To tell you that it's "rein" not "reign".

[FlyingElbows]

Because it is and it's doing my tits in!!

Rein. Rein. Rein. Rein. Rein.

Free rein. It's an equestrian term meaning to give the horse freedom of movement.

It is NOT reign. That's what the Queen does.

It's right up there with "intensive purposes" and "doggy dog world"!!

I have read it, and disagree with it! It claims that 'less' should be used, as it's talking about the 'amount' of items. But by that logic you'd never use 'fewer', as it's always talking about the 'amount' of slices of bread, or people, or whatever.

It's bloody items so it's blasted fewer. That's going on my gravestone.

Well I admire your commitment to the cause!

What about this argument -

motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/10-items-or-less-is-just-fine/

Fewer is used for countable nouns
Less for things that would be pretty much impossible to count: things like sand or rice.

Fewer is used for countable nouns and less for things that would be pretty much impossible to count: things like sand or rice.

ah but Cara we spend all our lives counting time and money, yet we are told that these are 'uncountable'.
Weird.
Good link from Splendide...

Yes but time in itself is regarded as a single entity and therefore it is pointless to count one thing. Parts of time can be counted, of course, parts such as minutes - but time itself cannot be counted so we talk of "less time". Similarly, money is one thing etc...

When you say you have "ten pounds or less", you mean that you have an amount of money - which might be in individual pounds, or might be in the form of a ten pound note, or might be in your bank account and only take on any physical form when you withdraw it.

Same with "six ounces of cheese or less": you do not have six individual ounces in mind, you are thinking of a lump of cheese.

But when you say "six items or less", you are clearly thinking of individual items. You know if you can go in that queue by counting the items. You are not thinking of a big mass of groceries. You are specifically being told to count the things.

Personally I am absolutely fine with saying "less", as I don't think I ever used the word "fewer" until I was in my 20s :) and I am also happy with the idea that historically, people have always said "less" and no-one batted an eyelid.

But the "logical", "grammatical" reason why "less" is OK makes no sense to me.

Ravenmum - yes! Exactly. Though I feel less charitable to those who use it incorrectly... a mild electric shock should do the trick.

If it consoles you, David Crystal (who knows a thing or two about language) has a lengthy correspondence with John Humphries (who is one of the people who would get the red pen out in the supermarket because he thinks he's right) about less/fewer (and other things)

IIRC JH uses the "humph humph next thing "should of" will be accepted!" to which DC says "er, no, because that's wrong durrrrr"

Should of/have - it's easy to know which one it should be:

"I have posted the letter / I should have posted the letter". You wouldn't say "I of posted the letter".

Perhaps it is because "should've" sounds like "should of".

And because should of is never right!

'Perhaps it is because "should've" sounds like "should of".'

Yes, that's undoubtedly how it arose.

Perhaps it is because "should've" sounds like "should of".

Of course that's how the mistake arises. But there are always people on these threads who insist that there is a mistake in spoken English, which is really a pedantry too far.

But it’s only in written English that it is a problem. It comes from eliding/contracting "should have, would have," etc. in speech, which is common and not incorrect. It then gets incorrectly written as it sounds by some people. In many accents of spoken English, including mine, contracting words with "have" or eliding a word with “have” creates a homophone with "of." I think it is ridiculous and overly pedantic to insist that people change their accents to create a discernible aural distinction between the two.

I'm with herbaceous.

Plus There is no authority that says this or that is correct or not, is there?

I refer the writer to Fowler's Modern English Usage as an authority still.

Finally, as it's talking about the 'amount' of items

Number of items. NUMBER!

Seneca - but some people, esp kids, really do say 'should of' distinctly as two words and if uncorrected will then go on to write it.

I don't think that happens as often as some people think, Mort (may I call you Mort? ) There are actually a lot of different ways that people pronounce "of" and "have" and I don't think it's all that easy to be sure that someone is saying "of" instead of 've, for example.

It was totally obvious when DD used to do it when she was younger!

RE: fewer vs less

The distinction that people are grasping at is between continuous and discrete properties. Both can be used to express amounts and both can be represented by number, but continuously-valued properties can be divided indefinitely whereas discrete-valued properties can't (you can have have half a kilo of cheese or walk half a mile, but you can't have half an item in your shopping basket).

...which neatly brings us to another common error, discrete and discreet.

Every day's a school day. I thought
i discrete
was probably just misspelt.

discrete

"Discrete" means separate, individual. "Discreet" means keeping quiet about things that shouldn't be made public. Not many people apart from mathematicians need to use the former.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/discreet-or-discrete

A lot of scientists use discrete too.

I use "discrete" sometimes. It can be a stronger way to convey the notion of "separate."

Unsurprisingly perhaps, "discreet" and "discrete" are related; they have the same ultimate etymology.

NotDavidTennant may be a scientist or a mathematician? Or is that false logic? (She asks, discreetly.)