ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

grates.

"Less than half of lenders" or "Fewer than half of lenders"? Is the countability of lenders negated by casting the whole thing as a fraction?

Good question. I'd say no, and go for fewer. But context might decide for you?

This was discussed just over a year ago up-thread: 2 November 2007! I'd usually use "less", but agree that context decides.

fewer than half of all lenders sounds best?

I'd say "less" because it sounds less assy.

They're individuals rather than a mass of goop, so I'd say fewer.

i'd say "less" because you're not talking about a specific number, just a fraction of a non-specified number.

it's the difference between "much" and "many", isn't it?

I just had the same thing with percentages.

It came in

less than 1% of the National Guard are Shia, but should be either

fewer than 1% of the National Guard are Shia

or

less than 1% of the National Guard is Shia

shouldn't it?

Or does the % change things?

I say less/is but admit that "less than 1" gets me confused because the number isn't 1, it's something between 0 and 1, and you say "None are" and "One is" - which to use???

AFAIK, you only use "is" with "one".

less than 1% of the National Guard is Shia

is right i think - but if it were members of the guard...

less than 1% of the members of the National Guard are Shia

argh! brainwrong.

Isn't this an instance of the UK vs. US difference on singular-but-plural nouns?

No. It depends what the verb relates to. In the first instance:

"less than 1% of the National Guard is Shia"
= 1% is shia

in the second instance:

"less than 1% of the members of the Nationa Guard are Shia"
= the members are shia

In the latter case - with "are" - I'd suggest that "fewer" would be more appropriate.

me too

I stand very much corrected, fewer sounds more correct. The distinction between less and fewer isn't one of singular and plural, however, but of countability. If you can count it, it's fewer (books, sheep etc), if you can't (and it is therefore an uncountable quantity, like "butter"), it's less. I can't read the above sentenceso that 'less' sounds entirely wrong though. 1% clearly makes it countable though, yes?

The two issues are separate - whether "Fewer/Less than 1% of the members" is correct, and whether "1% of the members is/are".

Fewer seems to be correct.
So is it 1% is or 1% are?

Although, I've found at least one source (however dubious the title 'Grammar Girl' is, the explanation sounds, well... sound)...

"As for mathematical numbers (be it distances, temperatures or percentages), they are generally considered a certain *amount*, not a certain *number*, of something. 5 tonnes, for example, is a (really) huge amount *of milk*, not a large number of milk. Measuring something is, originally, not the same thing as counting something."

Which would suggest that it is "Less than 1%..."

But still doesn't solve the problem of "Less than 1% of the National Guard is/are Shia".

I'd plump for "Less than 1% of the National Guard are Shia".

QUESTION: The word "premises" as in "I went to visit the company's premises" is often used in the singular (i.e. one building or office). What if the company has more than one premises? How do I distinguish between these? I take it they're spelt the same, but I'm tempted to pronounce the plural as "prem-es-eeze"...

Premises is never singular, grammatically speaking, is it? I see no difference if they have several premises, either in writing or pronunciation. Like headquarters.

Andy I think the issue is that "less than 1%" emphasizes the fraction (which comprises who knows how many people - we're using the uncountable word, "less"), which is singular; "fewer than 1%" emphasizes the countable people who make up that 1%, which would point toward a plural verb.

BTW grammarians: "Towards" or "toward"?

That is one I always have to check. I think "toward" is correct but -- in UK English, anyway -- "towards" has all but replaced it. (I'm not in the vicinity of my handy and trusted reference tomes, so I can't check right now.)

I vaguely remember that AP doesn't even consider "towards" to be a word, but like yours my reference materials are inaccessible

I mean Andy I know you say that "The distinction between less and fewer isn't one of singular and plural, however, but of countability." But one would never say "Less snow have fallen today than the day before." I'm struggling to think of cases where one says "less... are" or "fewer... is" (unless you're using "fewer" in a phrase that denotes an entire state of affairs, which can then be taken as a singular thing, i.e. "Fewer sycophants in the White House is a good thing, in general")

huh I remember that 'toward' isn't a word

But one would never say "Less snow have fallen today than the day before."

I'm not sure if anyone suggested that you would. Correct English would be "less snow has fallen..." and "fewer penguins have fallen over...". Incorrect (but used very frequently) would be "less penguins have fallen over...".

The Burchfield edition of Fowler's says "towards" is preferred in British English and "toward" in US English but with some variation on either side, and doesn't mention any controversy or historical change.

Which reminds me that I've been meaning to check up on "forward(s)", which I've had only partly-justified ideas about which I might have mistakenly used as a parallel to go for "toward": I tend to use "s" for the adverb only if it doesn't take any kind of object, which "toward(s)" always does; so "moving forwards", but "moving forward to...". However, while Fowler's notes a (different, not very specifically delineated) distinction, it says that the -s version has all but disappeared in all usages over the last century. Hmm...

(Usual "I am not a copy editor, or even someone capable of stringing a legible sentence together" disclaimer and apology for incoherence here)

grimly, what are the handy and trusted reference tomes for subeditors on this side of the Atlantic? I'm not sure any professionals use Fowler's Modern English Usage, much as I like dipping into it (though not so much the 90s edition I've quoted here, but the others are a little elderly for reference use).

The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors is the one I swear by (usually along the lines of "For FUCK'S SAKE, why is this not in it?") -- I'm pretty sure it's The Guardian's secondary style guide, too.

Another book I've found fantastically useful is a grammar and usage guide meant for non-native speakers ... it's one of these things I don't consult often, but which tends to settle arguments straight away when I do. As you might have guessed, I can't remember what it's called. Something like English Toolkit ... I'll check tomorrow when I'm back at the wordface.

We have a Fowler's on the desk, but you're right: nobody uses it ;)

I like The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters. It's probably on the descriptive end of things.

Typical Sunday-paper hack :) Fuck descriptive. I want something authoritative-sounding with which I can beat my colleagues round the head, and I want it NOW.

I tend to use "s" for the adverb only if it doesn't take any kind of object, which "toward(s)" always does; so "moving forwards", but "moving forward to...". However, while Fowler's notes a (different, not very specifically delineated) distinction, it says that the -s version has all but disappeared in all usages over the last century. Hmm...

Yeah, the only time I put an "s" at the end of "forward" is if I'm talking about e-mails.

I also generally use "toward" rather than "towards." Even if the latter isn't officially incorrect, it seems superfluous, like the non-word "anyways."

Typical Sunday-paper hack :) Fuck descriptive. I want something authoritative-sounding with which I can beat my colleagues round the head, and I want it NOW.

http://www.seattlechoralcompany.org/Images/applause.jpg

I'm not sure any professionals use Fowler's Modern English Usage, much as I like dipping into it (though not so much the 90s edition I've quoted here, but the others are a little elderly for reference use).

I do like (original) Fowler though. These three excerpts from the entry on French Words

Display of superior knowledge is as great a vulgarity as display of
superior wealth - greater indeed, inasmuch as knowledge should tend
more definitely than wealth towards discretion & good manners.

That is the guiding principle alike in the using & in the pronouncing
of French words in English writing & talk. To use French words that
you reader or hearer does not know or does not fully understand, to
pronounce them as if you were one of the select few to whom French is
second nature when he is not of those few (& it is ten thousand to one
that neither you nor he will be so), is inconsiderate & rude.

Every writer, however, who suspects himself of the bower-bird
instinct [that is to say display of obscure words or phrases intended
to impress] should remember that acquisitiveness & indiscriminate
display are pleasing to contemplate only in birds & savages &
children.

In fact I sometimes find myself wandering down the street muttering 'birds, savages, children' to myself.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'moving forwards' for anything other than meaning 'locomotion in the direction you are facing' needs their nads put in a particle accelerator.

I have never said 'forward' or 'toward' and, no matter how incorrect or correct someone tells it is, am I ever likely to, I suspect.

And descriptivists can stay in their pleasantly manicured university garden ghetto and whistle Dixie from out they asses as for as I'm concerned. Fine if you are studying linguistics, but don't try and impose your pinko liberal/Germanic philological ideals on ME - I'll prescribe away and I'll thank the dictionaries I use to do the same, thank you very much.

Also, why is it wonderfully free thinking descriptivists are always so bloody pedantic about languages other than English? Superior acting patronising show offs.

Ahem. Parm me. Feeling a bit grouchy. Had to get it off my chest.

Every writer, however, who suspects himself of the bower-bird instinct [that is to say display of obscure words or phrases intended to impress] should remember that acquisitiveness & indiscriminate display are pleasing to contemplate only in birds & savages & children

OK, that is absolutely beautiful. Almost as good as this:

needs their nads put in a particle accelerator

GamalielRatsey, I like your Fowler quotes, and your dislike of "moving forwards", but this

And descriptivists can stay in their pleasantly manicured university garden ghetto and whistle Dixie from out they asses as for as I'm concerned. Fine if you are studying linguistics, but don't try and impose your pinko liberal/Germanic philological ideals on ME - I'll prescribe away and I'll thank the dictionaries I use to do the same, thank you very much.

is complete bullshit.

Dictionaries are, of course, descriptive. They are (and have always been) based on citations of language in use, and these days are researched using computer corpora.

I've said this before on this thread, but all grammar is descriptive, really. It's just that descriptivists actually, you know, do some work, crunch some numbers, collect some data, whereas prescriptivists just make it up based on an imagined version of the language. (There's a brilliant quote that I can't quite remember that says, roughly, you wouldn't study biology by inventing a species.)

What is surprising is that the insights of corpus research have actually been so limited. That the prescriptivists got it so right without actually doing any proper research. This implies that grammatical variation between speakers is quote low, and that linguistic change is quite slow.

Dictionaries are arguably descriptive, yes. But the chief sub telling you to look in the fucking dictionary and do what it says in there is as prescriptive as it gets.

And this:

all grammar is descriptive, really

I do see where you're coming from, but come on: from the point of view of 99% of the visitors to this thread, and 99.9% of people who have to worry about this kind of thing for a living, it just ain't.

the chief sub telling you to look in the fucking dictionary

The important point here, of course, being that he/the paper's style guide will tell you exactly which dictionary to look in!

Ha ha. Fair enough. But I think descriptivists (which is just after all another way of saying linguists - you'd be daft as a linguist if you said 'but they should have said it THIS way') sometimes forget that language is also a tool where we have to agree on common meanings. An entry that says that a word can be used one way or another way isn't particularly helpful when you use a word, in fact it renders that word unusuable.

After all dictionaries could have markers for erroneous as they do for vulgar or archaic speech.

As well as a phenomenon, language is a tool.

I was just fooling around with my high-hatting of linguists - it's an impressive science that has made remarkable discoveries. I just wish they'd stop telling me to be so wonderfully tolerant towards professional writers using words erroneously. Yes, erroneously.

arguably?

That is HOW they are produced! Using EVIDENCE!

The idea that just making stuff up based on your own prejudices and the latin you learnt at boarding school is superior to ACTUALLY FUCKING BOTHERING to research how language is actually used is somehow MORE RIGOROUS just drives me demented.

Sorry.

That post was for um... (counts fingers using toes) ^^^^.

Jamie T Smith.

Ooh, and again, another one ^.

xpost

I'm sure we all actually agree with each other, and it's just a question of definitions and such like, but I suppose where I'm coming from is that "the authorities" have to both follow AND lead. If they aren't based on actual usage (As researched using high-falutin computer tools) they are intellectually meaningless, but if they don't carry some authority or weight to tell people what is "right", they are functionally useless.

But people seem pretty relaxed with this when it comes to dictionaries and changing patterns of word-use. You don't have people up in arms when the new edition of the OED comes out and has some new definitions in it, but they freak out when you try to apply the same evidence-based approach to syntax and morphology. INNIT.

Indeed, and as you say, I'm sure we could all come to an general view, over a soothing pint and some healing tobacco smoke, that we are probably more in agreement with each other than disagreement. As long as we could have a section of the evening where we all shouted FUCK! at each other in loud, angry voices.

That sounds good!

FUCK!

No...

FUCK!

Actually this is quite good. It's toning up me up for my journey home.

Fewer peas, less cheese

I'm a sub (freelance, so across a few magazines) and basically a descriptivist. Day job, I'm cutting and correcting to a set of clear rules: it's all pragmatic - to me, you're telling the community you're addressing that this publication speaks clearly, accurately and consistently in its voice and can be trusted.
Generally, though, that's not really what's interesting about language, to me at least. The tool analogy seems flawed: it's more like language is a set of tools, and 'standard' English is just one of them. I like it, but to believe it's the only one is limiting - I'd rather look at the crazy flexibility and inventiveness of English, and how it can be pushed and bent in my spare time than get hung up on disinterested/uninterested collapsing.
Meaning sorts itself out in language communities from what I can can see. There's enough of a shared centre and shared context to make things work.
FUCK, btw.