Preferring one way of doing it over another doesn't make you ignorant or elitist. Thinking that people who do things the other way are thick does.
I tend to think of side-effects as being more of a continuum. Possibly because I've spent a chunk of time looking at the chemical reactions to things. But in any case, the effects could be both less severe and there could be less of them, because those things tend to go hand in hand.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2010-10-27 02:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I think you've failed to answer my question.
In the case of the number of side effects falling to one, but it being very severe I would regard the following statement as true,
"There are fewer side-effects."
and this statement as false
"There are less side-effects."
Do you agree?
Isn't this a counter example to your statement that less and fewer are interchangeable and purely a stylistic choice?
Now I agree that in the vast majority of cases less / fewer have the same meaning and picking on people for 'incorrect' usage is just irritating pedantry, but in this case the distinction is relevant.
I'd say that in that particular case I'd want to be even more specific, as most people read them as interchangable, so it wouldn't matter how grammatically correct you were you'd be confusing people unless you said something as literal as "It only has one side effect, but it makes your legs fall off."
I'd agree. "Less side-effects" and "fewer side-effects" would both indicate a reduced number of side-effects and make no claims about their severity at all.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2010-10-27 03:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Isn't that complete disagreement? andrewdrucker states that side effects are a continuum which means that replacing several small side effects for one bad one would not result in less side effects but more side effects. You're stating that replacing several small side effects for one bad one would result in less side effects, not more because you take less to mean fewer.
I think you have adequately stated my case that the word 'less' as used in the summary was ambiguous, and that fewer would have been a better choice of word because it's unambiguous.
No, I was agreeing that you'd have to be more specific as "less" or "fewer" don't adequately detail the severity of the side-effects.
I've already said that both "less" and "fewer" are both unambiguous in my view as they, to me, imply the number of side-effects. Either that or they're both ambiguous in terms of whether you infer that they cover severity or not. Either way, I don't see it as one being ambiguous and not the other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-10-27 12:00 pm
no subject
I tend to think of side-effects as being more of a continuum. Possibly because I've spent a chunk of time looking at the chemical reactions to things. But in any case, the effects could be both less severe and there could be less of them, because those things tend to go hand in hand.
no subject
In the case of the number of side effects falling to one, but it being very severe I would regard the following statement as true,
"There are fewer side-effects."
and this statement as false
"There are less side-effects."
Do you agree?
Isn't this a counter example to your statement that less and fewer are interchangeable and purely a stylistic choice?
Now I agree that in the vast majority of cases less / fewer have the same meaning and picking on people for 'incorrect' usage is just irritating pedantry, but in this case the distinction is relevant.
no subject
I'd say that in that particular case I'd want to be even more specific, as most people read them as interchangable, so it wouldn't matter how grammatically correct you were you'd be confusing people unless you said something as literal as "It only has one side effect, but it makes your legs fall off."
no subject
no subject
I think you have adequately stated my case that the word 'less' as used in the summary was ambiguous, and that fewer would have been a better choice of word because it's unambiguous.
no subject
I've already said that both "less" and "fewer" are both unambiguous in my view as they, to me, imply the number of side-effects. Either that or they're both ambiguous in terms of whether you infer that they cover severity or not. Either way, I don't see it as one being ambiguous and not the other.
no subject