• Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Is this a grammer thing? I’m fairly certain I can use “a lot less”.

      Hmm nvm, I don’t recognize the meme.

      • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It is a grammar thing. You can have a lot less of a non-count noun, like sand. But you have to have fewer of countable nouns, like loaves of bread, or bakers of bread

          • rainwall@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            This is a contested grammar rule that was based on one persons opinion in the late 1700s.

            There are plently of examples in history and modern usage where less and fewer are used interchangably. It is not a fixed part of english grammar as much as an “internet gotcha” that is commonly repeated.

            • teslekova@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Looks better though. I know it looks better because I grew up with the rule, but it does look better.

              • rainwall@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Personally I disagree. “Fewer” is more verbose than “less,” so it just looks cumbersome to me in many instances.

                It also irks me a bit, because I know at least some of the instances I see are likely based on the above misunderstanding, not taste.

        • toynbee@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Non-countable? I think some vampires might disagree.

          I also thought Thor relevant but I can’t find anything to support that.

          • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Whether something is a. Punt or non-count noun is more convention than actual ability to be counted

            • toynbee@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              I know, but if I let reality impinge on my comments, it would get a lot harder to make stupid jokes.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You can use “less” when it’s a non-discrete plurality, such as water or sand (ignoring the technical fact that these can now be observed as discrete components below the macroscopic level) or money (the made-up kind, not necessarily the physical representations thereof). It’s vastly more messy to have 1.78 bakers, and their families get really upset about it, so it’s safer just to use “fewer.”

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          To be fair, knowing what the first mass production machines looked like, some families definitely got back .78 of their baker.

          Jk tho, thanks for the correction.