 |
 | 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 / January 2004much fewer vs many fewer
A question was asked a while back --actually about three weeks ago-- in the French newsgroup news:fr.lettres.langue.anglaise about the proper way of intensifying 'fewer'. The consensus seemed to be revolving around such idioms as 'far fewer ...', 'considerably fewer ...', 'a lot fewer', and 'much fewer' until someone brought up a quote with 'many fewer': "We have much fewer people, many fewer people on food stamps now than we did previously", quote from http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/27/le.00.html . The writer of that post wondered whether there was a sort of progression going on from 'much fewer people' to 'many fewer people'. Being a timid creature, I refrained from offering any opinion, although 'many fewer ...' sounded funny to my admittedly foreign ears. I looked for advice in Swan's /Practical English Usage/, and it says that 'many fewer' can sometimes be found, and it doesn't label it as wrong. I'm at a loss. What do you native speakers think?  SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > A question was asked a while back --actually about three weeks ago-- in > the French newsgroup news:fr.lettres.langue.anglaise about the proper [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that post wondered whether there was a sort of progression going on from > 'much fewer people' to 'many fewer people'. 1. Sounds to me like the speaker was correcting themselves. I suspect that this is hypercorrection though. "Many" *seems* logically correct since "many" goes with countables in the same way that "fewer" does. But the word we are qualifying isn't the noun but the comparative adjective, and we don't qualify comparative adjectives with "many". So "many fewer" is wrong. 2. less money much less money more money much more money fewer apples much fewer apples more apples much more apples Er... 3. Start again. I think we'd agree that grown-ups don't say "much more apples". They say "many more apples" (or "lots more apples", etc.). So "more" (when used with a countable) and, by extension, "fewer" are exceptions: they *do* use "many" as an intensifier. So "many fewer" is right. 4. So, I think people find it a bit odd saying "much fewer" because we don't say "much more" with countables. On the other hand, "many fewer (apples)" sounds oxymoronic. ("Much less" doesn't sound so oxymoronic because we don't say "much money" when we mean "lots of money" unless it's qualified with "not" or "too" or something.) Result: the popularity of "far fewer". 5. Conclusion: aaargh. Adrian My take on it is: "Fewer" was dying out; by the 1960s or so it was formal diction like "It is I". "There are many (or a few) less people here today than there were yesterday" was the ordinary, unforced way of putting it. Then there was a vigorous and (to my mind) unfortunately successful effort to revive "fewer", and it has become a lot more common. Consistency with the usage of "more" would require not only "many fewer" but also "a few fewer", which sounded silly. "Much fewer" strikes me as a desperate recourse. By now, the revival has been so successful that people have gotten used to "many fewer" & even "a few fewer". Google comes up with 794 of the latter, including the wonderful title "A Few Fewer Introductions by a Few Fewer People". In another generation, I suppose, people will wonder what the fuss was about. A rare triumph of prescriptivism. Would that it had been in a better cause! Signature--- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com ||: We console ourselves by giving good advice when we are too :|| ||: old to set a bad example. :|| > My take on it is: "Fewer" was dying out; by the 1960s or so it was > formal diction like "It is I". "There are many (or a few) less people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not only "many fewer" but also "a few fewer", which sounded silly. > "Much fewer" strikes me as a desperate recourse. I would suggest that not only is 'fewer' still dying out, but that 'many' has been largely replaced with 'a lot' (frequently written as one word), so the 'many/few' contrast doesn't exist. SignatureRob Bannister Adrian Bailey a écrit: >> A question was asked a while back --actually about three weeks ago-- >> in the French newsgroup news:fr.lettres.langue.anglaise about the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > adjective, and we don't qualify comparative adjectives with "many". > So "many fewer" is wrong. Yes, that's the way I first analysed it. > 2. > less money [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exceptions: they *do* use "many" as an intensifier. So "many fewer" > is right. Ah! Thank you! I hadn't thought of comparing with "many more". That's very enlightening. > 4. > So, I think people find it a bit odd saying "much fewer" because we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 5. > Conclusion: aaargh. My feeling too. > Adrian SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > A question was asked a while back --actually about three weeks ago-- in > the French newsgroup news:fr.lettres.langue.anglaise about the proper [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that post wondered whether there was a sort of progression going on from > 'much fewer people' to 'many fewer people'. Other way around. The speaker was correcting him/herself. Exactly as if they had said, "There are less people, (I mean) fewer people now who..." It looks to me as if it's "fewer" that is on the decline. I don't think anyone would have a doubt over "many people" or "much people," would they? Maybe if you're French, because you use "beaucoup de" for both mass and count nouns, right? > Being a timid creature, I refrained from offering any opinion, although > 'many fewer ...' sounded funny to my admittedly foreign ears. I looked > for advice in Swan's /Practical English Usage/, and it says that 'many > fewer' can sometimes be found, and it doesn't label it as wrong. > > I'm at a loss. What do you native speakers think? I would put "many" with "fewer" and "much" with "less". However, usage counts shows they are nearly even: "many fewer" 37,100 "much fewer" 25,600 Ratio 1.4:1 Out of curiosity, I checked the archives and found I haven't used either of those in my own posts here (except to discuss them). Not "far fewer," either, although that sounds good. What I have used once is "a lot fewer." SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna Richoux a écrit: >> A question was asked a while back --actually about three weeks ago-- >> in the French newsgroup news:fr.lettres.langue.anglaise about the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > people," would they? Maybe if you're French, because you use "beaucoup > de" for both mass and count nouns, right? Yes, that's right. The countable/uncountable distinction is indeed difficult to master for us. >> Being a timid creature, I refrained from offering any opinion, >> although 'many fewer ...' sounded funny to my admittedly foreign [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "far fewer," either, although that sounds good. What I have used once > is "a lot fewer." Thank you very much for your comments! I'm still unsure about the nature of "many" in that usage, as well as in the parallel "many more" mentioned by Adrian. Dictionaries such as the NODE and the AHD4 say that "much" can be an adverb modifying a comparative, but there's no mention of "many" as an adverb. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini |
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.