# "six or less people"



## cheshire

1) "I read less than seven books a month" 
2) "I'm getting busy so I will be reading less books than I did before"
3) "We need six or less people."

Are these all wrong sentences?


----------



## Trina

No, they seem all right

The third one could also be written as:
We need six people or less


----------



## drei_lengua

cheshire said:


> 1) "I read less than seven books a month"
> 2) "I'm getting busy so I will be reading less books than I did before"
> 3) "We need six or less people."
> 
> Are these all wrong sentences?


 
Hello,

Yes, all of these sentences should use "fewer".

Use "fewer" with things you can count and "less" with things you cannot count.

Drei


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi, 

Yes, I think it is wrong. You hear it all the time though. If you are taking a grammar test choose "fewer" instead of "less".


----------



## drei_lengua

Trina said:


> No, they seem all right
> 
> The third one could also be written as:
> We need six people or less


 
Good day Trina,

Those sentences are all wrong because they should have used "fewer" rather than "less".   

Drei


----------



## Defy_Convention

Yep.  I'm not sure on the precise grammatical rule (although I'm sure someone here can provide it!) but my 8th grade English teacher taught it like this:

If you can count the items (books, people, etc.) you use "fewer." If not, it's "less."

I read fewer books this summer than last.
We need six people or fewer.
BUT
I have less money than he does. (_money_ is a collective noun here)
Kansas produces less wheat than Florida. (_wheat_ is also a collective noun; you can't have _wheats _)

Despite this rule, you will often here "less books" in informal American English.

Hope that helps!


----------



## timpeac

Defy_Convention said:


> Yep. I'm not sure on the precise grammatical rule (although I'm sure someone here can provide it!) but my 8th grade English teacher taught it like this:
> 
> If you can count the items (books, people, etc.) you use "fewer." If not, it's "less."


Yes - that is the prescriptive grammatical rule. Nouns are either count nouns (ones that you can literally count) such as cats or houses or men or they are non-count or uncountable, such as milk or steel or invisibility.

According to the rule count nouns take "fewer" and non-count nouns take "less". There are fewer jobs and so there is less happiness.

As others have pointed out, in ordinary speech "fewer" is often replaced by "less" (although not the other way round I believe). It is probably best, in my opinion, to stick to the prescriptive rule here, particularly as a foreigner. People will think you've made a mistake otherwise (even if you point out til your blue in the face that natives often ignore the difference). In a formal situation I would always try to make the distinction if possible since "less jobs" does strike my rather pedantic ear as sounding "off".


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

timpeac said:


> It is probably best, in my opinion, to stick to the prescriptive rule here, particularly as a foreigner. People will think you've made a mistake otherwise (even if you point out til your blue in the face that natives often ignore the difference).



I doubt most people would notice. 'Less' is said and written all the time where 'fewer' "ought" to be. And although I use 'fewer' myself most of the time, many if not most languages don't make this distinction, so there's nothing inherently 'wrong' about 'less'. On the other hand, teachers and academics can often be bloody-minded about this (and many other things they think they understand!).


----------



## cuchuflete

Skirting the topic slightly, is it really a grammatical rule at all, or simply a question related to the meaning of the words "less" and "fewer"?

I suppose it might be somewhere in between--a usage rule.

I know of no grammar rule that proscribes the use of such common idiocies as "very unique", but the phrase is illogical based solely on the meaning of the word unique.  The meanings of fewer and less should, in themselves, indicate which to use in the three sentences.  "Less" may be common, but that doesn't yet make it clear or meaningful.  As languages evolve, new meanings come into play, and in time 'less', meaning 'fewer', will come to be accepted, and we will have lost just a little bit of precision.


----------



## brm

I believe that the first sentence can not receive a flat answer. Personally, the sentence "I read fewer than seven books a month" doesn't sound right to my ears nor does it to my reasoning attempts. Does the word "less" not affect the cardinal adjective "six", and then assumes the function of an adverb? Since not being an adjective directly attached to the substantive "books", I confess I would spontaneously say "I read less than seven books a month" rather than use "fewer". Am I definitely wrong or is the thing really arguable, regarding this particular sentence?


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:


> As languages evolve, new meanings come into play, and in time 'less', meaning 'fewer', will come to be accepted, and we will have lost just a little bit of precision.


As I say above I don't like "less" being used for "fewer" so don't think I'm defending the usage, but I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. If the noun is countable you should use "fewer" (according to the usage rule) and if non-count "less". There is no choice, no sentences which are different in meaning simply by the choice of one or the other so I can't see how the merging of the two words to one would cause less precision. I don't like it, but wouldn't mourn overly if "fewer" disappeared to be replaced by "less".


----------



## majlo

cuchuflete said:


> Skirting the topic slightly, is it really a grammatical rule at all, or simply a question related to the meaning of the words "less" and "fewer"?



People learning English, at least in Poland, are taught it as a grammatical rule. _Little _is used with uncountable nouns, and _few _is used with countable nouns. That also applies to their comparative forms.

I try to go by this rules, but being influenced by hearing _less people _all the time, I quite often happen to use it during class, for which I'm always corrected. Interestingly enough, I never violate this rule with reference to other nouns, only _people._


----------



## cuchuflete

timpeac said:


> ...so I can't see how the merging of the two words to one would cause less precision.



Today we have available two words which distinguish between a smaller amount, and a smaller number.  Consolidation of both senses into a single word to indicate a smaller quantity/amount/number does, for me, reduce precision.
Fewer people seem to note the distinction each year, and less(!) than one in ten seem to give a damn.


----------



## timpeac

cuchuflete said:


> Today we have available two words which distinguish between a smaller amount, and a smaller number. Consolidation of both senses into a single word to indicate a smaller quantity/amount/number does, for me, reduce precision.
> Fewer people seem to note the distinction each year, and less(!) than one in ten seem to give a damn.


But I don't agree that they distinguish between a smaller amount and a smaller number - it is the following word that does that (depending on whether it is a count noun or not), they themselves don't distinguish anything because there is no sentence where you could swap one for the other and have a resultant correct sentence, there is no choice as to which you use, the "choice" of which you use being a pure burden on the memory. In lingustic terms there is no "minimal pair" of sentences different only by a choice between these two words which gives two different and meaningful sentences proving that they each have a separate semantic force. Surely it follows therefore that their replacement by one term wouldn't reduce precision. There would be no situation where someone would be unclear on whether amount or number was meant.

They do _underline _whether we are speaking about a smaller amount or a smaller number though (since any sentence they are found in gives that information twice, once by whether "fewer" or "less" has been used and once by the type of noun).


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

timpeac said:


> There is no choice, no sentences which are different in meaning simply by the choice of one or the other so I can't see how the merging of the two words to one would cause less precision.



That's the key, and probably how native speakers analyse it subconsciously. It's in many ways an artifical distinction, unnecessary to determine meaning -- which is ultimately what language is about.


----------



## drei_lengua

majlo said:


> People learning English, at least in Poland, are taught it as a grammatical rule. _Little _is used with uncountable nouns, and _few _is used with countable nouns. That also applies to their comparative forms.
> 
> I try to go by this rules, but being influenced by hearing _less people _all the time, I quite often happen to use it during class, for which I'm always corrected. Interestingly enough, I never violate this rule with reference to other nouns, only _people._


 
Cześć (hello),
I guess if you want to consider "people" as one large mass then "less" is acceptable.  You could definitely justify this usage according to the rule.  I hear "less people" quite often in the U.S.  However, I don't think they are trying to imply that people are one large mass.  Rather, I think they are making a mistake.  My advice is to always use "fewer people".  It sounds like the speaker is more educated.   

Examples

1.  I want less mashed potatoes.  = That nation has less people.
In this example mashed potatoes cannot be counted because the potatoes were transformed into a single mass.  

2.  I want fewer baked potatoes.  = That nation has fewer people.
In this example baked potatoes can be counted.  

Drei


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

drei_lengua said:


> Cześć (hello),
> I guess if you want to consider "people" as one large mass then "less" is acceptable.  You could definitely justify this usage according to the rule.



People keep talking about rules as if they pre-exist usage. That's daft. Rules are conventions, not real rules, and are *extrapolated* from usage. Just as dictionaries define words and phrases *as used* -- they're not there to tell us, native speakers, what's right and wrong: *we* decide that.


----------



## drei_lengua

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> People keep talking about rules as if they pre-exist usage. That's daft. Rules are conventions, not real rules, and are *extrapolated* from usage. Just as dictionaries define words and phrases *as used* -- they're not there to tell us, native speakers, what's right and wrong: *we* decide that.


 
Hello gwrthgymdeithasol,
I can only speak for American English.  The rule "fewer" versus "less" is discussed in many modern grammar books here.  

I am of the opinion that the rule makes sense logically.  "fewer" deals with numbers and "less" deals with amounts.  

Numbers:
There are a couple of dogs over there.
There are a few dogs over there.
There are five dogs over there.
I want fewer dollar bills.
In chemistry class, I saw fewer water molecules.

Amounts:
I want less money.
I want less water.
In chemistry class, we used less water to extinguish the fire.

I agree with you that the usage comes first then the rule.  But I hope you concur that the usage in my examples above still holds true in society (at least in American English), therefore the rule is still valid.  

Drei


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

drei_lengua said:


> Hello gwrthgymdeithasol,



Hello 



drei_lengua said:


> I can only speak for American English.  The rule "fewer" versus "less" is discussed in many modern grammar books here.
> 
> I am of the opinion that the rule makes sense logically.  "fewer" deals with numbers and "less" deals with amounts.



I agree, it's logical -- but language doesn't have to be logical, and often isn't.





drei_lengua said:


> I agree with you that the usage comes first then the rule.  But I hope you concur that the usage in my examples above still holds true in society (at least in American English), therefore the rule is still valid.
> Drei



Well, I'd say not that the rule is valid, as there's no rule. The usage is still common is what can be said. But it's not as common as using 'less' all the time, which means, if historical precedence is anything to go by, that 'fewer' will eventually disappear from common and then 'standard' usage. Whether we/'purists' like it or not


----------



## drei_lengua

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Hello
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, it's logical -- but language doesn't have to be logical, and often isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd say not that the rule is valid, as there's no rule. The usage is still common is what can be said. But it's not as common as using 'less' all the time, which means, if historical precedence is anything to go by, that 'fewer' will eventually disappear from common and then 'standard' usage. Whether we/'purists' like it or not


 
First, I never mentioned that language has to be logical.  I clearly only mentioned that this rule in particular is logical.  Please heed the difference.

Second, I enjoy your persistence that "there is no rule."  Please do me a favor.  Go to the Google site and type "fewer versus less".  Then tell me that there is no rule.   

Drei


----------



## Victoria32

cheshire said:


> 1) "I read less than seven books a month"
> 2) "I'm getting busy so I will be reading less books than I did before"
> 3) "We need six or less people."
> 
> Are these all wrong sentences?


1) Correct (though you could also say fewer)
2) I would say fewer
3) Six or fewer people... 
Books and people are countable nouns, and so you should use fewer, whereas for uncountable (mass) nouns, you use less, i.e., less sugar.


----------



## drei_lengua

Victoria32 said:


> 1) Correct (though you could also say fewer)
> 2) I would say fewer
> 3) Six or fewer people...
> Books and people are countable nouns, and so you should use fewer, whereas for uncountable (mass) nouns, you use less, i.e., less sugar.


 
Victoria,
I beg to differ on number 1.  This is clearly a countable item.  Therefore, the only choice is "fewer".  The reason this starts to sound correct is that in math we say "4 is less than 5" etc.   

Drei


----------



## maxiogee

I would never say "Six or fewer people" - it would be "Six people or fewer"" or just "six or fewer" as part of a sentence where the fact that I am speaking of people is either explicit or implicit.


----------



## Victoria32

drei_lengua said:


> Victoria,
> I beg to differ on number 1. This is clearly a countable item. Therefore, the only choice is "fewer". The reason this starts to sound correct is that in math we say "4 is less than 5" etc.
> 
> Drei


I have thought about it Drei Lingua and you are correct, _all the sentences _should have had "f*ewe*r"... today I was on my way to work, and I saw a piece of graffiti in the form of a poster that said "less politicians", and I took about a pen and corrected it to fewer!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

drei_lengua said:


> First, I never mentioned that language has to be logical.  I clearly only mentioned that this rule in particular is logical.  Please heed the difference.



Thanks, but I'm aware of the difference. I was merely indicating that logic is no real basis for an argument when it comes to language.



drei_lengua said:


> Second, I enjoy your persistence that "there is no rule."  Please do me a favor.  Go to the Google site and type "fewer versus less".  Then tell me that there is no rule.
> 
> Drei



There's no rule. Google is not the ultimate arbiter, nor are any of the websites that insist on 'fewer'. The 'rule' is that if the weight of usage opts for 'less', as it does, then 'fewer' is going to continue to fade away.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Victoria32 said:


> Books and people are countable nouns, and so you should use fewer



Says who?


----------



## Victoria32

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Thanks, but I'm aware of the difference. I was merely indicating that logic is no real basis for an argument when it comes to language.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no rule. Google is not the ultimate arbiter, nor are any of the websites that insist on 'fewer'. The 'rule' is that if the weight of usage opts for 'less', as it does, then 'fewer' is going to continue to fade away.


I am sorry, I agree with Drei Lingua, _there is a rule_ - about count and uncount nouns... The fewer usage will not fade away while I draw breath! (I have taught it to my children, as well, so it will persist, thankfully.)


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Victoria32 said:


> I am sorry, I agree with Drei Lingua, _there is a rule_ - about count and uncount nouns... The fewer usage will not fade away while I draw breath! (I have taught it to my children, as well, so it will persist, thankfully.)



Fair enough, but please tell me where the rule comes from. You surely mean 'convention'.

I also encourage my children to use 'fewer' where appropriate, but if they say or even write 'less' (because so many others do), then I won't have them thrown into the stocks.

Your love for 'fewer' is admirable, but illogical.


----------



## Victoria32

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Fair enough, but please tell me where the rule comes from. You surely mean 'convention'.
> 
> I also encourage my children to use 'fewer' where appropriate, but if they say or even write 'less' (because so many others do), then I won't have them thrown into the stocks.
> 
> Your love for 'fewer' is admirable, but illogical.


No, it is perfectly logical! It's what i teach my ESOL students and just because so many people get it wrong, is no reason to teach the wrong thing! That's the same kind of logic that wants to get rid of apostrophes because some people don't know how to use them.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Victoria32 said:


> No, it is perfectly logical! It's what i teach my ESOL students and just because so many people get it wrong, is no reason to teach the wrong thing! That's the same kind of logic that wants to get rid of apostrophes because some people don't know how to use them.



So you can't tell me where the rule comes from? The rule which decrees that 'less' is *wrong*...What on earth do you mean by 'wrong'?

Apostrophes *are* another convention. Other similar languages manage without them. Even in standard English, the 'rule' for their use is partially illogical. We don't have them in speech and the language doesn't break down. No less a writer than GB Shaw thought they were pretty stupid on the whole. I use them unfailingly myself, even in emails, but it's more to do with creating an impression than logic.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I'm surprised nobody has linked to this thread on the same topic-- a long but very rewarding read.  Anyone with unresolved issues with the less/fewer debate should check it out.

Here's something I don't think has been mentioned, and since it is simple (and deals with a purely grammatical distinction of the type learners of a language find most helpful), I'll mention it.

_Less_ is mostly adverbial, and _fewer_ is an adjective.

I read less nowadays because my eyesight is going south.

Accordingly, I read far fewer books than I used to.

I read less off the page, any more, than I do from a screen.  I've taken the time to scan whole books so I can read them on a backlit screen, and change the background from glaring white to an eyesight-friendlier blue.

As I said in the thread cited, the "adjective" _less_ is taking over, it still grates on my ear-- and once again, advertising and political speech are the culprits.

But stupid is happy, I'm finding out, to my unutterable dismay.  I've got a *whole* lotta dumbing down to do-- but I'm making good regress.  I wake up with less marbles every morning, and fewer problems.
.
.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=26072&highlight=fewer+less


----------



## timpeac

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> So you can't tell me where the rule comes from? The rule which decrees that 'less' is *wrong*...What on earth do you mean by 'wrong'?
> 
> Apostrophes *are* another convention. Other similar languages manage without them. Even in standard English, the 'rule' for their use is partially illogical. We don't have them in speech and the language doesn't break down. No less a writer than GB Shaw thought they were pretty stupid on the whole. I use them unfailingly myself, even in emails, but it's more to do with creating an impression than logic.


 
I'm going to put myself in the risky position of wading in on this one!

I can see both what gwrth and victoria are saying, and I don't think you necessarily disagree...

Gwrth - I know what you mean. Language is a law unto itself. We invent rules in relation to language in two main aims (it seems to me). One is to try to describe language as accurately as possible and the second is to provide guidelines to people, foreign speakers and natives alike, in the conventions of usage that is viewed as standard.

In both cases these conventions (or rules - semantics, surely?) are led by the existing usage and not the other way round. However, the conventions lag a long way behind usage and so we do end up in the situation where we have prescriptive rules remain which are an aim in themselves. Where do these "rules" come from? For those who are not interested in describing language (unlike you, it is clear) these rules come from weight of opinion.

It seems you can argue it both ways depending on your position -

- If the majority of people say "less people" then it is correct because it is a feature of the language of the majority of native speakers.
- If the majority of people consider "less people" to be "substandard" (a deliberate value-judgement of a word) regardless of whether they themselves may use "less people" in familiar usage then it is "wrong", at least in formal usage.

It seems to me that in this specific instance we should note that many people do say "less people" and although there is nothing intrinsically bad in that other than the fact it flouts a well-loved rule, it does flout that rule and that rule is widely accepted as being a valid part of accepted usage. Gwrth - in your quest to point out that "rules" should follow usage and not the other way round (a view I have a lot of sympathy for) it would be negligent, I believe, not to point out to foreigners and natives alike that if they ignore such a rule in a formal context they will be judged unfavourably by many others.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

timpeac said:


> I'm going to put myself in the risky position of wading in on this one!
> 
> I can see both what gwrth and victoria are saying, and I don't think you necessarily disagree...
> 
> Gwrth - I know what you mean. Language is a law unto itself. We invent rules in relation to language in two main aims (it seems to me). One is to try to describe language as accurately as possible and the second is to provide guidelines to people, foreign speakers and natives alike, in the conventions of usage that is viewed as standard.
> 
> In both cases these conventions (or rules - semantics, surely?) are led by the existing usage and not the other way round. However, the conventions lag a long way behind usage and so we do end up in the situation where we have prescriptive rules remain which are an aim in themselves. Where do these "rules" come from? For those who are not interested in describing language (unlike you, it is clear) these rules come from weight of opinion.
> 
> It seems you can argue it both ways depending on your position -
> 
> - If the majority of people say "less people" then it is correct because it is a feature of the language of the majority of native speakers.
> - If the majority of people consider "less people" to be "substandard" (a deliberate value-judgement of a word) regardless of whether they themselves may use "less people" in familiar usage then it is "wrong", at least in formal usage.
> 
> It seems to me that in this specific instance we should note that many people do say "less people" and although there is nothing intrinsically bad in that other than the fact it flouts a well-loved rule, it does flout that rule and that rule is widely accepted as being a valid part of accepted usage. Gwrth - in your quest to point out that "rules" should follow usage and not the other way round (a view I have a lot of sympathy for) it would be negligent, I believe, not to point out to foreigners and natives alike that if they ignore such a rule in a formal context they will be judged unfavourably by many others.



Very well put


----------



## timpeac

Mod note - This discussion about apostrophes and standard language is off topic. I'm going to split the thread, please discuss that issue in the new thread. Split to here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=240433.


----------



## cheshire

Thank you everybody, I enjoyed this topic very much; very informative at the same time.  I welcome comments from both the descriptive side and the normative side. There are some websites, not here, where the former side is put under unnecessary pressure just because they are neglecting the norm of grammar.


----------



## drei_lengua

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Thanks, but I'm aware of the difference. I was merely indicating that logic is no real basis for an argument when it comes to language.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no rule. Google is not the ultimate arbiter, nor are any of the websites that insist on 'fewer'. The 'rule' is that if the weight of usage opts for 'less', as it does, then 'fewer' is going to continue to fade away.


 
gwrthgymdeithasol,
I just have two questions for you and I will move on.
1.  Are you telling me that if you go to Google and type in "fewer versus less" no websites discussing the rule come up?
These sites yield information about the rule.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fewer+versus+less
http://www.sparknotes.com/writing/style/topic_115.html

2.  Are you telling me that you have gone to a bookstore of reasonable size and looked at the grammar books and cannot find this rule anywhere?  I am curious about this because the rule is in many grammar books I have seen and these books are fairly recent (2005,2006).

Drei


----------



## drei_lengua

timpeac said:


> I'm going to put myself in the risky position of wading in on this one!


 
timpeac,
I think you meant "I'm going to put myself in the risky position of weighing in on this one!".   

"weighing in" = giving an opinion unless "wading in" is BE.

Drei


----------



## timpeac

drei_lengua said:


> gwrthgymdeithasol,
> I just have two questions for you and I will move on.
> 1. Are you telling me that if you go to Google and type in "fewer versus less" no websites discussing the rule come up?
> These sites yield information about the rule.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fewer+versus+less
> http://www.sparknotes.com/writing/style/topic_115.html
> 
> 2. Are you telling me that you have gone to a bookstore of reasonable size and looked at the grammar books and cannot find this rule anywhere? I am curious about this because the rule is in many grammar books I have seen and these books are fairly recent (2005,2006).
> 
> Drei


 
Drei - I think that this is getting into the semantics of the word "rule". Gwrth is (I think) saying that a rule is something that _must_ be obeyed and that, in fact, here we have a guide-line which is more or less accepted depending on who you speak to.

To put it another way, I could decide that it is a "rule" that left-handed people should wear pink socks. You will undoubtedly and fairly dismiss me as a crack-pot to be ignored. However, if more than 50% of people thought like me then this belief, bizarre as it might be, would become a rule.


----------



## timpeac

drei_lengua said:


> timpeac,
> I think you meant "I'm going to put myself in the risky position of weighing in on this one!".
> 
> "weighing in" = giving an opinion unless "wading in" is BE.
> 
> Drei


Dunno, but the person writing the Spanish English dictionary agrees with me, wherever they're from

http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=wade&dict=enes


----------



## drei_lengua

timpeac said:


> Dunno, but the person writing the Spanish English dictionary agrees with me, wherever they're from
> 
> http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=wade&dict=enes


 
timpeac,

That's cool.  Looks like they are both terms for giving an opinion or mediating.  However, I couldn't find "wade in".  This could be BE.

This comes from www.m-w.com

*2* *:* to bring one's weight or influence to bear especially as a participant, contributor, or mediator <_weighed in_ with an opinion> 

Nevertheless, I think that we exhausted the "fewer" versus "less" debate.  Therefore, no more wading or weighing in.   

Drei


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

drei_lengua said:


> 1.  Are you telling me that if you go to Google and type in "fewer versus less" no websites discussing the rule come up?
> These sites yield information about the rule.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fewer+versus+less
> http://www.sparknotes.com/writing/style/topic_115.html



No, I didn't mean that -- sorry for not being clear enough. All I meant was that weight of numbers on Google (on any question) isn't necessarily enough to prove/disprove any argument.



drei_lengua said:


> 2.  Are you telling me that you have gone to a bookstore of reasonable size and looked at the grammar books and cannot find this rule anywhere?  I am curious about this because the rule is in many grammar books I have seen and these books are fairly recent (2005,2006).
> Drei



I think we're talking about two different kinds of grammar. You're referring to 'prescriptive' grammars, of the 'teach yourself' type, which provide 'rules' chiefly for foreign learners. Whereas I'm talking about 'descriptive' grammar, which doesn't have rules, because it's merely a summary of how a given language is used by native speakers/writers -- and there are no rules as such because there's no Ultimate Authority.


----------



## FedeGonza

I have always seen supermarket signs reading "15 items or less". Never seen "15 items or fewer". Can any native speaker tell me why? 
Then:
When I saw her she was holding some books, but I reckon she was holding less than seven.


----------



## JamesM

Have you read the entire thread above?    I think you'll see that common usage is drifting towards "less" but the grammar taught in schools would have you say "fewer" in both circumstances.

I _know_ the rule is "fewer" for countable items but I wouldn't count on myself to say "fewer" in these circumstances unless I was being very careful in my speech.   In some contexts it grates on my ear more than others (for example, "She's had less chances than me" sounds awkward/wrong to my ear and I would avoid it) but I'm sure there are many cases I would say "less" without thinking twice.


----------



## FedeGonza

JamesM said:


> Have you read the entire thread above?    I think you'll see that common usage is drifting towards "less" but the grammar taught in schools would have you say "fewer" in both circumstances.



Thank you for your reply. I did read the entire thread, but got more confused though. 
I thought --maybe-- "less than + a number" sounds even more natural to you guys, even though the head noun in the noun phrase is countable.

Is "Getting less than six hours of sleep..." what you'd prefer to use/say/write, than "getting fewer than six hours of sleep..."?

Thank you for your input.


----------



## panjandrum

Less than six hours sleep does not mean five, four, three, etc.
Six hours is a measure of the time, not a count of the number of hours.
Similarly, I am less than two metres tall - not fewer than two metres tall


----------



## JamesM

panjandrum said:


> Less than six hours sleep does not mean five, four, three, etc.
> Six hours is a measure of the time, not a count of the number of hours.
> Similarly, I am less than two metres tall - not fewer than two metres tall


 
Do you think that's the reasoning behind "15 items or less"? There it seems to be a count of things.  I agree with you that "less than six hours sleep" is more like "less than (a span of) six hours (of) sleep".


----------



## FedeGonza

Thank you panjandrum for your input.

However, I still notice a difference in meaning between "six hours of sleep" and "six hours sleep". In the first noun phrase, it seems to me we are actually counting number of  hours, whereas in the second one we are just talking about a span of rest.

See this (authentic) quote: Over the last decade, the poll indicates that a growing percentage of Americans is getting less than *six *hours of sleep and the number of people who get *eight *or *more *hours is dwindling.

Isn't the article author just counting *the number of hours* people sleep? 

What are your views on this?


----------



## panjandrum

I don't feel any difference between _six hours of sleep_ and _six hours' sleep_ in terms of whether I should use _less _or _fewer_.  To make me accept fewer, you would have to explain that each hour's sleep would be a discrete event, so that I might have four, five or six of these.


----------



## FedeGonza

Thank you for your thoughts.


----------

