# ti ritroverai con due problemi in meno



## Sicanius

Hello, 

I am trying to translate this Italian sentence into English and I got stuck with a problem:
- Se risolvi X e Y prima della fine di maggio, ti ritroverai con due problemi in meno.
Which translation works better?
- If you sort X and Y out by the end of May, you will end up having
(1) two fewer problems or
(2) two less problems

Perhaps either fewer or less should follow _problems_ (two problems fewer/two problems less)... Are they both fine? Is one preffered to or more common than the other? 

Any suggestions or help will be more than welcome!
Thanks.


----------



## _forumuser_

... you will have:

Two problems less.

E' strano l'uso di end up with prima di una cosa positiva. Di solito si dice con cose negative.


----------



## audia

Since *problem*  is a countable noun( house , book,etc.) you must say fewer. Less is for uncountables(e.g. love, milk,happiness etc.)
Therefore: two fewer problems.
Two problems fewer is also said.
However  few/less are often misused by natives and fewer is being replaced by less very often.


----------



## _forumuser_

Audia, 

I think you are getting confused. Which one to pick between few and less here has nothing to do with whether the noun is countable or uncountable.


----------



## Sicanius

That's why I was so confused... basically all options are possible, the one with _less _being less correct but still used in informal speech? 
Thank you very much audia!


----------



## _forumuser_

Sicanius said:


> That's why I was so confused...* basically all options are possible    *, the one with _less _being less correct but still used in informal speech?
> Thank you very much audia!


 
Can somebody back me up here?


----------



## lsp

_forumuser_ said:


> ... you will have:
> 
> Two problems less.
> 
> E' strano l'uso di end up with prima di una cosa positiva. Di solito si dice con cose negative.



I don't know which is right, fewer or less  , but I don't agree at all with your generalization about "end up." It only speaks to the outcome. EXAMPLE: If you play your cards right you'll end up winning a boatload of cash!


----------



## audia

You may be right FU I was thinking Few vs. Little. I would still say two fewer problems but wait for more input and explaination.
This point as I said is often misused so I am not sure myself anymore.


----------



## niklavjus

Interesting question.
*Fewer* for countable noun, *less* for uncountables.
Seems that WRD agrees with audia statement.

P.S. Anche qui. Ma le eccezioni sembra ci siano.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

If you have five apples on the table and you put another apple on the table, you end up with one *more* apple on the table.
If you have five apples on the table and you take away an apple from the table, you end up with one apple *less* on the table.


----------



## _forumuser_

audia said:


> You may be right FU I was thinking Few vs. Little. I would still say two fewer problems but wait for more input and explaination.
> This point as I said is often misused so I am not sure myself anymore.


 
Anch'io a forza di pensarci non sono tanto piu' convinto...  I think you were thinking few vs. less when they are used as adjectives:

Put fewer cookies in the jar.
Put less milk in the cake. 

But I think here we are dealing with an adverbial usage: in meno, di meno. 

Let me see:

Oggi ho meno problemi di 10 anni fa.
Today I have fewer problems than I had ten years ago.

Oggi ho meno entusiasmo di quando ho cominciato.
Today I have less enthusiasm than when I started.

So far, so good. 

Oggi mi ritrovo con due problemi di meno:

Today I find myself with two problems less.
Today I find myself with two fewer problems.
Today I'm two problems *shorter*. 

I would say the first sounds better, the last sounds cool, the middle one sounds ok, perhaps.  Now I need a glass of that thing in my avatar ...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

"end up" discussion has now its own thread:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=438294


----------



## _forumuser_

Paulfromitaly said:


> If you have five apples on the table and you put another apple on the table, you end up with one *more* apple on the table.
> If you have five apples on the table and you take away an apple from the table, you end up with one apple *less* on the table.


 
I like them apples!


----------



## giacinta

In my view the answer is definitely "Less''.
Once a number is introduced  --less is the appropriate word.
If no quantity is indicated "fewer' may be used.

There were fewer people on the train today.

If you had two less drinks a day you would be healthy.

"two fewer" is wrong, wrong!!

Giacinta


----------



## niklavjus

giacinta said:


> "two fewer" is wrong, wrong!!


Hi, Giacinta.
Have you seen the link I added to my previous post? Seems that the traditional rule states the opposite.


----------



## Sicanius

If you google "two fewer" you end up with 216,000 results, while if you google "two less" you have 509,000... The results with "two less" are more than the double, but still 216,000 is a lot... It can't be so wrong!


----------



## giacinta

Yes I have now checked it out. 

There is no example given of "fewer" being used with a number in front of it.

It may be true (I've never really thought about it) that fewer is used (rather than less) for countable quantities. The point is you can't use fewer with a number in front of it!!! Once there is a number you have to use "less'".

Giacinta



Sicanius said:


> If you google "two fewer" you end up with 216,000 results, while if you google "two less" you have 509,000... The results with "two less" are more than the double, but still 216,000 is a lot... It can't be so wrong!


 
True--nobody would blink if you said "two fewer" (although I probably would!).

Giacinta


----------



## lsp

Sicanius, there are even more (267,000!) results for "her and me" which is wrong wrong wrong. A google number on its own is of little value in establishing right and wrong over usage  (especially, unfortunately, in English).


----------



## niklavjus

giacinta said:


> Once there is a number you have to use "less'".


Ok, I understand your point.

Therfore also the sentence "fewer than four pencils" it is uncorrect. It is?


----------



## giacinta

niklavjus said:


> Ok, I understand your point.
> 
> Therfore also the sentence "fewer than four pencils" it is uncorrect. It is?



Fewer than 4 pencils is correct.

Four fewer pencils is incorrect!

Giacinta


----------



## niklavjus

All right. I see.
Thank you, Giacinta.


----------



## giacinta

I think it is a question of taste. So--we had four pencils less than we had before. / We had four less pencils. Even "we had four pencils less"--although without "than" after it, it sounds a bit strange. "We had four pencils less than before" ......Mmh...I think normally you would add "than etc.

Giacinta


----------



## Auno

Audia (no relation) was on the right path, as a starting point. Then there are nuances. It's a bit open.

Ecco - 

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxlessvs.html

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/lessfewer?view=uk

===========

One other thing for the original poster Sicanius.

It is "preferred", not "preffered". 

I have noted many times that whereas there is a tendency in English to have the double letter more towards the end of a word, in Italian it occurs more at the beginning. Of course this is a very rough rule of thumb, but worth bearing in mind, I think you'll find. Because that is likely to be your habit if you are Italian, you see. And vice versa.


----------



## giacinta

I was attempting to answer the first post --I still maintain that "two fewer problems" is wrong.  Whilst interesting, your references address the question of the difference between "less" and "fewer".  I don't believe they assist in answering the question of whether it is "fine" (the word used in the first post) to say "two fewer problems".

Giacinta


----------



## Auno

I believe a careful reading of those pages will show that you CAN say "two fewer problems".


----------



## audia

Hi Giacinta,


giacinta said:


> In my view the answer is definitely "Less''.
> Once a number is introduced --less is the appropriate word.
> If no quantity is indicated "fewer' may be used.
> 
> There were fewer people on the train today.
> 
> If you had two less drinks a day you would be healthy.To me this sounds incorrect ( but common)two drinks fewer a day works for me.
> 
> you said:"two fewer" is wrong, wrong!!


 
Do you have any documentation to support the above? 

You say also there are ''no examples of fewer with a number before it.''
I found 49,500,000 for the expression ''two fewer'' just to start with the number two.

I agree with LSP that google is not a test of correctness only usage which can be demonstrated by the number of hits when googling ''ain't'' which we can agree is incorrect.
I think we need a grammarian.

Thanks for the support Auno and the tip about preferred.


----------



## virgilio

Sicanius,
            If you are saying that the resultant problems will be lesser problems (less important, less serious, smaller problems) then you need to say "two lesser problems". If you are saying that the resultant problems will not be so many, the correct English is "two problems fewer" or "two fewer problems". I personally would use in that case "two problems fewer".
 It all depends on whether you want to speak correctly or how your average guy on the street speaks. If you are not particularly bothered about being correct, you could use "less" - it's not  intended as a criticism, few people are all that bothered these days and, as the saying goes: "Today's solecisms are tomorrow's grammar".
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Auno

audia said:


> Thanks for the support Auno and the tip about preferred.



Oh no worries.  I was quite impressed actually.

It's been an ongoing discussion in English for quite a while.

And I can be a bit of a grammarian, if required.


----------



## audia

Thanks Virg ,
this thread was a long and difficult '''birth'' for ''fewer'' but perhaps it will now find renewed usage.( but then again maybe not)


----------



## Sicanius

virgilio said:


> "Today's solecisms are tomorrow's grammar".
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Very nice saying, I fully I agree with it.
Thank you, Virglio, and many thanks to all of you!

As a learner I am interested in both things: both what is correct and what is in the common usage (even if different from what grammars state)!

Thank you again


----------



## TrentinaNE

Unfortunately Merriam-Webster doesn't shed direct light on this question:





> *usage* The traditional view is that _less_ applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while _fewer_ applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. _Less_ has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. _Less_ is more likely than _fewer_ to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved   <_less_ than 100 miles>   <an investment of _less_ than $2000>   <in 25 words or _less_> and as likely as _fewer_ to modify periods of time   <in _less_ (or _fewer_) than four hours>.


Interestingly, the above does suggest that even the traditional distinction between _fewer_ and _less _that many of us learned in school (or elsewhere) is becoming less fixed.  

One thing upon which I hope we can all agree is that this thread could do with a little less invective and a little more cordiality.    Please maintain a collaborative tone.  We're all here to learn, and there are no prizes for being "right."   

Grazie,
Elisabetta


----------



## audia

Thanks for looking that up Trentina-you have brought inner peace to all parties. Your online Webster would really have come in handy to me a few posts ago. 
Thanks again to Virgilio who has helped a damsel in (grammatic )distress. 
( Not much of a prize but maybe it will unspoil your day)


----------



## _forumuser_

With no intention whatsoever of fueling controversy, would you mind taking a look at this other example: 

Una cosa di meno di cui preoccuparsi.

Which of the two sentences below would you say is (more) correct?

One thing less to worry about. 
One fewer thing to worry about.


----------



## virgilio

forumuser,
              Re:" Which of the two sentences below would you say is (more) correct?
One thing less to worry about. 
One fewer thing to worry about."

The first is the one I have heard more often; the second would probably be written "One thing fewer to worry about", I think.
Both are correct. If you use "less" you would indicate that you were thinking of life's worries as a corporate mass, a smaller portion of which would naturally be "less", because worry is being considered as a kind of 'substance'
If you use "fewer", you would be thinking of several worries as a number of depressing things.
Most English people seem to regard pressing worries, it seems, as a kind of overhanging cloud, a 'substance'.
Incidentally, the presence of the Italian "di" in front of "meno", might seem to give the same sort of idea, don't you think?

All the best,
Virgilio
PS: It cannot be denied, however, that "less" is certainly commonly used in places where "fewer" would be more correct and my interpretations of "less" and "fewer" given above are my own and may not be shared by other English speakers


----------



## franca157

niklavjus said:


> Ok, I understand your point.
> 
> Therfore also the sentence "fewer than four pencils" it is uncorrect. It is?


 
"Fewer than four pencils" is correct according to William Strunk and E.B. White's "Elements of Style", which is a most respected authority on the usage of American English. 

They say, "Less refers to quantity, fewer to number." (ex. "His troubles are less than mine" means 'His troubles are not as great as mine.' 'His troubles are fewer than mine' means 'His troubles are not as numerous as mine.'" 

This has long ogo cleared this up for me. I hope the same for you.


----------



## Alxmrphi

_forumuser_ said:


> With no intention whatsoever of fueling controversy, would you mind taking a look at this other example:
> 
> Una cosa di meno di cui preoccuparsi.
> 
> Which of the two sentences below would you say is (more) correct?
> 
> One thing less to worry about.
> One fewer thing to worry about.


----------



## virgilio

franca157,
You are right. There can be no doubt that "fewer" is correct, when number is referred to, and "less" when quantity is referred to. Of course, "less" is the only possible form, when it is an adverb:
e.g.
I eat less frequently now than before. (frequently to a lesser extent).
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## franca157

virgilio said:


> forumuser,
> Re:" Which of the two sentences below would you say is (more) correct?
> One thing less to worry about.
> One fewer thing to worry about."
> 
> The first is the one I have heard more often; the second would probably be written "One thing fewer to worry about", I think.
> Both are correct. If you use "less" you would indicate that you were thinking of life's worries as a corporate mass, a smaller portion of which would naturally be "less", because worry is being considered as a kind of 'substance'
> If you use "fewer", you would be thinking of several worries as a number of depressing things.
> Most English people seem to regard pressing worries, it seems, as a kind of overhanging cloud, a 'substance'.
> Incidentally, the presence of the Italian "di" in front of "meno", might seem to give the same sort of idea, don't you think?
> 
> All the best,
> Virgilio
> PS: It cannot be denied, however, that "less" is certainly commonly used in places where "fewer" would be more correct and my interpretations of "less" and "fewer" given above are my own and may not be shared by other English speakers


 
I fully share this interpretation.


----------



## TrentinaNE

giacinta said:


> Yes  I have now checked it out.
> 
> There is no example given of "fewer" being used with a number in front of it.
> 
> It may be true (I've never really thought about it) that fewer is used (rather than less) for countable quantities.   The point is you can't use fewer with a number in front of it!!! Once there is a number you have to use "less'".
> 
> Giacinta


Giacinta, could you please tell us where you have found this "rule"?  Not that I don't believe it exists, but I don't recall learning it (not much evidence there -- I've forgotten much more than I've remembered!), and I haven't been able to find a reference on the internet (but I might not be searching on the right terms).  At any rate, my curiosity is piqued!  

Grazie mille!
Elisabetta


----------



## franca157

giacinta said:


> Yes I have now checked it out.
> 
> There is no example given of "fewer" being used with a number in front of it.
> 
> It may be true (I've never really thought about it) that fewer is used (rather than less) for countable quantities. The point is you can't use fewer with a number in front of it!!! Once there is a number you have to use "less'".
> 
> Giacinta


 

Giacinta,

When "less" is used just before or after a number, I think it takes on the meaning of "minus", which would make "fewer" inappropriate. 

What do you think?

Franca


----------



## virgilio

Giacinta,
           I not only sometimes use "fewer" after numbers myself but I have also heard others of my fellow-countrymen do so. Are you perhaps referring to antipodean usage.
If not, it really all comes down to what one accepts as conclusive evidence of correct language. I used to trust dictionaries implicitly myself, until I found them -very occasionally, I admit - to be capable of error and I realised that lexicographers are, after all, just human beings like the rest of us.
This matter of what is good evidence and what is bad is surely central to what this forum is largely about, isn't it?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## L'aura che tu respiri

niklavjus said:


> uncorrect


 *i*ncorrect.  Ma non capisco qualcosa.  Sono 1000% d'accordo che si usa "less" con una cosa intangibile (less courage) e "fewer" con le cose fisiche (fewer apples).  Ma come si dice "fewer"????  Per esempio, "fewer apples."  Si dice "meno mele"? "un numero inferiore di mele"? "un numero minore delle mele"? Come si dice "fewer"?


----------



## Pat (√2)

L'aura che tu respiri said:


> "fewer apples." Si dice "meno mele"? "un numero inferiore di mele"? "un minor numero di mele"?


Direi che dipende dalla frase, dal contesto, da come preferisci dirlo ecc. Hai una frase?


----------



## L'aura che tu respiri

Pat (√2) said:


> Direi che dipende dalla frase, dal contesto, da come preferisci dirlo ecc. Hai una frase?



una dieta che contiene un maggior numero di prugne e un minor numero di banane


----------



## L'aura che tu respiri

Pat (√2) said:


> Direi che dipende dalla frase, dal contesto, da come preferisci dirlo ecc. Hai una frase?



This diet is better because it contains fewer carcinogenic substances. 

Questa dieta e' migliore perche' contiene meno sostanze carcinogeniche / un numero inferiore di sostanze carcinogeniche / un minor numero di sostanze carcinogeniche. 

Sono uguali queste tre traduzioni?


----------



## chipulukusu

L'aura che tu respiri said:


> una dieta che contiene un maggior numero di prugne e un minor numero di banane



una dieta che contiene un maggior numero di prugne e un minor numero di banane


colloquialmente si direbbe: "una dieta che contiene _più_ prugne e _meno_ banane"

in realtà, nel caso di una dieta sarebbe più pertinente dire "una maggiore quantità di prugne e una minore quantità di banane", visto che di solito i cibi in una dieta si pesano e non si contano, ma questo ha poco a che fare con la grammatica...



L'aura che tu respiri said:


> Questa dieta e' migliore perche' contiene meno sostanze carcinogeniche / un numero inferiore di sostanze carcinogeniche / un minor numero di sostanze carcinogeniche.
> 
> Sono uguali queste tre traduzioni?



Mi sembrano tutte e tre perfette ed equivalenti.


----------



## L'aura che tu respiri

> ma questo ha poco a che fare con la grammatica...



Io direi, invece, che ha molto a che fare.  Questi significati sono proprio le cose che c'aiutano a decidere quali costruzioni grammaticali da usare. Mi piace credere che la grammatica non sia un esercizio accademico ma, invece, il modo più chiaro di esprimere qualcosa.


----------



## chipulukusu

L'aura che tu respiri said:


> Io direi, invece, che ha molto a che fare.  Questi significati sono proprio le cose che c'aiutano a decidere quali costruzioni grammaticali da usare. Mi piace credere che la grammatica non sia un esercizio accademico ma, invece, il modo più chiaro di esprimere qualcosa.



Hai ragione! Mi dimentico spesso che la grammatica è una scienza umana, una scienza sociale. Non si occupa solo di _frasi ben formate, _per usare un termine proveniente dalla logica....


----------



## L'aura che tu respiri

> Questa dieta e' migliore perche' contiene meno sostanze carcinogeniche /  un numero inferiore di sostanze carcinogeniche / un minor numero di  sostanze carcinogeniche.


 (Un'osservazione un po' off-topic: forse dovevo dire "agenti" invece di "sostanze" nelle frasi sovraelencate.)


----------



## chipulukusu

L'aura che tu respiri said:


> (Un'osservazione un po' off-topic: forse dovevo dire "agenti" invece di "sostanze" nelle frasi sovraelencate.)



We commonly say _sostanze_ in this case. _Agenti_ is a "posh" way of saying the same thing. Strictly speaking _agenti_ is much more general, because it refers also to _immaterial agents. _But talking about a diet, _sostanze_ is pretty natural and wide-spread.

But we usually say _carcinogene_ not _carcinogeniche_ (though I'm not an expert...).


----------

