Less emissions

[MardyBra]

here

FEWER!

don't start me on that!!!

every time i see it i growl/snarl/shout " FEWER!!!!! "

it's even on a hoarding and i shout it as we drive past!

Yep, drives me mad too!

It's such a simple rule too - if you can measure it it's fewer if you can't it's less

So few people seem to get it

Interesting example - could be either, depending on whether they mean less of one type/source of the emission, or fewer types/sources.

Made my blood pressure shoot up just seeing the thread title! What a relief to discover it was only you guys complaining about it

My pet hate is "use less plastic bags". I'll use one that's less plastic if they'd supply it!

Quavers

you measure flour, but it's less....

do you mean if you can count it it's fewer if you measure it it's less?

Flour is like sand. You can have less sand or fewer grains of sand.

With flour it's 'less flour' or 'fewer ounces' because you can't count 'flour' only the measurements iyswim.

yes, that's why i used it as an example.

you put less flour in the bowl to make it weigh less.

You were querying the rule. And looked confused.

The rule is if you can count it, it's fewer, if you can't it's less.

So flour is less because you can't count it.

You can have fewer bananas for example as they come in units. But if you mashed up some banana and spread too much on your sandwich, you'd need less banana. And better sandwich fillings.

The measuring where flour is concerned is imposed by us and in units in which you can count.

oh yes that fucking advert grrr

An handy aide memiore I heard was "less soup, fewer spoonsful".

spoonsful or spoonfuls? [controversial]

Either is considered acceptable MardyBra. Spoonfuls is more common nowadays but as a compound noun once upon a time it would have been normal to hear spoonsful.

I prefer it to conform to the rule and would say spoonsful though.

spoonsful sounds better - less bulky, iyswim.

Less custard, fewer prunes.

[boak]

Freudian - i wasn't querying the rule, i was querying Quaver's writing down of the rule. If you look, she put "if you can measure it it's fewer if you can't it's less" - I assumed it was a slip, so I put the confused face t oshow that it had been noticed

Aah I see. But I think measure is fine assuming you mean standard of quantitative comparison. But should be 'when you measure it it's fewer, if you can't it's less'.

But yes, count is clearer.

Sorry.

That should have been the word "count" in my sentence, not measure. That's what I was taught at school, if I remember correctly.
As you were