More or Less
I just ran across what I think is an exception to an otherwise iron-clad rule and a favourite grammar snark.
Any serious grammar nit-picker has been severely irritated by the apparently inevitable sign at the local supermarket that reads "12 ITEMS OR LESS". "Fewer, dammit! It's fewer, not less!", we seethe. And this is true because "fewer" refers to number and "less" refers to volume. Fewer rocks, but less sand. It's a hard-and-fast rule: it's universally true.
But.
Here's the relevant part of a sentence from Slate.com:
"Roberts has been the nominee for less than 24 hours..."
Now, didn't I just say that "fewer" invariably referred to something that was enumerable? And doesn't that sentence use "less" in that exact context? And isn't that therefore wrong?
Yes and no. The reason I think this is an exception to the rule is that "24 hours" is just another way of saying "a day". "Fewer than 24 hours" makes it sound as if every single hour were somehow relevant, which isn't the case: in replacing "a day" with "24 hours", the writer is merely trying to play up the fact that it's hardly any time at all by stressing a small number rather than a uniform chunk of time. If I had been editing that piece, I would have left it exactly as it is.
Besides, "fewer than 24 hours" in this case sounds more than a little fussy and pedantic. God knows I have a strong strain of the fussy pedant, but even I have my limits.
Any serious grammar nit-picker has been severely irritated by the apparently inevitable sign at the local supermarket that reads "12 ITEMS OR LESS". "Fewer, dammit! It's fewer, not less!", we seethe. And this is true because "fewer" refers to number and "less" refers to volume. Fewer rocks, but less sand. It's a hard-and-fast rule: it's universally true.
But.
Here's the relevant part of a sentence from Slate.com:
"Roberts has been the nominee for less than 24 hours..."
Now, didn't I just say that "fewer" invariably referred to something that was enumerable? And doesn't that sentence use "less" in that exact context? And isn't that therefore wrong?
Yes and no. The reason I think this is an exception to the rule is that "24 hours" is just another way of saying "a day". "Fewer than 24 hours" makes it sound as if every single hour were somehow relevant, which isn't the case: in replacing "a day" with "24 hours", the writer is merely trying to play up the fact that it's hardly any time at all by stressing a small number rather than a uniform chunk of time. If I had been editing that piece, I would have left it exactly as it is.
Besides, "fewer than 24 hours" in this case sounds more than a little fussy and pedantic. God knows I have a strong strain of the fussy pedant, but even I have my limits.
posted by pyramus | 2:46 AM
1 Comments:
I sort of think "hours" is atomic (nice term) no matter what you do, to be honest. The "gallons of water" thing is a very different case, because in the first case you're talking about "a container holding a certain number of gallons", in which case "less than five gallons" is clearly correct, and in the second you're talking about "individual containers, each holding a gallon, each of which is referred to as a gallon", which is a somewhat different meaning for "gallon" and therefore requires "fewer" because it is, as you say, atomic. But hours are hours--unless, I suppose, you consider "day" to be "a container holding twenty-four hours". Which, now that I think about it, was pretty much exactly the point I was originally making, wasn't it?
So you're right.
Post a Comment
<< Home