# Mistake in the BBC?



## neil4ad

Here is a citation from BBC online: "There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."

Should not "much" be replaced by "many," since the noun "South Americans" is countable?  Or does the fact that "fewer" comes in between "much" and "South Americans" justify the use of "much" rather than "many?  This is really bothering me, so please help!  (I'd also like to know if the BBC has made a mistake!)


----------



## Heba

I am not a native speaker, but I believe that the use of much here is correct since it modifies ''fewer''


----------



## Dimcl

I think they've made a mistake.  I would say "many" for the reason you have cited.  I think that the only way "much" could be used here is if the sentence was rephrased to say:

"There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but a much smaller South American community in Scandinavia."


----------



## Heba

Hi Dimcl 
Are not both (fewer- smaller) comparative forms of the adjectives (few-small)? what makes the use of much acceptable in  "There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but a much smaller South American community in Scandinavia." but not in the first sentene.

I only want to understand


----------



## Dimcl

Heba said:


> Hi Dimcl
> Are not both (fewer- smaller) comparative forms of the adjectives (few-small)? what makes the use of much acceptable in "There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but a much smaller South American community in Scandinavia." but not in the first sentene.
> 
> I only want to understand


 
In your sample sentence you are speaking about a singular noun (community) but in the second part, you are speaking about plural South American*s. *  My rephrasing made them both singular (community).  Sorry I'm not a grammarian but, hopefully, someone can amplify this for both of us.


----------



## neil4ad

Great! There's a debate on....but, Dimcl, let's restate that there are *three* of us here who are completely curious.  

From what I was able to find online, "much" is used with uncountable nouns:

"Do you have much work?"

"Many" is used with countable nouns:

He has many relations in the UK.  

But I think that we know this.  So in my mind the questions are then:

1)what the rule is for "much" with singular nouns, as in the example Dimcl provided "much smaller community"

2)what the rules are for using few/fewer small/smaller with much and many

3)in the original example: There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia.
the question is what the relationship is between "much" and "fewer" (assuming that the usage is correct) such that "many" would be an inappropriate choice. 

ps. I fully accept that I am a huge geek!


----------



## neil4ad

By the way, that article that inspired is question is the "Tim Vickery Collumn" on the BBC Football page. (As  Junior User, I am apparently unable to include hyperlinks in messages.)


----------



## Dimcl

> the question is what the relationship is between "much" and "fewer" (assuming that the usage is correct) such that "many" would be an inappropriate choice.


 
As I said in an earlier post, I believe that "...many fewer South Americans..." is the correct choice rather than ...much fewer South Americans..." because we're talking about a countable noun (American*s*).  Frankly, I think the writer's choice of the word "fewer" and his mixing of the singular (community) and plural (South Americans) is unfortunate because it would be like saying:

There is a large cat population in my neighbourhood, but much fewer kittens in the next block".  What exactly does this mean? To my mind, this sentence:

"There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."

has the same problem.  The only connection is that the writer is speaking of South Americans from different countries.  I don't know the context of the entire article but the sentence might be more understandable if it read something like:

"There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain but there are *far* fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."

I don't really care for either of "much" or "many" in this sentence but I believe that "many" would be the correct choice if one had to be used over the other.  "Far fewer" would be personal choice.  I hope I haven't opened a can of worms here!


----------



## neil4ad

Your example (with the kittens) makes complete sense.....I guess I was trying to give the BBC some benefit of the doubt as....well, it's the BBC after all isn't it?  They're not supposed to make mistakes like this!


----------



## Dimcl

neil4ad said:


> Your example (with the kittens) makes complete sense.....I guess I was trying to give the BBC some benefit of the doubt as....well, it's the BBC after all isn't it? They're not supposed to make mistakes like this!


 
In my experience, many ESL students could give media personnel a run for their money!  I'm not really familiar with the BBC but Canadian and American media of all types is becoming very lax in this regard.


----------



## Lucretia

I dare say,* much fewer* may be ungrammatical, but it sounds to me much better than *many fewer, *I guess because I perceive *few/fewer* as an adverb of quantity; *much better, much worse* etc are so common and frequent that they make *much fewer* sound OK.


----------



## .   1

If this is a quote from a sports reporter I am not surprised that it is clunky.
I really can not reconcile the two phrases in a gramatical sense.
Although I think that I can see what the writer is trying to say I must say that the phraseing is poorly chosen.
Perhaps the writer was constrained by space and is trying to say too much with not enough words.

.,,


----------



## se16teddy

There is a rule that 'much' qualifies uncountable nouns but 'fewer' qualifies countable nouns.  But I don't think that this rule is relevant in this sentence.  In this sentence, 'much' does not qualify a noun at all: it qualifies an adjective, 'fewer'.  I don't see anything wrong with 'much fewer' here.  

I think a more sustainable grammatical objection could be brought against the ellipsis.  The expanded sentence is: 'There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but there *are* much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia.  I don't think you can properly omit 'there are', because it is different from 'there is'.


----------



## Sallyb36

much is right here, because we would say much less rather than many less, and much fewer is the same as much less.


----------



## comsci

I don't see anything wrong with "*much less/fewer*" either. To me "much" serves as an adverb in an attempt to address or to intensify the followed adjective - whether "less" or "fewer" it doesn't really matter. You simply don't say "many less" or "many fewer" as it doesn't make any sense, if at all.  It's logically and grammatically flawed.


----------



## ChrissyH

Good evening from France,
In the example "much fewer South Americans", the use of "much" is perfectly correct and can, I believe, be explained as follows : "much" is a modifying adverb for the comparitive adjective. "Many" would be incorrect as it only has a noun and adjective form and therefore cannot modify the adjective fewer... Any comments? (The adverb modifying adjective is perhaps more obvious in an example such as "wildly exciting....")


----------



## ChrissyH

I've just seen Comsci's message - it seems we're on the same wavelength.


----------



## estefanos

I think I disagree with the latest posts, and believe that the distinction between countable and uncountable nouns provides the proper key to answering the original question.  

It seems to me that the word "fewer" itself applies to countable nouns, and thus should be modified by "many" rather than much.  For example, we would say "fewer coins" but "less sand".  "Fewer sand" and "less coins" both sound wrong.

So I think that "many fewer" is better.  "Much fewer" doesn't sound quite right to me.

On the other hand, the whole sentence seems unfortunate, since (as was pointed out in an earlier post) it attempts to create a parallel between  "community" (singular) with "South Americans" (plural).

My 2 cents...


----------



## .   1

Dimcl said:


> "There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain but there are *far* fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."


I agree with Dimcl.  I can't explain why but this sentence flows far more evenly than other options suggested.

.,,


----------



## ChrissyH

But the issue here is not with the noun being countable or uncountable.  The question has been raised on the word modifying the adjective relating to the noun.  I still maintain that "much" can be used to modify a comparative adjective because of its adverbial "properties".  We can say it is  much better or far better ("far" can also be used as either an adjective or an adverb...) I do agree though that "far fewer" sounds more elegant than "much fewer".  Far be it for me to say - but maybe it is Much Ado About Nothing!


----------



## cuchuflete

ChrissyH said:


> In the example "much fewer South Americans", the use of "much" is perfectly correct and can, I believe, be explained as follows : "much" is a modifying adverb for the comparitive adjective. "Many" would be incorrect as it only has a noun and adjective form and therefore cannot modify the adjective fewer... Any comments? (The adverb modifying adjective is perhaps more obvious in an example such as "wildly exciting....")



My comments:

1- I fully agree with your discussion of much as a modifying adverb applied to fewer.

2- I fully disagree with you dispensing with many because it does not have a parallel adverbial form.  It does have an adjectival form, and adjectives may be used to modify other adjectives.   Example: The dark red house is nearby.
Here, "dark" modifies red.

If, however, both dark and red are used to modify house, a comma is inserted:   The dark, red house is near the river.


----------



## ChrissyH

Point taken Cuchuflete - my last example (wildly exciting) was perhaps not a good example as it was not a comparison and I should have stuck with the original structure under discussion, which, to adapt your example, would give something along the lines of "this house is painted a much darker red than that one".   I guess I got distracted.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Chrissy,

I'm still up in the air about much fewer or many fewer.
Sometime back in the dark ages, I was taught to say many fewer if the noun following was plural and countable.  I tend to give serious prescriptive grammarians a wide berth, and go with what sounds right.  We have three camps here: those who adamantly declare that much is the only correct way to go, those who do the same for many, and those who find both acceptable.

According to Chrissy's logic—if I've understood it correctly—
there is no argument about fewer used to modify South Americans, and the question is about which modifier best fits with fewer.  By that line of reasoning, either the adverb much or the adjective many should be ok.  

Personally, I'll stick to many, because my inner ear "hears"
many juxtaposed with a plural noun, and much ducks or much
clarinets doesn't sit well in my head.


----------



## gaer

I think all of you are straggling yourselves with prescriptive rules and have completely abandoned common sense. 

First there is an ongoing dispute about usage of fewer vs. less with countables. This has been going on since 1770, when one man expessed a personal preference for "fewer" in connection with countables, then along came countless grammarians that basically said, "What he said."

The problem is that they misquoted the original source, turning a stylistic preference into a rule.

Sometimes the average writer is given less credit than he deserves.

Results 1 - 10 of about 644 for "far fewer mistakes".
Results 1 - 10 of about 705 for "far less mistakes".

People are still stubbornly resisting the prescriptive rule that only "fewer" is correct for countables, but they instinctively pick "far". Why? Because it sounds better. 

Results 1 - 10 of about 54 for "much fewer mistakes". 
Results 1 - 10 of about 135 for "much less mistakes". 

These are starting to sound weird to me. Am I the only one?

Results 1 - 10 of about 121 for "many fewer mistakes". 
Results 1 - 10 of about 42 for "many less mistakes". 

These sound wrong to me too.

I would recommend, for sound AND to keep people from being picked on by prescriptivists:

"far fewer mistakes"

"There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain but there are far fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."


----------



## ChrissyH

Oh dear - I hope I'm not being picked on as a prescriptivist!  It seems to me that we're going round in circles somewhat.  The  reason that some are opting for the "many fewer South Americans", ie: because it sounds better, is the very reason I'm going for the "much fewer (or far fewer) South Americans.  The "many fewer" just sounds wrong to me (and I thought I had found a grammatical rule to back up my feelings  ).  Maybe this is an AE /BE thing!!


----------



## Dimcl

I'm sticking with my original suggestion of "far fewer" and (in a pinch), many fewer although, as I said in a previous post, neither of "much" or "many" sits well with me.

Notwithstanding this very interesting discussion (in which, as usual, I've learned a lot) I think it can be agreed that the author of that misshapen sentence should join this forum!


----------



## gaer

ChrissyH said:


> Maybe this is an AE /BE thing!!


I don't think so. 

Far fewer sounds best to me, and I'd wager it's the answer most likely to get a good grade on either side of the pond.


----------



## comsci

Are we not discussing all the possible usages here? Though "far better/fewer/less" may sound more elegant and I certainly don't deny its eloquence, one simply can not neglect the possibility of the use of "much fewer/less" and regard it as being _incorrect_. Sometimes you bear with something you don't like.

Personally I would not regard it as a _mistake_ but less commonly embraced.

My 2 cents.


----------



## .   1

ChrissyH said:


> But the issue here is not with the noun being countable or uncountable. The question has been raised on the word modifying the adjective relating to the noun. I still maintain that "much" can be used to modify a comparative adjective because of its adverbial "properties". We can say it is much better or far better ("far" can also be used as either an adjective or an adverb...) I do agree though that "far fewer" sounds more elegant than "much fewer". Far be it for me to say - but maybe it is Much Ado About Nothing!


A most literary response.
All of the constructions suggested make sense and could not be misinterpreted.
Apparently the rules of grammar support all constructions so if the question is being asked to clarify the rules of grammar the answer seems to be that it does not matter in this case.

.,,


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> Thanks Chrissy,
> 
> I'm still up in the air about much fewer or many fewer.


This is my problem too. Regardless of what the rules are, both words sound a little right and a little wrong, if you understand my perspective.

Many of us have made the point that "Googling" sometimes proves nothing due to the number of people whose sub-standard usage gets "caught in the net", so to speak.

However, in this one case, it seems to me that a pattern has immerged that is important. Many intelligent people are instinctively feeling uncomfortable about having to choose between much or many. Some are expressing preferences through rules, but these rules seem in adeqaute to me, artificial, "forced".

If a choice between "much fewer South Americans" and "many fewer South Americans" had to be made to pass a test question, I would consider that an unfair questions.

I only feel fully comfortable with "far fewer South Americans".

What does your own language sense tell you? What does your gut tell you to "go with" if you are not limited to only "much" or "more"?


> We have three camps here: those who adamantly declare that much is the only correct way to go, those who do the same for many, and those who find both acceptable.


How about a fourth camp? I don't like either! 

Gaer


----------



## comsci

I think this is getting interesting but I would understand why many of you prefer "far fewer" to "much fewer".  Below is a link I came across when doing a search on Google. It adds some incentive to those who prefer "far fewer".  Hope this helps a bit. 

PS: Particularly note the last sentence.

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


----------



## estefanos

I'll bite:

much fewer = wrong (countable)
many fewer= right  (same reason)

far fewer = best (better style).

I still think "much fewer"  sounds bad because of the 'countable issue'.  I also agree that none of the constructions offered could be misconstrued.

DISCLAIMER:  I am already drunk, and am off to the bar after pressing the "Submit Reply" key.  

Ain't this fun!?

E.


----------



## .   1

estefanos said:


> I'll bite:
> 
> much fewer = wrong (countable)
> many fewer= right (same reason)
> 
> far fewer = best (better style).
> 
> I still think "much fewer" sounds bad because of the 'countable issue'. I also agree that none of the constructions offered could be misconstrued.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I am already drunk, and am off to the bar after pressing the "Submit Reply" key.
> 
> Ain't this fun!?
> 
> E.


I will very politely disagree with many fewer but I hesitate to argue with a drunk person who is getting drunker.

.,,


----------



## ChrissyH

Good morning the World,
I just love this site and I've had great fun discussing the virtues of "much and/or many fewer..."   My feeling is that we all seem to be going with "far fewer" as the best choice.  I agree that dogmatic application of grammatical rules should be avoided (after all, there's more than one way to cook an egg  ) - however I do find having a few rules is reassuring in this world where we are putting in doubt the word of the BBC.  Quel scandale!  
PS : I'm still not convinced by the many fewer South Americans (surely many (adj / noun) cannot be used to modify a comparitive adjective!)  Oops - there I go again.


----------



## gaer

ChrissyH said:


> Good morning the World,
> I just love this site and I've had great fun discussing the virtues of "much and/or many fewer..." My feeling is that we all seem to be going with "far fewer" as the best choice. I agree that dogmatic application of grammatical rules should be avoided (after all, there's more than one way to cook an egg  ) - however I do find having a few rules is reassuring in this world where we are putting in doubt the word of the BBC. Quel scandale!
> PS : I'm still not convinced by the many fewer South Americans (surely many (adj / noun) cannot be used to modify a comparitive adjective!) Oops - there I go again.


Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it? "Many fewer South Americans" may be correct according to grammar rule "192a", but I don't think that is the most important question. What sounds good?

I think the consensus is that "far fewer South Americans" sounds best, and if it had been used, I doubt if anyone would have questioned it. 

Gaer


----------



## nelliot53

Dimcl said:


> I think they've made a mistake. I would say "many" for the reason you have cited. I think that the only way "much" could be used here is if the sentence was rephrased to say:
> 
> "There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but a much smaller South American community in Scandinavia."


 
I'm with Dimcl.  His/Hers is a *much neater* expression than the posted 
original.


----------



## gaer

nelliot53 said:


> I'm with Dimcl. His/Hers is a *much neater* expression than the posted
> original.


But you guys are cheating. 

Are we allowed to rewrite? Because I think the whole sentence is horrible:

"There is a large Ecuadorian community in Spain, but much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia."

I never mentioned this, but the first thing that hit me was this: Why is "a large Ecuadorian community" in one country compared to "South Americans" someplace else?

I assume that the point is that there are far less—excuse me—far FEWER  South Americans in "Scandinavia" than in Spain.

Am I the only person who finds this jump from people in one country to those in all of South America a little weird?

I'm sorry. A source doesn't impress me. I don't care who wrote this sentence. I think it is in desperate need of a rewrite. 

Gaer


----------



## Dimcl

> Am I the only person who finds this jump from people in one country to those in all of South America a little weird?


 
Gaer, that's why, in an earlier post, I said:

"There is a large cat population in my neighbourhood, but much fewer kittens in the next block". What exactly does this mean?"

Perhaps not an *exact* comparison to our sample sentence but neil4ad seemed to understand my point - so, you weren't the only one confused by the whole sentence - hence my reference earlier to the entire misshapen sentence.


----------



## comsci

In reaching the bottom line here, the conclusion here might be "much less" and "far less/fewer" but not "many/much fewer". Go with the flow then.


----------



## Dimcl

comsci said:


> In reaching the bottom line here, the conclusion here might be "much less" and "far less/fewer" but not "many fewer/less". I'll go with the flow then.


 
That seems to be the compromise solution, Comsci.  Wouldn't that BBC reporter be interested in what he started?


----------



## comsci

Only I wish s/he were _with_ us.


----------



## gaer

Dimcl said:


> Gaer, that's why, in an earlier post, I said:
> 
> "There is a large cat population in my neighbourhood, but much fewer kittens in the next block". What exactly does this mean?"
> 
> Perhaps not an *exact* comparison to our sample sentence but neil4ad seemed to understand my point - so, you weren't the only one confused by the whole sentence - hence my reference earlier to the entire misshapen sentence.


Man, I could NOT agree more. I was so immersed in the much/many/far/less/fewer problem that I totally forget to mention my own initial impression, which EXACTLY matched yours.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!


----------



## cuchuflete

Many fewer trees?


----------



## Dimcl

cuchuflete said:


> Many fewer trees?


 
Nope - far fewer!


----------



## comsci

Dimcl said:


> Nope - far fewer!


----------



## ilikeenglish

In our country, this is a very basic grammatical point, and almost every attentive student who has received English education in junior school can recognize that "much fewer" is far more correct than "many fewer".  We never see an instance of the latter expression in any standard English material, never!  "Much" is an adverb modifying (a) word(s) with a comparative sense.  This is so obvious. On the contrary, "many" never has such functions.  I am also puzzled why some people here even agree with the first guy.   If your grammar is not solid, maybe I will have to reconsider your views on some of my questions posted previously.  Because some of you claim you come from English-speaking countries, but who knows?  Maybe you have just been to an English-speaking country for one or a half year?


----------



## gaer

ilikeenglish said:


> In our country, this is a very basic grammatical point, and almost every attentive student who has received *an* English education in junior *high* school can recognize that "much fewer" is far more correct than "many fewer".


"Many Fewer Cases Of Lyme Disease"

Source: New York Times

What is your point. Do you mean to say that you and those who have taught you in China know more about correct use of the English language than one of the most respected newspapers in the world?

"Many fewer" is a disupted usage. Do you know what that means? I don't think you do. It simply means that some people like it, and some do not. It means that people on both sides of the debate regularly quote conflcting rules that support their positions.

I prefer "much fewer". However, I would be very careful about condemning a usage obviously considered correct by other people whom I respect.

In fact, I would recommend "far fewer" as the best solution, which many other people have also said. That, however, was not the question.


> We never see an instance of the latter expression in any standard English material, never! "Much" is an adverb modifying (a) word(s) with a comparative sense.


That is _*one side*_ of this disputed grammatical disupute.


> This is so obvious. On the contrary, "many" never has such functions.


It's not obvious to the editor of the New York Times. You will have to exuse me, but I suspect he—or she—knows a great deal more about English than you do.


> I am also puzzled why some people here even agree with the first guy.
> 
> If your grammar is not solid, maybe I will have to reconsider your views on some of my questions posted previously.


That is your right. However, you might learn to listen a bit more, and that might help you find a way to express your opinions without sounding arrogant, insulting and condescending. 

Gaer


----------



## Dimcl

ilikeenglish said:


> In our country, this is a very basic grammatical point, and almost every attentive student who has received English education in junior school can recognize that "much fewer" is far more correct than "many fewer". We never see an instance of the latter expression in any standard English material, never! "Much" is an adverb modifying (a) word(s) with a comparative sense. This is so obvious. On the contrary, "many" never has such functions. I am also puzzled why some people here even agree with the first guy. If your grammar is not solid, maybe I will have to reconsider your views on some of my questions posted previously. Because some of you claim you come from English-speaking countries, but who knows? Maybe you have just been to an English-speaking country for one or a half year?


 
Very brave of you to voice your opinion at the end of a thread which had obviously reached its conclusion.  This thread maintained its civilized tenor throughout and was seriously, respectfully and animatedly discussed by those who were willing to participate.  Your snide and condescending comments do a disservice to those people.  If you must reconsider your views vis a vis the discussion on some of your previous postings, please feel free to do so.


----------



## .   1

ilikeenglish said:


> Because some of you claim you come from English-speaking countries, but who knows? Maybe you have just been to an English-speaking country for one or a half year?


Or for forty nine and a half years.
Even after such a long period in a monolingual country such as Australia I as still not so sure that I am right on such obscure and debateable grammar points as this that I would make as many strident comments about the lack of knowledge of fellow native English speakers as you seem to be making.
Perhaps it is a translation thing but I am finding myself more and more to be digging my heels in and considering you to be less than correct in your approach to this topic.
With any due respect,

.,,


----------



## Heba

ilikeenglish said:


> I am also puzzled why some people here even agree with the first guy. If your grammar is not solid, maybe I will have to reconsider your views on some of my questions posted previously. Because some of you claim you come from English-speaking countries, but who knows? Maybe you have just been to an English-speaking country for one or a half year?


 
No matter how hard non-native speakers of any given language try, they will never be as competent as native speakers are and will probably continue to make mistakes till their dying day. The former lack the linguistic sense or intuition* which the latter aquire from their environement early in life. This linguistic sense alone is enough to make you accept what they say. 

I think that one of my professors once said that non-native speakers are ''walking grammar books''. Believe me, grammar books do not always tell you everything. The fact that a native speaker has an opinion that you cannot find in your grammar book does not necessarily mean that he or she does not have a solid knowledge of his/her mother tongue. There are some points, such as this one, around which opinions might differ

*I am not sure if this is the correct word, but I hope that you understand what I mean.


----------



## comsci

You live, you learn. And that's what has brought us all here. After all, it's your "attitude" that counts not so much as to how much you know or have learned, though that could also be a factor/an index in determining one's language ability/proficiency in a given language.

I always treasure the "attitude" of my Aussie friend, who is a safety engineer working for a joint venture railway project here, learning Mandarin from me. I guess this applies to all second maybe third language learners around the globe.

Given all that, I treasure and have high regards for comments of native speakers.


----------



## ilikeenglish

gaer said:


> What is your point. Do you mean to say that you and those who have taught you in China know more about correct use of the English language than one of the most respected newspapers in the world?


 
You said, "English education" cannot be used in my sentence, instead it should be "an English education", but who agrees with you on that? "Junior school" maybe is wrong. But it's out of a neglect. It is also out of an effort to shorten the long phrase---which every one who has learned 1 year of English can see is "junior high school". If you feel very good picking up even the most trivial mistakes of mine, I wouldn't regard you as a kind, generous person. After all, English is not my mother tongue. And I don't have good eyesight and don't want to spend the time in making sure that there is no single mistake in what I wrote. And you would rather pick my problem than your native citizen's. The reason cannot be irrelevant with your prejudice of people from my nation. I think before you posted this to me, you knew too well and you felt so good that I am from China taking it for granted that I naturally have less grammatical sense than some of you people. Gererally, maybe this is the case. But in some parts, I don't think my grammatical sense is necessarily poorer. Do you know that even your natives cannot get full marks in our national college entrance English exam while some Chinese high school students can?



gaer said:


> "Many fewer" is a disupted usage. Do you know what that means? I don't think you do. It simply means that some people like it, and some do not. It means that people on both sides of the debate regularly quote conflcting rules that support their positions.


 
Don't ridicule me. Without a context, can the phrase "many fewer" brings such a sense ---people on both sides of the debate regularly quote conflcting rules that support their positions--- by itself? I don't think so. 



gaer said:


> I prefer "much fewer". However, I would be very careful about condemning a usage obviously considered correct by other people whom I respect.


 
I think that is most subjective. Do you mean that if you respect sb, every one of his/her opinions should be respected as well? Then maybe everyone can claim that his/her father's opinion is 100% correct on everything? Actually it is also out of my respect for BBC that I want to say that this is not a mistake. And you seemed to go to an extreme to think I do not respect people at large. I do all this to show my respect for BBC, which is a great team, for I just cannot stand people who doubt their authority without much reason. At least, it is the first guy who is wrong, not me. So it is he who first shows disrespect for others. It is he who shows carelessness in raising doubts about some other people/organization. 



gaer said:


> However, you might learn to listen a bit more, and that might help you find a way to express your opinions without sounding arrogant, insulting and condescending.
> 
> Gaer


 
I also think listening is important. But if I am not a native, does that mean I have to always behave obdient, even when I am sure that this is right and some of natives get it wrong? 
You know what, I often wonder why your natives taught us some basic, core rules that seem not to be chanllenged while you are constantly making changes here and there, acknowledging your right of free creating, yet not giving even very small room or tolenrance for any creative effort on the part of non-natives. (for example, "junior school", which may just be a shortened form for "junior high school" invited by me.) Who is more arrogant in this respect? Besides, I still don't think your "an English education" is more correct than mine "English education" in my sentence. You can say things in your favored ways, but don't carelessly regard correct things in my writing as wrong. I have some good judgement in English. And I don't have the habit to pick other's minor mistakes as you did to me here.


----------



## cuchuflete

When the latest episode of the battle of the _many_ took a _much_
lamented turn, _far_ to the detriment of civility, there was an implication that "many" must never ever be used to modify a comparative.  





> Much" is an adverb modifying (a) word(s) with a comparative sense. This is so obvious. On the contrary, "many" _never_ has such functions.


  That statement is vague and misleading.  See posts #s 21 and 22, in which there was a civil, friendly exchange about the use of "many" to modify an adjective.  An adverb can tell us things about a verb, another adverb, or an adjective.  Here is a very basic explanation for beginners:



> A word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. An adverb tells how, when, where, why, how often, _or how much_. Adverbs can be cataloged in four basic ways: time, place, manner, and _degree_. See Adjective, Noun, Verb
> www.armour.k12.sd.us/Mary's%20Classes/literary_terms_glossary.htm



That tells us about the use of "much" to modify "fewer".  

Now, to the implied, but vague, statement that "many" can never be used to modify a comparative, let's ponder whether "more" is a comparative.  If you think it is, then also consider the expression "many more".  It's fairly common.



> Results 1 - 10 of about 80,800,000 for  "many more".


  In that expression, "many" is used to modify the comparative "more".  That might lead us to pause and consider whether, in fact, "many" can be, and is, used to modify a comparative.
_
There are many more Guaraní speakers in Paraguay than in China._

What is the opposite of that statement?   

Please consider:  _There are many fewer Guaraní speakers in China than in Paraguay. _ 


Does "many" perform a different grammatical role in "many more" than it does in "many fewer"?

Is "Many more" wrong because "many" is used to modify a comparative?



Of course, if your grammar teachers would hit you and call you ignorant for considering "more" the opposite of "fewer" in this construction, just do as you please.  There are far fewer successful language students at the school of grammatical bludgeoning than at the institute of friendly exchange.


----------



## cuchuflete

As further food for thought, if there were no children, _How many fewer schools would we need?

_Try that with "much".


----------



## .   1

ilikeenglish said:


> After all, English is not my mother tongue. And I don't have good eyesight and don't want to spend the time in making sure that there is no single mistake in what I wrote. And you would rather pick my problem than your native citizen's. The reason cannot be irrelevant with your prejudice of people from my nation.


It is quite obvious that English is not your mother tongue. That is why I had been trying to help you.
I have grave doubts that Gaer is in any way prejudiced against you at all and I am of the opinion that this is a base canard issued in a tragic attempt to garner sympathy.
No one was picking on you then.
No one was calling you a substandard person at that time.
You have revealed some things about yourself that are fascinating and sympathy is not likely to flow to you as a result.
It is a dreadful thing to accuse a person of prejudice.
It is most disrespectful to accuse a person of prejudice because of a word definition.
In my country such accusations can be construed as being illegal and anybody issuing such accusations could well be faced with a significant judicial difficulty and at the very leas social condemnation.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am ashamed for you and I don't know you and I doubt if my life would be improved by knowing you more than I do now.
This place is composed of people like Gaer who come here to help people who have questions about language and culture. You have received information from native speakers that you did not like and it is your right to not like that information. It is not your right to insult people who give you information in good faith.
It is most certainly not your right to play the bigot card and make a most ugly accusation.
You have taken a very strange attitude and I do not like it one little bit and that is my right.
I will temper any further intercourse I have with you and as my resources are finite I may well find that I am unable to attempt to assist you further.
It is weird that you should take this attitude and rain on a person's parade in the way that you have.
I thought that Gaer showed great restraint in his response to your provocative replies to him and this has done nothing but increase my respect for him.
I doubt if my opinion of you could be lowered.
Your arguments trying to support your theory of grammar in this thread are spurious.
English is a living language.
English as a language is described by Melvyn Bragg as a "Living, breathing organism."
By the time that it is written down in books the usages often change and not all books are correctly written and not all teachers of English are infallible.
It should become apparent to you that as the opinions expressed by Gaer are supported by a number of other English speakers then some merit should be placed on his words.
Many people learn form this place but some just argue which gains them nothing.
Good luck.

.,,


----------



## nytas

*ilikeenglish*, stay calm. I can understand your feeling. When i first saw this thread i was shocked as you were. That "Much" instead of "many" can modify an adjective in a comparative sense is the simplest rule that every English learner in China should know. So i was shocked as to why a native speaker could raise such a question. But as the discussion proceeded, I think i may reconsider the grammar we're taught at school. After all, any rule has an exception and in our own mother tongue we have some sentences that cannot be explained by any rule. They native speakers of English have linguistic intuition we can never match. They give us a different light on the "much/many" usage. This is a fair discussion, and everyone contributes his/her opinion. If you disagree, you can stick to your own. But watch your tone and the way you make your point. Don't cite the example of college entrance examination. Mastering grammar doesn't mean that Chinese students can speak good English. That's why you and I are here to ask for the help of native English speakers.


----------



## Sallyb36

Of course, if your grammar teachers would hit you and call you ignorant for considering "more" the opposite of "fewer" in this construction, just do as you please. *There are far fewer successful language students at the school of grammatical bludgeoning than at the institute of friendly exchange.* Just beautiful!!


----------



## bglad2uk

I think the most mature reaction would be to let the matter rest and return to the original question, which I believe was of the much v many argument in a BBC article.

I myself am a journalist and when I read the sentence, I immediately thought the word 'much' should be replaced by 'far' to end any confusion.  I have not had time to read all of the posts, but saw one saying how a 'non-native speaker of English is like a walking grammar book' and how they will 'never have the intuition (which was the right choice of word) to know what 'sounds right'.'  For me, 'much' in this situation sounds far better than 'many', in fact, 'many' verges on ungrammatical, although I would be at odds to explain exactly why, it is just one of those things which sounds right or wrong.  This may be where a non-native speaker who has studied my language's grammar in far more depth than I have could provide an answer.

Journalists do make mistakes, though, even if they work for the BBC, and I am speaking from experience.  Most of the time, it is due to time constraints and the errors should usually be picked up by sub-editors.  Basically, I believe this is not an error and the many posts in support and against it show how difficult it is to find a right and wrong.  Languages are not always so clear cut.


----------



## Sallyb36

I agree that much is better here than many, but far would be the best choice by far!


----------



## gaer

bglad2uk said:


> Basically, I believe this is not an error and the many posts in support and against it show how difficult it is to find a right and wrong. Languages are not always so clear cut.


That has been my point all along. 

1) …much fewer South Americans in Scandinavia (BBC)
2) Many Fewer Cases Of Lyme Disease (New York Times)

I think many people involved in this discussion are not fully comfortable with either "much fewer" or "many fewer". If the BBC and the New York Times are unable to agree on usage, where does it leave the rest of us? 

People who have a great deal of experience with written language will often choose a third way of expressing an idea when two (or more) choices do not seem completely natural or smooth.

I think that "far fewer" is by far the best choice. 

However, there is another problem here that you have not considered.

Students come to this forum from around the world for help in passing tests or preparing for classes. Most of us who attempt to help other people also attempt to give the most thorough possible answers.

Often a useful answer involves giving a prescriptive answer for those who are learning in a very formal and conservative environment.

In this case, even prescriptivists appear to differ. 

Let's consider a hypothetical question on a hypothetical test.

If you are given two choices and have no other option but to pick one or the other, it comes down to this:

1) many fewer mistakes
2) much fewer mistakes

What is the correct answer? Unfortunately, it appears the correct answer is whatever the particular grammar or style sheet that you are using demands. Obviously teachers who give tests with such choices are using some set of rules, and you have no choice but to find out which rules the teacher is using and follow them. 

Gaer


----------



## ilikeenglish

Sorry, I made a mistake. 
I think the answer to the first post should better be "many fewer" than "much fewer", because the noun followed is a plural one (South Americans) not a single one (community).

However logically it seems, "many fewer" reads a little akward to me.


----------



## Dimcl

ilikeenglish said:


> Sorry, I made a mistake.
> I think the answer to the first post should better be "many fewer" than "much fewer", because the noun followed is a plural one (South Americans) not a single one (community).
> 
> However logically it seems, "many fewer" reads a little akward to me.


 
Ilikeenglish, your turnabout on this discussion at least indicates that you further thought through this matter and reconsidered the pros and cons of the argument and published your change of mind, which is commendable.

I would also prefer to think that your comments to Gaer about him being prejudiced because you are from China were made in haste and with uncharacteristic (I hope) poor judgement.  Frankly, from what I've seen, Gaer is one of the more knowledgeable and open-minded native English-speakers and his input is always valuable.  He would not be participating in this forum if he didn't want to help.

We all have our sensitivities and I, for one, have been guilty, once on this forum, of feeling slighted by others' comments and responding inappropriately.  The other party with whom I had words seems to have been the "bigger man", and has forgiven me my insecurities and I appreciate that very much.

Hopefully, we all learn from our mistakes and I hope this "discussion" hasn't turned you off of the forum because it's a wonderful resource.  I hope to see your posts again.


----------



## gaer

Dimcl said:


> We all have our sensitivities and I, for one, have been guilty, once on this forum, of feeling slighted by others' comments and responding inappropriately. The other party with whom I had words seems to have been the "bigger man", and has forgiven me my insecurities and I appreciate that very much.
> 
> Hopefully, we all learn from our mistakes and I hope this "discussion" hasn't turned you off of the forum because it's a wonderful resource. I hope to see your posts again.


I could not agree more. I don't think anyone is involved in this forum for reasons other than to learn. I am eager to share anything I know, and I am very often surprised at what I do not know.

I don't know one person, no matter how knowledgeable, who knows all there is to know about English. The long debate we have had about _much/many/far_ demonstrates how complicated it becomes when we attempt to apply logic and only logic to English.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thank you, Ilikeenglish.  It takes courage and trust to openly acknowledge a mistake.

I came to this conversation with the baggage of what I was comfortable hearing and saying: many.  I have learned that, to some sets of ears, this sounds awkward at best, just as _much_ does for me.  I have learned more about my own language from this thread, and have a greater appreciation of the ambiguities of grammatical rules.  Beyond the rules, there is popular usage, which bends and eventually breaks some of those rules, recasting them to reflect the way people actually write and speak.   What is "right" is a moving target at times.

I look forward to your future collaboration here.

regards,
cuchuflete


----------



## .   1

G'day ilikeenglish,
It's good to hear from you and I am so pleased that you have solved your misunderstanding with the words.
Everyone makes a blue now and then and only adults ever realise that they made a blue but it is wisdom that admits to the mistake.
Enjoy the forum.

Robert


----------



## broud

Hello,

I think the answer to this question is easy after all these topics : "it is not clear if we would say 'many fewer' or 'much fewer' if one of them should be used".

The good work of the forer@s here is shown by the fact that Swan in his 'Practical English Usage' agrees with them: "Many is sometimes used to modify less (before a plural noun) and fewer, but this is unusual; far, a lot etc are more common". 

Interestingly enough, Swan doesn't take into account that many native speakers (I could be wrong but it seems their dialects are more related to Britain) prefer "much fewer" rather than "many fewer".

So, thanks to all the forer@s here who day after day scare me with all the difficulties of English I hadn't thought of  just kidding


----------



## ChrissyH

Hello ilikeenglish,
Personally, I don't think you made a mistake regarding your understanding of much/many in the particular sentence under discussion - the problem is that the sentence was badly constructed in the first place.
I'm happy that you seem to have reconsidered your approach to English, which makes me think that you have chosen your _nom de plume_ after careful reflection.  If the English language were just a collection of formula that one could learn without questioning, where would the fun be!  
One of the reasons I love English is that it can evolve and new words and meanings can be added to the dictionaries.  In any case, the English language is not an absolute and I, for one, find it stimulating to join in the very lively exchanges on this site that prove that it is not.  By participating here, I learn all the time - for example *.,, *has just used a very interesting expression - "to make a blue" - I've never heard this used before, but I understand and I'm the richer for it!  I hope that I have the opportunity of hearing your opinions in other discussions in this forum.
Chrissy


----------

