Mumsnet Talk

A reason for the existence of two words?

Is there any reason why we couldn't just have one word that means "not as many/not as much"?

To give you something to do on MN?

Is it a pragmatic difference? Fewer being mathematical. It does make the distinction of quantifiable vs non-quantifiable so not completely ridiculous to have both terms.

Can you count it/them? Yes = fewer. (Fewer turkeys, fewer presents, fewer pombears).

Can you count it/them? No = less. (Less tinsel, less plastic crap, less nice ham).

Riding, Trills knows the rules. And enforces them.

She's asking why the distinction exists.

Oh. Don't know.

I know what the difference is, Riding, I want to know how and why our language developed to have two different words.

In what circumstances would it be important to know if someone was talking about a quantity or an amount, where it wouldn't be obvious from the rest of the sentence?

I don't correct people on less vs fewer on MN because I don't see it as important. I predict that "fewer" may die out as it serves no useful purpose.

I'd much rather have two words for "we", inclusive and exclusive.

I like your Christmassy examples

In your own OP you've given another example - many / much. It's the same thing. You wouldn't say "not much people here" and you wouldn't say "not many water here". Why do most people have a big problem with less / fewer but would probably laugh if you muddled many / much?

So much of English grammar is inexplicable, I find. It's just right or wrong :D
I'd hate to see 'fewer' die out, but accept it will happen <cries pedantic tears>.
I'd love to have an inclusive/exclusive 'you', though.

I think fewer and many are for discrete numbers (for example counting with whole numbers, I don't mean shoe sizes), whereas less and much are for continuous data (for example height, weight, volume of liquid). Blame the mathematicians perhaps?

I'll readily admit that I don't know of any examples where it would be a problem to have just one word for many/much. Any ideas?