http://www.proz.com/topic/55502 :
3. Reduce ‘native-language' cheating
Provide a mechanism where Proziens having doubts about another user's claims and competence could discretely ask a staff member, with the assistance of the moderator(s) in the relevant languages, to assess the 'defendent's' existing contributions to this website (answers to Kudoz, forum posts, sample translations, etc.). And where the quality is not 'native', they should require the user to downgrade their 'native' status.
and it now appears (albeit in a watered-down form) in the "Compilation" published here: http://www.proz.com/topic/57466 for further consideraton in the framework of the Action Plan.
This might be an appropriate time for certain forum contributors to start getting their act together...
MediaMatrix
| | | | Jackie Bowman
Local time: 04:37
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Slight divergence, but ... | Oct 16, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
What about "between and among"? I was always taught that between was for two and among for anything in excess of two. But who gets it right these days?
Interesting point … Apart from the obvious cases (‘people in the group started talking among themselves’), until I moved from the UK to the US I was unaware that some people preserve a distinction between ‘between’ and ‘among’ depending on the number of things involved – specifically, whether there are two things or more.
In the US, whenever I write ‘between’ in reference to more than two things, some copyeditor always changes it to ‘among’. So if I write ‘trade between Nicaragua and Honduras’, that’s OK. But if I write ‘trade between Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador’, that’s not OK.
I fight this every time. Very often I’m told ‘well, that’s simply the rule in the US’. And it’s presented as an absolute rule. But plainly it isn’t. The OED stresses that ‘between’ is (and for a very long time has been) the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things. Perhaps the OED is considered a ‘British’ authority. But it doesn’t matter if I’m British or American or Australian or whatever, if I stick my hand in a bag of flour and take it out, I don’t say ‘I have flour among my fingers’. I say ‘between’.
Thanks to all for participating in this thread. Interesting discussion.
| | | | Claire Titchmarsh (X)
Local time: 10:37
Italian to English
+ ...
| Everything's wrong with it!!! | Oct 16, 2006 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
If English native people say and write less instead of fewer, what can be wrong with it? Rules must adapt, not people.
Cheers
Heinrich
Sorry Heinrich, but I couldn't disagree more.
Languages by their nature have to adapt, not through ignorance and laziness, but to grow with a changing world.
The people who abuse "less and fewer" are often the same people who sprinkle their writing liberally with apostrophes, writing "tomato's" and "I don't know what it's name is", etc. etc.
English native speakers do lots of things they shouldn't do. The point is that if you've done a bit of research then you know the right way to say it, so why copy somebody else's bad example??
Ignoring basic grammar rules when writing is like playing football with no referee - it just becomes a free-for-all.
| | |
|
|
|
| What I was taught | Oct 16, 2006 |
Hello,
I only read some of the replies given here, so I beg you pardon if my own reply is a duplicate or repetition.
I only remember that my professors would say that "fewer" had to be used for things that could be quantified and "lesser" for abstract things or abstract words.
But who is right?
Christine
| | | | | Publishable text | Oct 16, 2006 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
These discussions always can be reduced to the statement, that native speakers of a language define the proper use of it, not compilations of rules.
If English native people say and write less instead of fewer, what can be wrong with it? Rules must adapt, not people.
Cheers
Heinrich
It seems quite clear to me that professional translators should be expected to produce publishable text. In the case of English, it's sometimes referred to as "edited English". Native speakers as a group don't define proper usage, style manuals and editors do.
"Edited English is a hypothetical printed level of the language, essentially Formal in character, the written dialect, so to speak, as edited and printed by this country’s leading commercial publishers and most reputable journals and university presses. It is conservative in usage matters of all sorts, and thanks to its stylebooks and editors, its standards tend to be fairly self-perpetuating, at least over the short range. Even the most stylistically liberal of newspapers and journals will rarely find Edited English too constrained or stuffy for their pages, even though they may not require that their writers always meet all the standards Edited English itself would insist on. The main reason not to try to imitate Edited English in all your language use, however, is that it is a written, not a spoken, form of English. It rarely imitates the lower levels of American English speech, therefore, and when your writing calls for such imitation, you should look to other versions of Standard English for your models, rather than to Edited English alone: compare, for example, We were working at top speed (Edited English) to We were working flat out (Casual or Impromptu level). But for your Formal and Semiformal writing, Edited English will do pretty well for nearly all written occasions."
http://www.bartleby.com/68/22/2122.html
[Edited at 2006-10-16 17:00]
[Edited at 2006-10-16 20:19]
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 04:37
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Lorry-loads of bricks | Oct 16, 2006 |
Charlie asked:
... where does that leave the small but possibly important distinction in pairs such as "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" and "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks"?
This is very nice example, not least because both phrases can be correct in the appropriate context. Of course, their meanings are quite different. And if you're a cost-conscious road-haulage contractor, you'll need to make sure you've understood.
fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks
means that:
- you will always travel with a full load of bricks, except if the actual number of lorry-loads is not an integer (in which case one trip - probably the last - will be a part-load)
- you will need to make between 0 and 5 trips, but not 6 or more
- you could chose to make more than 5 trips if you chose to carry one or more part loads (for example, to stagger arrival times at a building site, or to deliver bricks and tiles in the same trip)
In other words, this phrase quantifies the bricks.
less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks
means that:
- you might make some or all trips with a part-load of bricks
- if you're prepared to overload your lorry, you might get away with making less than 5 trips.
In other words, this phrase quantifies the trips.
Less obvious from the above is that "fewer than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" immediately conjours up (in my mind at least, maybe because as a kid I spent ages watching hoards of men heaving bricks and rubble on a hospital building site across the road from my home) the image of a brand new lorry filled with bright red bricks freshly delivered from the brickworks, whilst "less than 5 lorry-loads of bricks" conjours up the image of battered tip-up lorries carrying rubble away from the site.
So, what about fewer/less substitution?
On the basis of the above observations, I venture to suggest that "fewer" could substitute for "less" in the case of lorry-loads of rubble, but "less" should not substitute for "fewer" in the case of lorry-loads of new bricks.
MediaMatrix
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Difference between 'less' and 'fewer' | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
