 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009Less Than Six Weeks
"I'll see you in less than six weeks." This should take less than two days." Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"?  Signature"All of life's riddles are answered in the movies." - Steve Martin > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > > This should take less than two days." > > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? Because time is mass noun? > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > > This should take less than two days." > > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? Because "six weeks" and "two days" are considered to be lengths of time and not individual weeks or days. Most people would also say "less than three inches" and not "fewer". SignatureLes (BrE) >> "I'll see you in less than six weeks." >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because "six weeks" and "two days" are considered to be lengths of time and > not individual weeks or days. Usually, certainly, but there are occasions when one might consider six weeks to constitute six countable objects, if they are regarded as six sessions of one week (not necessarily contiguous). In such case one might conceivably say "I can manage in fewer than six weeks", though "less" would work perfectly well as well. Signatureathel > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > This should take less than two days." > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? I think the "less that" is short for "less time than", probably. "Fewer than six weeks" certainly isn't idiomatic. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Attending Anesthesiologist) Now happily retired. Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > This should take less than two days." > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? Language Log has an excellent entry on this: "If it was good enough for King Alfred the Great..." http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html SignatureChristian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber wrote... > http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html Might I venture to propose 'the sign outside a kids playground' as a standard example of the shoddy grammar of our modern age in language blog posts? SignatureNoel Ildhund filted: >Christian Weisgerber wrote... >> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html > >Might I venture to propose 'the sign outside a kids playground' as a >standard example of the shoddy grammar of our modern age in language >blog posts? Eh, let's just chalk it up as an attributive...there are more important things to get het up about....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > > This should take less than two days." > > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? For the same reason that you wouldn't say that something costs fewer than ten dollars, or that baby weighs fewer than ten pounds. T. >"I'll see you in less than six weeks." >This should take less than two days." >Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? For the same reason that "five miles is too far" and "two dollars is not enough". Quantities of time, money, and distance are perceived of as whole units in English and are treated as if they were singular. SignatureBob http://www.kanyak.com >"I'll see you in less than six weeks." Fewer wouldn't make sense unless the alternatives are 4 and 5 weeks, but 5 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 7 minutes, 30 seconds isn't allowed. >This should take less than two days." Is one day the only other choice? >Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? You might well say fewer than in, "The rent is 50 dollars a week and if you pay in advance for the whole summer, I will charge you for fewer than 12 weeks." But in most situations "less than" is the right choice. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > > This should take less than two days." > > Seems to be acceptable, but why isn't it "fewer than"? Because the units are further divisible. I'll see you in ... five weeks, three days and 6 hours five weeks, three days and 8 hours This should take ... 1 working day (of 8 hours) and 1 hour 20 minutes 1 working day (of 12 hours) and 2 hours 11 minutes 'fewer than' works where the units are not further divisible - fewer than 10 items in a supermarket (you can't have a fraction of an item for the purpose of ringing the item up at the checkout) - fewer than 1000 people voted for the mayor - there can't be half a person voting. I have less than 3 kg of cat food, I have fewer than 8 tins of cat food SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> "I'll see you in less than six weeks." >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I have less than 3 kg of cat food, I have fewer than 8 tins of cat food As a matter of fact, you /can/ have less than 8 tins of cat food. If 7 are intact, and one is open and half-eaten. But then, of course, this changes the meaning to indicate a quantity of food, not tins. SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. Patok filted: >> I have less than 3 kg of cat food, I have fewer than 8 tins of cat food > > As a matter of fact, you /can/ have less than 8 tins of cat food. >If 7 are intact, and one is open and half-eaten. But then, of course, >this changes the meaning to indicate a quantity of food, not tins. As described, you have fewer than 8 tins of cat food...but if you open the other seven and dump the lot into a big bowl, you now have *less* than 8 tins of cat food....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Patok filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >As described, you have fewer than 8 tins of cat food.. He's right. It's less than 8. Fewer than 8 would be 7 or fewer and he has more than 7. >.but if you open the other >seven and dump the lot into a big bowl, you now have *less* than 8 tins of cat >food....r Where is there a requirement that all the food be in one bowl? SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years mm filted: >>Patok filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Where is there a requirement that all the food be in one bowl? That's not a requirement, just one way of many of ensuring that it's not *in the tins*....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>> "I'll see you in less than six weeks." >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If 7 are intact, and one is open and half-eaten. But then, of course, > this changes the meaning to indicate a quantity of food, not tins. It's implicit that the tins are intact. Otherwise you'd speak of 'seven and a half tins' and suchlike. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > 'fewer than' works where the units are not further divisible - fewer > than 10 items in a supermarket (you can't have a fraction of an item > for the purpose of ringing the item up at the checkout) > - fewer than 1000 people voted for the mayor - there can't be half a > person voting. On the other hand, I don't feel the same way about "fewer than ten shares of stock" in a particular company, even though it's quite possible these days to own fractional shares. If there was a minimum stake required to do something, I'd probably choose "fewer" rather than "less". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to |it, but when you need one, you need kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will (650)857-7572 |do. | Bill McNutt http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > "I'll see you in less than six weeks." > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "All of life's riddles are answered in the movies." > - Steve Martin Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." In article <d50cdfac-eda8-46a8-b758-bf825a68e0d7@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, > Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." That's the third time I've seen "technically" used this way. In what sense is it "technically"? Signature"Get hip to the consultation of the boolawee." - P.J. Proby >> Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." > > That's the third time I've seen "technically" used this way. In what > sense is it "technically"? "Technically," as used above, means "according to the rules," or "following the accepted norms." (Does that help at all?) SignatureMaria Conlon (another "MC.") >>> Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >(Does that help at all?) "There are fewer than 6 weeks in every month." "It took me less than 6 weeks to do that calculation." SignatureIan >>>> Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > "There are fewer than 6 weeks in every month." Yes, well, technically there are "fewer than five weeks" if we're discussing full weeks. (Six is not incorrect, but it's imprecise.) In any case, I'd tend to say "less" rather than "fewer" in that sentence. The use of "fewer" there is too fussy, IMO. (And as long as we're discussing the sentence as written, I'd use "six" rather than "6.") > "It took me less than 6 weeks to do that calculation." Heck of a calculation. <smiley> Maria Conlon, Who used to favor "fewer" (as in "12 Items or Fewer" on a grocery check-out sign) but got over it. >>>> Technically, it should be "less than," and not "fewer than." >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "There are fewer than 6 weeks in every month." > "It took me less than 6 weeks to do that calculation." I haven't been paying full attention, but I've gathered an impression --perhaps a false one --that BMCT's answers are often in the twilight world of "Well, sort of, if you insist on looking at it that way." SignatureMike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.