Fiat. We need to have a word. The word is 'fewer', you may have heard of it....

[tethersend]

...you use it instead of 'less' in front of words which are plural. Such as 'emissions'.

You know, like in your latest teeth clenching advert.

Twats.

ooh I've heard that and had the same reaction as you HOWEVER
emissions
hmmm
less or fewer
like cheese - "less cheese"

we've already done this!

nto that i'm complaining - i love a good "it's FEWER!" moan

" it's FEWER "

why can we not use punctuation around bolding and italicizing anymore?????

Just read that thread and I'm not convinced I follow it
I always thought "fewer" was for discrete things and "less" for continuous things, like water, and gas and therefore, presumably, emissions

alhtough the more I think about it I think the word emmissions doesn't make sense in this context
"The car emits less pollution"

emissions is a plural word, therefore needs a pural qualifier - in this case Fewer.

yes,ok you have convinced me, still not convinced the sentence says what they want it to though

I would say that both could be used, but they have different meanings:

Less emissions: the total amount of the emissions is lower.

Fewer emissions: different types of emissions are possible, and this one produces a lower number of types.

no, you can't say less emissions - it breaks the rule astoundingly!
I would say SPB's offer of less pollution is better.

if emissions weren't plural, then less.

less emission
fewer emissions.

Is this like the government are v the government is? Where the grammatical form (which is clearly marked for number) does not necessarily agree with the conceptual meaning?

The Government is - because it's a group/collective noun.

Like
The Company is
The Pride of Lions is
The bag of books is

'lower emissions' would solve this one nicely...

Nickel: on reflection a bad example, as it depends on how you see the semantic input - but I think that's a separate thread.

But I think that "emissions" in this case may be an example of an invariant plural (a bit like sheep is an invariant singular - they're countable, but always written in the singular form). If you're talking, say, about nocturnal emissions, then its countable and appears in singular or plural depending on how many events you are talking about. But when "emissions" refers to a cloud of pollution, it's invariable in form, even if the emissions are countable by type.

I see your reasoning, but I don't agree - I would always give a plural a plural qualifier.

if you meant emissions cloud, then say cloud.

Less pollution, fewer emissions (of whatever type or number - by giving it an S you've given it a number)

I see it as using a different lexical item - a bit like choosing invariant gerunds, for which there are also many synonyms.

BTW I do agree the ad is almost certainly wrong, as I'm sure they intend the uncountable cloud; rather than the finer shade of meaning the invariant offers.