03 Jan 2005 | pb said...

"fewer"

03 Jan 2005 | oh yeah? said...

less than!

03 Jan 2005 | SH said...

Ok, I'm just going to do it, just because I have to, because it's driving me nuts: PB, you are wrong. And this is not the first time you've been wrong with this same instruction.

The reason "less than" is correct is because the sentence is using variable or abstract quantities, not direct or specific quantities. Meaning, if Jason had written, "There are three less than ten seats left..." the usage of "fewer" would be correct because it is demonstrating specific quantities. Because he does not specify how many *fewer* seats there are, the noun becomes abstract *even though* the "seats" can be seen as a singular object. I know you're thinking the old rule of "counted one by one it's fewer," but this elementary sing-song doesn't apply to modern colloquial conversation, which a weblog post certainly is. Seriously.

Consider if it were, "Write such and such in ten words or less," vs. "...ten words or fewer." This would be an incorrect usage of the term "fewer," just as it is incorrect in the manner you are suggesting it be used in Jason's post.

GAH! I said it!

04 Jan 2005 | One of several Steves said...

Sorry, SH, arguably you're wrong and pb is right.

From the Associate Press Stylebook:

"In general, use "fewer" for individual items, "less" for bulk or quantity."

In this case, the seats are individual items. If the statement were about space at the conference, then "less" would be appropriate.

Now, I said all that arguably, because while abstractness has nothing to do with it, you do touch on this usage guideline in your reference to quantities. So the issue becomes whether 10 seats refers to individual items, or a bulk quantity. In this case, I'd argue they're individual items, and therefore get "fewer" rather than "less." Think of "I have less money than I did yesterday" vs. "I have fewer 20s than I did yesterday." Seats is analgous to 20s in this case.

04 Jan 2005 | SH said...

While I don't argue with you, I do. As I stated, the "one by one" rule doesn't apply when you're speaking of abstract quantities which, given the verbage of the sentence, we are. The individual chairs become a group of chairs for sale because there is no specific delineation, so to sepak, of their individual value. Get it?

And if you're interested in a stylebook that is more relevant to colloquial language, as I also noted, you might want to consider Prose Style or this glossary. Both are quite helpful in dispelling some of those MLA assumptions that aren't quite as accurate as people seem to think.

04 Jan 2005 | pb said...

I'm sticking with "fewer":
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0123.html

04 Jan 2005 | One of several Steves said...

10 chairs is not an abstract quantity. It's a finite, specific quantity. "Space" is an abstract quantity. Colloquial v. formal has nothing to do with it.

As I alluded earlier, though, this is one of those fuzzy cases. You can argue it either way. I think the argument that 10 chairs is a specific amount, and therefore gets "fewer" is the correct one, but that's my opinion.

I do find the notion of a stylebook for colloquial language amusing. Stylebooks are by their very nature prescriptive, and colloquial speech is almost the antithesis of prescriptive language.

But I'll bow out. I don't want to hijack this thread into a grammar police discussion any more than I already have.