• nova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 month ago

    It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading “less cops” was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you’re, its/it’s, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction).

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting “whom” die, “less” and “fewer” might as well just be interchangeable. There’s no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike “literally”'s tragic demise.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays.

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn’t get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Can we at least stop allowing people to use ‘of’ instead of ‘have’?

      It doesn’t make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they’re saying.