• @nova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    662 months 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
      272 months 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
          42 months 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
            22 months 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
      22 months 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.