52
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 days ago

Fewer* people. If you can count it, it’s fewer. If not, it’s less, e.g. less money, fewer dollars.

[-] foiledAgain@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Thanks Stannis

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

What the equivalent opposite of fewer?

[-] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev -5 points 3 days ago

Language is defined by how it's used, if it's common for people to say "less" then that is correct. Trying to define the only "correct" usage counter to how people actually use the language is prescriptivism, which rarely changes how people actually speak. The only real use of prescriptivism is elitism.

You clearly understood what was said, you just wanted to announce you're "better" at English.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

I would normally agree with you.

But just as it's okay for people to speak the way they want, it's also okay for people to spread language knowledge. Then let the people decide whether they want to use that knowledge or not.

It's not like OP said "it's 'fewer', you idiot!" In that case, I'd say it's elitism. Otherwise, it's just a useful lemmy comment.

[-] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hard disagree; it's not a useful comment precisely because it's prescriptivism. It's suggesting people are incorrect because they're using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that's just not how language works.

Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The "less vs fewer" rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn't actually hold true, "less" has been used this way for far longer. It's the epitome of "I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else".

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Interesting! Today I learned, then. Thanks.

Now, and this I'm going to say in a sort-of tongue-in-cheek manner, what's your opinion on the recent change of the meaning of "literally"? Because that one is definitely less (ha!) than 200 years old.

[-] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it's probably less than 300 years in writing? It's moot either way, if you're going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis "of or belonging to letters or writing".

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I wasn't going for an ethymological argument. Plenty of examples of words whose meaning veered away from its ethymology.

But the recent popularization of literally as a synonym of figuratively, well, it literally rustles my jimmies.

[-] themaninblack@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

yu dont even not understand how to not speak good yerself

Edit: *talk

[-] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 23 points 4 days ago

Pretty much all dating apps are owned by Match. If that monopoly is broken, it'll be good for everyone.

Commenting to remind myself to come back to this later.

[-] AssaultPepper@monero.town 5 points 4 days ago

Kinda sad they didn't cover Thursday as it's got a unique feature set compared to the incumbents with most of your interaction being offline.

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)

Videos

13637 readers
717 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only

  2. Follow the global rules as laid out here while posting and commenting.

  3. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS