I don't know where I belong in American politics anymore.

NicoleK,

I think that is a healthy feeling.

I don't believe people should have a sense of "belonging" when it comes to politics.

Emotional reactions related to tribalism are a sedative for the rationality.

"a sedative for the rationality."

Here's a simple tip for anyone over the age of ten. By the time a new expression (political or not) has become familiar to most people, it's now a cliche and therefore, it's time to Stop Using It. Forever.

Forcing yourself to use non-slang speech will help you, as an individual, to think before you speak - and everyone will admire you for that. (Besides, at this point, there are likely no ideas left to name, so one might as well stick with the old, standard English terms.)

Example: If you think a man is being condescending to a woman, be prepared to say why, exactly - don't say "mansplaining."

Also, try not to say "politically correct." Not that there aren't appropriate times to say that, in the 21st century, but the late comic Barry Crimmins still had a point when he said, in 1991:

"I think it's pretty cynical, and it's an attempt to undermine some of the only progress we've made in the last 10 years. At least we've drawn some lines, and if you cross those lines, you are sexist or racist or homophobic. I don't buy the attitude 'Oh why don't you loosen up and be a racist like me.'"

(Later in the same interview, he said that contrary to what the TV show "Family Ties" and other media implied - that the young conservatives of the early 1980s were rebellious children of aging hippie parents - those parents actually came of age in the 1950s, so the 1980s kids were just taking after their parents. But, of course, how would that have made a funny sitcom? That makes sense; given that the show debuted in 1982, college kids of that time would likely have had parents born before WWII.)

Crid,

You've really got it bad... lol

The sentence in question was originally ended in the following way:

"a sedative for the rational mind"

I made a last second edit to change "rational mind" to "rationality" and forgot to edit out the word "the".

None of this is a big deal for any reasonable human being.

You on the other hand appear to be quite deranged.

I'll let it slide for today though since it is Valentines day and you are probably fairly depressed and alone.

Lenona Says:

"Besides, at this point, there are likely no ideas left to name, so one might as well stick with the old, standard English terms."

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Other languages are rich with words that have no real counterpart in the English language.

It is therefore quite reasonable to expect English to expand by assimilation of new concepts or via the generation of new ones entirely.

How exactly would you go about demonstrating that there are likely no ideas left to name anyway?

There is even very good reason to believe that as we expand our sensory perceptions with technology it will require a new lexicon of adjectives to properly describe what we are dealing with.

All of that being said, the term "mansplaining" was always stupid.

A new word I have come to enjoy recently is "agnorant", which is a term to describe someone who is simultaneously ignorant and arrogant... it is a word with great utility in the modern world where so many people believe they are an expert based on a youtube video or something they saw on facebook.

Perhaps if you are in the minority, you see the violence around you and feel threatened. Here in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I feel threatened by the right.

I wasn’t phased by the Trump rallies sponsored by local restaurants. I was disconcerted by those who believed that the election was stolen and started preparing for a possible Civil War.

I was absolutely floored when I went to a very nice restaurant and was asked out of the blue (after I told him that we didn’t move here until my husband went to college in the city) if I was liberal. After that I was flanked by two men, one who looked like he was in his thirties and the other looked like he was in his forties, both were tall and looked fit. They threatened to beat me up several times because “I want to cut off their heads.” I’m a female senior citizen who was meeting her husband.

Yes, most people are civil. After all, we agree on 90% of everything no matter what side of the aisle we are on. Radicals on both sides are scary.

OK, maybe I should have just said "old, standard terms."

That would include terms like Schadenfreude, which, after all, is not new, whether as a word used by English speakers, or as a concept.

And yes, I know there are many other words in many languages, that can't be translated as single words. There are whole books of them, in fact - one is They Have a Word for It (1988) by Howard Rheingold. Again, not exactly new. So feel free to use all those words. Maybe we should also refer to Douglas Adams' The Deeper Meaning of Liff - check it out. (It's better than it might seem at first.)

But just because the OED, year after year, may be allowing to tyranny of "popular usage" to reign when it comes to accepting slang as standard or formal speech doesn't mean it should. It's hard enough for children and foreigners to learn proper spelling, grammar, and formal vs. informal/profane speech without changing the rules all the time. Why make it harder for them? It's just another example of the blurring between childhood and adulthood that erodes children's respect for adults - and even adults' respect for adults.

After all, there are very good reasons why the more respected TV journalists - even the younger ones - tend to avoid the ungrammatical use of the word "like" as much as possible, and to talk in complete sentences as well. (Personally, I believe that if ALL TV broadcasters and TV journalists - not to mention those who only work in print - took an oath to use only correct grammar from now on, once comedians got tired of making fun of them for doing that, more young people just might start imitating them as they get older, just as they imitate the speaking styles of their favorite fictional characters when they're young.)

Correction - that should have been "the tyranny."

Just to clarify...ANY term, post-2000 or not, can become overused by lazy writers and speakers, of course.

However, I just found, to my surprise, that the term "homophobia" dates back to the early 1960s. So that means it took at least two or three decades before large numbers of people started using it as a verbal weapon in a lazy fashion.

Whereas in this century, partly because of the speed of the Internet, it's only a matter of weeks before a new slang term becomes a cliche. All the more reason to rebel against that, so one doesn't look like a mindless sheep.

Meanwhile in Chattanooga, Library Specialist Cameron Dequintez Williams was terminated from his liberry job for removing books written by conservative authors - and burning them.

Lenona Says:

"But just because the OED, year after year, may be allowing to tyranny of "popular usage" to reign when it comes to accepting slang as standard or formal speech doesn't mean it should."

You haven't actually made an argument for why language should in some sense stagnate.

Language is a living breathing thing that changes over time.

Surely you must recognize that you do not speak or write in the same way as your great grandparents.

Old words fall out of favor and new ones emerge.

"It's hard enough for children and foreigners to learn proper spelling, grammar, and formal vs. informal/profane speech without changing the rules all the time. Why make it harder for them?"

We also go through a process of regularization whereby English becomes more formulaic and less exceptions are permitted.

This regularization tends to depend on the frequency of word usage.

So in actuality the English language evolved to become easier... not more difficult.

A good example of this is the word “help”. Help is now a regular verb, however its past tense was once “holp".

I am sure at some point in the past someone lamented the new fangled word "helped" and considered it linguistically vulgar.

Lenona,

Here is a paper that discusses at some length how language changes over time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2460562/#:~:text=Irregular%20verbs%20that%20occur%20with,half%2Dlife%20of%202000%20years.

None of what you are describing is new or unusual.

The issue at hand is that language evolution typically does not occur rapidly enough to notice in ones youth... however by the time one is beyond middle age they begin to notice the shift and find it off putting.

The exact same thing occurred when you were young and the older folks found your language usage and taste in music to be out of sorts.

Needless to say linguistic evolution is a very interesting subject because it seems to be able to be modeled mathematically... which means it happens at a predictable rate.

Oh, Christ. We've unleashed a bloviator.

An algorithmic one.

...and less exceptions.... ~ Artemis at February 14, 2021 9:40 AM

Fewer.

Coney ❤

Here's a paragraph:

So in actuality the English language evolved to become easier... not more difficult.

Jen,
I wish I'd been there with you. I speak fluent redneck. We'da put a stop to that crap in a minute.

Jen,
I wish I'd been there with you. I speak fluent redneck. We'da put a stop to that crap in a minute.

Spiderfall at February 14, 2021 2:33 PM

Jen posts a lot of bullshit on here. Dollars to donuts, it never happened.

Oh joy... the blog Gestapo has arrived to make sure that only "approved" conversations take place.

Conan Says:

"Fewer."

For a so-called "grammarian" you seem to have great difficulty understanding the distinction between grammar rules and style choices.

I present The Cambridge Guide to English Usage:

https://archive.org/details/cambridgeguideto00pete_0/page/205/mode/2up

"The pressure to substitute fewer for less seems to have developed out of all proportion to the ambiguity it may create in noun phrases like less promising results. That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less. Fewer draws attention to itself, whereas less shifts the focus on to its more significant."

If you would like an even deeper understanding of the language rules at play here, we often use the word "less" to talk about amounts of things that are not easily quantified and use the word "fewer" to talk about the total number or quantity of something that is discernably countable.

In that sense it can be easily understood that what I was describing is that the amount of exceptions would be less, where the amount of exceptions is some collective entity and not referencing some specific number of exceptions that can be enumerated.

I'll also point out that this prescriptivist notion is relatively new (dating back to 1770 as a style preference expressed by Baker)... in other words... it is unlikely that the founding fathers themselves would write in the manner you demand.

So in a sense you have helped me to demonstrate my point that language changes... it is a dynamic and living thing.

You should also take it as a chastisement that apparently The Cambridge Guide to English Usage thinks you have stick up your ass when it comes to English style choices.

Needless to say you are no "grammarian"... what you are is a prescriptivist who demands that everyone write in your preferred style.

We have a different description for that kind of person than "grammarian".

> I present The Cambridge
> Guide to English Usage:

Defending word choices with desiccated appeals to authority is not the same thing as knowing a language: You spouse knows all about that. If this were school, you'd flunk. And there would be a lot of problems at recess and on the bus… That tiny little bus.

If you would like an even deeper understanding of the language rules at play here, we often use the word "less" to talk about amounts of things that are not easily quantified and use the word "fewer" to talk about the total number or quantity of something that is discernably [sic] countable. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 2:07 AM

Boy, Artie, you sure do jump through a whole lotta linguistic hoops to justify your poor language skills.

Exceptions are easily quantified and discernibly countable.

Sadly, I was reminded of the distinction between less and fewer this morning after my shower. With age, men have less hair and fewer hairs.

As Pablo Picasso is alleged to have advised, "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."

That tiny little bus. ~ Crid at February 15, 2021 4:51 AM

I don't think people below a certain age know what "rode the short bus" means.

That tiny little bus. ~ Crid at February 15, 2021 4:51 AM
I don't think people below a certain age know what "rode the short bus" means.

Conan the Grammarian at February 15, 2021 6:11 AM

A colloquial expression, outside the understanding of a non native to the United States as well.

Crid Says:

"Defending word choices with desiccated appeals to authority is not the same thing as knowing a language: You spouse knows all about that. If this were school, you'd flunk. And there would be a lot of problems at recess and on the bus… That tiny little bus."

So what you are saying is that you or Conan should be some "authority" on English language usage and that dictionaries and actual professionals should be ignored?

You're just pissed that no one regards you are having any knowledge on this or pretty much any subject.

As for your comment about "if this were school, you'd flunk"... isn't that really the point Crid?

This isn't school. This is not a formal environment.

Formal and casual written style are different.

You are just too dumb to understand this simple reality.

This isn't a school and you aren't an authority on anything.

You and Conan are just oozing small dick energy with your nonsense.

Conan Says:

"Boy, Artie, you sure do jump through a whole lotta linguistic hoops to justify your poor language skills.

Exceptions are easily quantified and discernibly countable."

Not in language they aren't.

The target is constantly moving, ambiguous, and most importantly statistical in nature.

You can take up your objection with the likes of Mark Liberman (a professional linguist associated with the University of Pennsylvania):

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html

"The primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false "rules" that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed."

As he explains, what you are bitching and moaning about is a false rule.

As usual, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about because your understanding of English language is extraordinarily limited in depth and scope.

You are asserting something to be a "rule" that isn't actually accepted as a rule.

It is a style choice and nothing more.

This is always where you go wrong. You insist that your particular preferences for the English language are the way things should be done.

No one cares what your preferences are. You are a nobody.

Crid and you can bitch and moan about authorities all day long if you wish... but that is just about you two being envious that no one of accomplishment thinks your personal opinions are worth anything.

Conan,

Just to educate you further since you clearly do not have an appreciation for history or the dynamics of the English language.

Robert Baker expressed his personal preference for the usage of the word "fewer" in certain contexts over the word "less" in the year 1770.

His personal preference later became adopted by some adherents, but it was by no means universal. Furthermore, the history of less/fewer usage going back 1,000 years prior shows no evidence of Baker's preference being incorporated in written language.

Here are some contemporary quotes from the Federalist papers (written around the time Baker expressed his personal preferences for stylistic choice):

"America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations..." - Federalist #3

"The true patriots have long bewailed the fatal tendency of these vices, and have made no less than four regular experiments by extraordinary assemblies, convened for the special purpose, to apply a remedy." - Federalist #20

In both of these cases they would have violated Baker's preferred style.

John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison where not a collection of poorly educated buffoons.

All you have demonstrated in this conversation is that you hold up Robert Baker as the unassailable authority on English language usage while ignoring the likes of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison from his contemporary era as well as modern English usage guides and linguistic experts.

You can worship Robert Baker if you like... but I am under no obligation to do the same.

Furthermore, you only do this because people such as yourself have great difficulty dealing with the fluidity of English language usage across space and time.

A "grammarian" you are not... you would be laughed out of a room with actual linguistic professionals for your complete lack of appreciation for nuance and history when it comes to this subject.

Crid,

Also... the fundamental problem is that your demand for typological perfection is a standard you do not meet either:

"You spouse knows all about that."

If I was an obnoxious little prat like you or Conan I would be pointing out such errors every time you post. However, I typically ignore these things because it is trivial and meaningless.

How can you live with yourself when you apparently do not know the difference between "you" and "your".

Little bus indeed...

The fear of losing your job is a justified and very real fear. It can wreck you.
Economists have long known that what people proclaim and what they do are different. People always say on surveys that education is their top priority but on bond issues they often vote down more taxes for schools. The woke ism is particularly pernicious because all you have to do is attack a stranger. It costs nothing. If you look at giving to charity or spending time doing charity, the more woke the less given--perhaps because they are so satisfied with their wokeness.
It is not true that it has not progressed beyond words: 8 months of riots (billions of damage) and dozens of deaths as well as attacks on politicians say it has already gotten dangerous. That Google can decide not to host ads from republican candidates for office, that all platforms could ban a sitting president, and that parler got killed says it all.

People love me, Orion. For the ideas I share and the grace of my sharing, I'm one of Amy's Top 200 "Most-Admired Commenters." She gave me a ribbon at the 2007 Holiday Dinner in Malibu. It's on a plinth in the office.

Where do you live?

Crid Says:

"People love me"

The most pathetic part about all of this Crid is that I think we both understand that this isn't true.

You are just a lonely nobody whose only company in life is the repulsive sound it makes when you peel your bloated and flabby body from your sweat-stained pleather couch.

One day you will be gone and it will be days before anyone notices.

I honestly feel bad for you... but then you open your mouth and say something stupid and I remember that you did this to yourself.

Thanks Isab. Good to know.

“The most pathetic part about all of this Crid is that I think we both understand that this isn't true.”

Awkward, wordy, Could have used a comma or two.

All you have demonstrated in this conversation is that you hold up Robert Baker as the unassailable authority on English language usage while ignoring the likes of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison from his contemporary era as well as modern English usage guides and linguistic experts.

Oh, Artie, you tried so hard, but no cigar. Apples-to-oranges comparison there, buddy. Besides, I don't go by Robert Baker for my knowledge of English. Until you brought him up, I had no idea who he was.

"No less than..." is perfectly acceptable in the context in which your examples show them being used. "Less exceptions," however, is not. You were directly referring to a quantifiable and discernible item.

Since you like appeals to authority, let's see what the usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary says about this:

The traditional rule holds that fewer is used with expressions denoting things that can be counted (fewer than four players), while less is used with mass terms denoting things of measurable extent (less paper; less than a gallon of paint). However, less is idiomatic in certain constructions where fewer would occur according to the traditional rule. Less than is used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles. Less is sometimes used with plural nouns in the expressions no less than (as in No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter) and or less (as in Give your reasons in 25 words or less).

While "no fewer than" would have been more formal in the examples of Madison's and Hamilton's writing that you chose, "no less than" is perfectly acceptable when used in the manner in which they used it.

You will notice that nowhere in Hamilton's or Madison's other writings to they use "less" in direct reference to countable items - i.e., "less exceptions."

Artie, there were a few grammatical errors in the Constitution. "It's" was used for "its;" "Pennsylvania" was misspelled; there are frequent issues with and inconsistent usage of commas; British spellings abound; and the capitalization was inconsistent throughout.

Are we to enshrine those because Madison and Hamilton used them?

==========

Artie, lazy and careless writers, like you, use the "language is constantly changing" excuse to rationalize their own poor writing.

Of course language is always changing. There are terms being used to day that no one would have though of two hundred years ago - e.g., "software." Words have changed meanings over the years - e.g., "peruse" used to mean "to examine or consider with attention and in detail" and now means "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner."

Notwithstanding the language's changing nature, there are standardized American English rules in place that reflect the usage considered proper in our time and place. You should try to learn them.

==========

...you would be laughed out of a room with actual linguistic professionals for your complete lack of appreciation for nuance and history when it comes to this subject. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 7:19 AM

Hardly. I would have a very enjoyable and lengthy discussion with them about the language, its changes over time, and its usage today.

How do I know this? Because I already have.

==========

A pertinent thought on the matter from noted playwright and poet, Ben Johnson:

Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parent of it, the mind. No glass renders a man’s form or likeness so true as his speech. Nay, it is likened to a man; and as we consider feature and composition in a man, so words in language; in the greatness, aptness, sound structure, and harmony of it.

==========

If I was an obnoxious little prat.... ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 7:55 AM

If?

It's not just my looks, Orion... Though I understand how you could make that mistake.

To native speakers of American English, I have a nenchanting fluidity with idioms, parlance and vernacular that's both comforting & expressive. People read my blog comments — people from America, I mean — and they just feel better about their own lives. We share a glowing serenity that's hard to describe to foreigners playing internet games.

"I don't think people below a certain age know what "rode the short bus" means." ~Conan

It isn't age. Most schools still use short busses for that same purpose today. While schools are bigger it is still hard to fill a standard sized school bus with handicapped students. Not to mention all the handicap accessible stuff they need. Rode the short bus is still in very common usage.

Most schools still use short busses
________________________________

Hmm...most schools still use short kisses for that? I had no idea.

(Couldn't resist.)

And, from craftyzits, almost exactly six years ago:

Idaho Republican State Representative Vito Barbieri asked...etc.

"Vito and his bill got slapped back onto the short bus, but man oh man, that poor short bus!"

https://jezebel.com/male-politician-thinks-that-your-vagina-and-stomach-are-1687558660

(Elsewhere, you can listen to a short YouTube video of that exchange - including the listeners' reactions as well. Just search on his name.)

Conan Says:

"Oh, Artie, you tried so hard, but no cigar. Apples-to-oranges comparison there, buddy. Besides, I don't go by Robert Baker for my knowledge of English. Until you brought him up, I had no idea who he was."

Sure... why would you know anything about the history of the English language as you incorrectly bloviate about what should and should not be said.

"You will notice that nowhere in Hamilton's or Madison's other writings to they use "less" in direct reference to countable items - i.e., "less exceptions.""

Um... Conan... is something mentally wrong with you? Let's try again:

"America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations..." - Federalist #3

Not only do they use it in reference to things that are countable... they also actually count them.

Based on Baker's style preference that should read "no fewer than six foreign nations".

The founding fathers used the word less in exactly the same way as I did.

Needless to say, you are no Picasso when it comes to language... you're just some dude behind the counter at Subway trying to tell me how to make my sandwich because you claim to be a "sandwich artist".

I'll eat my sandwich as I like considering I am in excellent company when it comes to my own style preferences.

You will continue to live in what Mark Liberman calls "linguistic ignorance" when it comes to this topic.

You are trying to enforce a false rule because it is something you were miseducated about in your youth.

You're lack of a proper education is not something anyone needs to accommodate.

Apparently you do not even know that it is possible to count foreign nations.

Are you honestly trying to hang your hat on the idea that this was just a one off error on all of their parts?

How much are you willing to bet on that one?

Conan,

Just for fun... here are 3 more examples from the Federalist Papers:

"...in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient..." - Federalist #39

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.

There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter." - Federalist #45

"Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State." - Federalist #45

Simply put... this was not an unusual way for people to write.

This was a style choice selected by extremely educated individuals.

It was a style choice they made for important and formal writing meant for publication and wide dissemination.

You can whine and complain all you like, but the reality is all you have done is absorbed the style preferences of a person you apparently never heard of because some schoolmarm drilled it into your head when you were an impressionable youth.

I am hoping you will learn something here... but my experience with you suggests you are incapable of learning anything that runs contrary to what you already believe or want to be true.

Um... Conan... is something mentally wrong with you? Let's try again:

"America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations..." - Federalist #3

Are you being intentionally obtuse, Artie? We covered that usage already. Actually pay attention this time.

"No less than" is okay usage, even if indirectly referring to something countable. "Less" in direct reference is not.

Remember this quote from the American Heritage Dictionary usage note: "Less is sometimes used with plural nouns in the expressions no less than (as in No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter)...."

"X Items or Less" is also okay, although it grates on my ears.

==========

The founding fathers used the word less in exactly the same way as I did. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 2:21 PM

No, they did not.

Hamilton or Madison did not use the term "less" with direct reference to something countable - e.g., "less rifles," "less states," or "less senators."

You know, the way you incorrectly used it with "less exceptions."

==========

As for one person deciding style and usage, why do you think Americans don't spell things the way the British do?

Because one person, Noah Webster, wanted to distance American usage from British usage and wrote a dictionary to achieve that.

==========

You're [sic] lack of a proper education is not something anyone needs to accommodate. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 2:21 PM

Your.

That should be "Your lack of a proper education."

Conan,

And before you get your knickers in a knot... "You're lack of a proper..."... should have read "Your lack of a proper...".

The overarching point being that people make mistakes and it only seems to indicate something deeper for you when it is convenient.

When you make errors it is just a simple mistake... but when I make errors you insist it means something more.

At the end of the day this is indicative of conspiracy style thinking on your part. This is a cognitive shortcoming you need to work on.

You have a proclivity to assign meaning to meaningless things when it suits some narrative that you would like to push.

Qanon and other similar loons think in exactly the same way.

Conan Says:

"That should be "Your lack of a proper education.""

It appears I was too late... your knickers already seem to have been knotted.

You are so predictable.

Conan Says:

""No less than" is okay usage, even if indirectly referring to something countable. "Less" in direct reference is not."

This isn't even how traditional prescriptivists operate.

They demand the use of "No fewer than" in those cases.

In any event... what's your excuse for the following:

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.

There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter." - Federalist #45

In this case it is a direct reference to the number of individuals.

What's your excuse for this one numbnuts?

Are you in India?

Crid,

You'll have to wait your turn... Conan is about to have a conniption when it finally dawns on him that James Madison made a "direct" reference to a countable number of individuals using the word "less".

Well, Artie, let's see. In that sentence, "less of personal influence" is not a reference to a countable number of individuals. It's a reference to the amount of influence. Nice try, though.

Madison was trying to assure skeptics that the amount of influence on states' internal affairs the federal government would have under the Constitution would not be significant; that state governments, being closer to the people would be able to focus on the welfare of the people, regulating ordinary affairs such as the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, as well as the internal order of each state.

Federalist #45 had noting to do with the number of people employed by the government, but on the amount of influence the federal government would have over affairs that had been state-controlled matters. Maybe you should have read it before you quoted it.

Conan,

Please learn to read. I quoted the entire portion in context so that a literate person might understand the meaning. Let's try again:

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.

There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter." - Federalist #45

The second sentence is a direct reference to the first sentence.

That is why it is talking about the "former" and the "latter".

What is the "less" part a direct reference to?... it is referring directly to people.

"There will consequently be less [people] of personal influence on the side of the former than if the latter."

You don't help your cause when you make it abundantly clear that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

Conan,

I think my favorite part to all of this is that you reduced yourself to having to completely ignore the word "of" to try and make your case.

As if the phrase "less of personal influence" is in any sense grammatically correct without reference to some countable noun.

At this stage I am convinced I could find a verbatim quote from any famous author that directly mimicked my own usage and you'd excuse it away by suggesting it was written during the winter solstice therefore the grammar rules revert to a pagan standard for the day.

Needless to say, I have yet to see you get anything right when it comes to English usage and style choices.

Yes, Artie, you quoted something that included a line about the number of people employed.

And then segued into how, with fewer people employed, the federal government would have, wait for it, less influence on the lives of the people in those states.

You need to learn to read for comprehension, Artie. I've read Federalist #45, Artie. You, obviously have not.

Let's pull more of that quote of which you're so sure refutes my claim:

Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.

There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system.

The "less than" deals with the amount of influence, not the number of people.

Numbnuts.

Conan,

Here is another fun one for you:

"Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many [persons] of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less [persons] in that of a large popular Assembly." - Federalist #64

I added in the explanation for what the words "more" and "less" were talking about here.

They are talking about the "persons" talked about in the first clause.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Conan,

No Conan... it is talking about the number of people with influence.

It is in direct reference to the previous sentence where it says "The number of individuals employed..."

That is the reference.

You clearly have literacy problems.

Conan Says:

"The "less than" deals with the amount of influence, not the number of people.

Numbnuts."

It doesn't say "less than" Conan.

It says "less of"... something goes between those two words in this construction... and if you were the English grammar expert you claim to be you would understand that this construction demands a noun.

Luckily the reference is to the previous sentence so we know exactly what Madison is talking about.

He is talking about less [people] of personal influence.

Had he left out the word "of" this would be a different story.

The word "of" makes the intentions of the author clear.

God, you're an idiot, Artie.

Learn to read for comprehension. Please.

So, ou're hooked on the use of "of" in that sentence?

Okay, let's examine that. In that sentence "personal" is an adjective modifying the noun "influence." So, the "less of" refers to the level of influence the federal government will have over the internal affairs of states.

"Less of" in that sentence does not refer to the number of people. Perhaps you're conflating the words "personnel" with "personal." And even then, both would only modify "influence."

==========

As for Federalist #64, the full quote is:

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly. The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest.

The "still less in" refers to the reliance that people will have on each body of Congress to keep secrets.

Federalist #64 dealt with the president's power to make treaties and why the Senate was the preferred body to ratify treaties instead of the House. "Less" referred to reliance on secrecy, and not to the number of people in each chamber.

Your interpretation of Federalist #64 was flawed, as was your interpretation of Federalist #45.

Conan Says:

"So, ou're hooked on the use of "of" in that sentence?"

I'm not "hooked" on anything... the word exists in that sentence and demands a reference to a noun.

The noun it is referencing is in the previous sentence... and that noun is countable.

Needless to say you're out in the weeds at this point.

Historical usage doesn't support you here... modern English usage style guides do not support you here... modern linguists do not support you here.

You are out on your own but as always cannot acknowledge that you've made a mistake.

This is really very simple. People alive 100 years before you were born did not use the English language the way you were raised to. People alive 50 years after you were born do not use the English language the way you were raised to.

You are confusing a very specific spatial and temporal phenomenon of the circumstances of your birth to have far more meaning than they actually do.

Yours is an extremely egocentric analysis of how the English language is to be used... it doesn't really predate you and it won't outlast you... but you also cannot see your insignificant place in the grand scheme of things.

There are grammar rules to the English language... but that aren't the kinds of things you think they are.

Grammar rules and style preferences are not the same things and you continually confuse one for the other because you cannot see beyond your own nose.

Conan,

Since your knickers are already in a twist I will try to prevent your panties from getting into a wad.

"but that aren't" was supposed to read "but they aren't".

Typos abound on internet blogs and only complete and utter morons think they carry meaning beyond the existence of human imperfection.

My sincerest wish for you is to be judged in life to the standards you judge others on the internet... you deserve nothing less than to be treated how you treat others.

Conan,

Since this is a fun game for me at this point.

I want to see how you will bend yourself into a pretzel to try and explain this one:

"The two branches of the legislature are, in the first instance, to consist of only sixty-five persons, which is the same number of which Congress, under the existing Confederation, may be composed. It is true that this number is intended to be increased; but this is to keep pace with the progress of the population and resources of the country. It is evident that a less number would, even in the first instance, have been unsafe, and that a continuance of the present number would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people." - Federalist #84

To any sane and literate person without an agenda it is plainly obvious that "this number" is a direct reference to "sixty-five persons".

Similarly, "less number" is also a direct reference to persons.

What are you going to pretend "less" is referring to here when we are talking about a very specific number of people?

Similarly, we have case law from 1927:

https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-commonwealth-6

"less number of persons than twelve"

Now most modern prescriptivist adherents to the false rule we have been discussing would insists neither of these are grammatical and they demand the word "fewer".

Even in the second case if you want to try and weasel out by suggesting that the word "than" on the other side of the sentence somehow changes things like it is some magic bullet... that still doesn't really help you.

The reason is I can just go back to my original sentence and claim the following:

"We also go through a process of regularization whereby English becomes more formulaic and less exceptions are permitted [than before]."

And look at that... we've magically fixed everything by understanding that there was an implication we were referencing a previous historical state.

You have no leg to stand on here Conan.

Pretty clear Artie has never been taught to diagram a sentence.

JFW,

Alright genius.

"The two branches of the legislature are, in the first instance, to consist of only sixty-five persons, which is the same number of which Congress, under the existing Confederation, may be composed. It is true that this number is intended to be increased; but this is to keep pace with the progress of the population and resources of the country. It is evident that a less number would, even in the first instance, have been unsafe, and that a continuance of the present number would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people." - Federalist #84

You tell me exactly what the "less number" is referring to.

Less number of what?

People?... Persons?... Representatives?

If you choose anything that makes sense in the context of the paragraph you end up with a direct reference to something countable... in fact they are counted earlier in a precise fashion.

Look, I get it... deeply partisan conservative types circle the wagons and then refuse to acknowledge reality when presented with an argument they don't like... but all of this just makes you guys look ridiculous.

You're from a culture that's very concerned about appearance to others. Confucian, the submissive kind. With notes of disability and institutionalization.

Crid,

If I was the least bit concerned about "appearances to others" I would have abandoned this blog long ago.

I am concerned with facts, truth, and trying to dismantle echo chambers... this blog has become decidedly echoey since certain folks decided to try and run off anyone who wasn't of a particular political persuasion.

Just look at what Isab did to Jen.

You guys want a church... I don't believe this place should be a conservative holy site.

It used to be different before you and others ran everyone else off with your bs.

My sincerest wish for you is to be judged in life to the standards you judge others on the internet... you deserve nothing less than to be treated how you treat others. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 4:59 PM

Right back at ya, Artie.

The reason I chose to pick on you for your poor usage is to give you a little comeuppance for your arrogance and condescension toward everyone else on this blog; to give you a dose of your own medicine.

Instead, you doubled down on your own mistakes and insisted you're right when you're wrong. So, you go ahead and believe that you write as well as John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

And, Artie, I'm not correcting you on typos. I've already conceded that even the best writers make them and, you're not even in the minors of that league. Without a decent period in which to edit our posts, we're all gonna make more typos on a blog post than in any professional writing.

What I'm correcting you on is your usage, not typos. You don't capitalize proper nouns, you incorrectly use apostrophes in plural nouns, and you commit a host of other errors that indicate your education in the English language was deficient; or English was a class in which you did not pay attention.

And, Artie, you really do need to work on your reading comprehension. Madison and Hamilton wrote in a style more common in the 18th century than today; a more long-winded and verbose style. Today, people write in a more succinct style using common vernacular. As such, interpreting Madison, Jay, and Hamilton requires proficiency in reading comprehension, a proficiency you have yet to exhibit.

Their use of "less" was not comparable to your use of "less." You misidentified the object being modified in each excerpt you provided.

Conan Says:

"The reason I chose to pick on you for your poor usage is to give you a little comeuppance for your arrogance and condescension toward everyone else on this blog; to give you a dose of your own medicine."

Dear god you are such a thin skinned little weasel.

When you have to resort to style choices you aren't picking on anyone for "poor usage" you are criticizing someone because they like a different flavor of ice cream than you do.

That isn't a sign of intelligence on your part... it is an indicator of how deeply insecure you are.

I'm not "arrogant" or "condescending" to anyone as part of the initiation of an interaction.

I only respond in kind. That has always been my mode of operation.

"Instead, you doubled down on your own mistakes and insisted you're right when you're wrong. So, you go ahead and believe that you write as well as John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton."

No Conan... as pointed out in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage:

"That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less"

That is all it is.

And since you haven't noticed this is a blog. This is not a place that requires formal writing.

As a matter of fact, here is what is so monumentally stupid about your critique when it is combined with your nonsensical rational for why you "choose to pick on" me.

On the one hand you claim I am arrogant and condescending.

However, you choose to criticize me for using decidedly non-formal and more conversational writing choices.

In other words... you seem to demand that I only write in the most formal way possible... but then bitch and moan that I am "condescending".

Conversational tones and writing choices are intended to be anything but condescending.

In other words... it seems you want me to write in a very formalized academic manner that you would then accuse me of using to talk down to you.

I can do either Conan... take your pick.

Do you want me to write here as an academic or write here as if I were just shooting the breeze in a pub?

Either way you throw a fit... because it isn't about condescension or writing style.

You don't like when you say things that are factually incorrect and I point out that your facts are in error.

Let's face it, your standards for being condescended to are really outrageous. You once told me I was being condescending when I related my own personal experience with graduate level education.

In other words, you are so deeply insecure that if someone merely discusses something about their own life that makes you feel inferior you call that condescension.

I have no interest in placating your insecurities Conan... see a therapist.

Compare and contrast:

> If I was the least bit concerned
> about "appearances to others"

Vs.

> this just makes you guys
> look ridiculous.

You tell me exactly what the "less number" is referring to. ~ Artemis at February 15, 2021 5:51 PM

With "the less number," Hamilton is referring to the fact that Congress under the Constitution will be the same size as Congress was under the Articles of Confederation and will only grow when the population does. He argues that to make it smaller would have been a mistake, leaving the people with inadequate representation in the federal government.

"Less" in this use is analogous to "lower" and modifies the word, "number." As to the object of "number," that doesn't matter in this use of "less." Today, you would say "the lesser number."

Nice try, Artie, but this usage is still not the same as your "less exceptions" and does not directly refer to a countable item, it only refers to the concept of a "number."

Conan Says:

"What I'm correcting you on is your usage, not typos."

Nonsense Conan.

As I have already clearly demonstrated your "correction" within this very conversation is a style choice.

It doesn't get any more clear that the following quote (which I will repeat again because your head is at least 80% skull):

"That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less"

You can dance around that all you like, but it is in plain English.

I also quoted professional linguists that call your position adherence to a "false rule" and indicate that you are "ignorant" from a linguistic perspective.

As for the likes of Jay, Hamilton, and Madison... all you did was out the degree you would contort yourself to avoid acknowledging that less/fewer style choices of those contemporary to Baker were different than his own.

None of the examples listed pass... but you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the rules you seek to advance were violated by those folks.

So I'll ask you the very same question I asked JFW:

Tell me exactly what the "less number" is referring to in the following quote:

"The two branches of the legislature are, in the first instance, to consist of only sixty-five persons, which is the same number of which Congress, under the existing Confederation, may be composed. It is true that this number is intended to be increased; but this is to keep pace with the progress of the population and resources of the country. It is evident that a less number would, even in the first instance, have been unsafe, and that a continuance of the present number would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people." - Federalist #84

Less number of what?

People?... Persons?... Representatives?

If you cannot acknowledge that it is directly referring to the the "sixty-five persons" pointed out earlier in the quote then we can just confirm once more that you are the most intellectually dishonest person on this blog.

When you have to resort to style choices you aren't picking on anyone for "poor usage" you are criticizing someone because they like a different flavor of ice cream than you do.

They're not "style choices," Artie. They're poor usages of the English language, a language with which you have demonstrated scant familiarity.

A style choice is whether to use "he ran" or "he raced away;" using the active vs. the passive voice. That's a "style choice."

Writing "less exceptions" is not a "style choice," it's ignorance.

Conan,

It doesn't say "the less number"

It says "a less number"... it is talking about a less number of people you illiterate moron.

Conan,

Read the usage guide. You don't know what you are talking about... as usual.

Crid,

There is no contradiction there.

This statement:

"If I was the least bit concerned about "appearances to others" I would have abandoned this blog long ago."

and this statement:

"...all of this just makes you guys look ridiculous."

Are completely congruous.

Let me explain it in terms that are easier for you to understand.

Some of you on this blog have demonstrated over the years that you are completely and utterly irrational and/or dishonest (i.e., ridiculous)... therefore I do not concern myself with what you might think.

I don't really worry about what ridiculous people think.

I do worry about *how* ridiculous people think.

I've learned lots from some of you over the years with regard to the mindset of conspiracy theory lunatics.

Conan,
You’ve done a yeoman’s work on this and on the sports ranking post.
Here, I think Artemis is a bit at sea. He even argues with himself. Like when he targeted Lenona for her comment on the use of slang.

“Language is a living breathing thing that changes over time. Surely you must recognize that you do not speak or write in the same way as your great grandparents. Old words fall out of favor and new ones emerge. We also go through a process of regularization whereby English becomes more formulaic and less exceptions are permitted.”

Which led to the less/fewer confusion and he had to reach back 250 years to justify his usage. Point: CtG.

(And he missed it when you turned his “you’re” around on him in bold print; though he did try to use it as another insult. )

In Federalist #45 there is no need to quote the entire passage. The sentence itself is enough. It can be rewritten for clarity to illustrate:
“We expect there will be less of personal influence and more of Constitutional conformity due to the smaller number of employees at the Federal level.”
“Less” refers to the amount of personal influence that will take place.
Point: CtG

In Federalist #64 he tried his own rewrite, but still goofed. Let’s rewrite for clarity, not style:

“who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not rely on that of the Senate, and would rely still less on that of a large popular Assembly.”
“Less” in the third clause modifies the verb “rely,” and has nothing to do with numbers of persons.
Point: CtG

Spiderfall,

I didn't "target Lenona"... I disagreed with a point she was making and expressed my reasoning.

That is how conversations take place.

As for this:

"Which led to the less/fewer confusion and he had to reach back 250 years to justify his usage."

I didn't have to go back 250 years.

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage that I linked to was published in 2004... that is ~15 years ago.

I also referenced an English language expert who is still alive today who indicated that what Conan was talking about was a "false rule" born out of linguistic ignorance.

As for referencing the Federalist Papers... that wasn't some weird move done out of desperation. The time frame was selected specifically because the person who we can track back this particular style preference was Robert Baker from his writings in 1770.

As you may be aware 1770 is a year that makes the authorship of the Federalist Papers a good point of comparison that Baker's preferences were not shared by other educated individuals of his day.

In other words... it was a style choice then... and it is a style choice now.

I didn't "reach back 250 years to justify my usage"... I demonstrated that over the full course of 250 years it was always a style choice.

In other words, I demonstrated that at no point in history was Conan's usage constraint ever a grammar rule.

It's not merely that Conan was once correct and things changes so much as there was never a point in history when he was ever correct.

He just thinks he is because he learned something in grade school that turns out to have been wrong.

Spiderfall,

Are you really so desperate that you are going to try and fix the following quote:

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States.

There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter." - Federalist #45

By rewriting it in the following way:

“We expect there will be less of personal influence and more of Constitutional conformity due to the smaller number of employees at the Federal level.”

You are really going to try and argue that the phrase "less of personal influence" is in some sense grammatically correct because "less" refers to the "amount of personal influence"?

Your fundamental problem is that the word "of" still throws a monkey wrench into the works.

Simply put, you don't need the word "of" at all here it the sentence is really about the "amount of personal influence".

This is the difference between saying the following:

"I would like less of water."

versus

"I would like less water."

If the first statement sounds better to your ear than the second then I must question if you are a native English speaker.

The first statement would be more natural if you had some specifier in there to distinguish between different types of water... for example:

"I would like less of the dirty water." would be a natural construction.

As it stands there is nothing natural about saying "We expect there will be less of personal influence..." unless there is some specifier after the word "of" telling us what the author is talking about.

In this case that specifier would be "less [individuals] of personal influence...]

Which of course gets us right back to the beginning because according to Conan this would require we change the word "less" to "fewer".

Needless to say the authors of The Federalist Papers didn't make a grammatical error... what they did was make a style choice that Conan doesn't like but at the same time he cannot bring himself to criticize them for "poor usage" because of how silly it would make him look.

Spiderfall,

Lastly... as it pertains to Federalist #64 there appears to be a contagion of illiteracy here.

I'll even start from where Conan suggests and break it down for you so you can better understand:

"It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery."

This first portion establishes that for the purposes of foreign affairs it is sometimes necessary to negotiate with a fair degree of privacy because people will feel more free to discuss items with the President if those conversations are not widely disseminated. In other words, the President should be able to have confidences with people he/she is negotiating with.

"Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives;"

This section explains that the need for confidential conversations will naturally exist for both friendly and adversarial people.

"and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President,"

Now we establish that there are many people of both descriptions (mercenary or friendly) who would depend on this secrecy to speak more freely. Let's emphasize again that the "many" here is talking about people.

"but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly."

This is just reiterating that of the same group of people who might feel comfortable confiding in one person (i.e., the President), only a subset of those people would also feel comfortable confiding in the entire Senate, and an even smaller subset of those people would feel comfortable confiding in Congress as a whole.

Let's actually do a rewrite using the word "fewer".

While it may happen infrequently, there are times when it will be necessary for the President to negotiate treaties in confidence. These situations are likely to arise when sensitive information is being discussed and the people involved have concerns about this information being revealed to the public. Such concerns can operate on people that have either benign or hostile motivations; and there are certainly many people of both descriptions, who would rely on the confidence of the President to maintain these secrets. Fewer of these people would feel comfortable confiding this sensitive information in the entire Senate and fewer still in relying on the entirety of Congress to keep their confidence.

Again... we are talking about a diminishing quantify of people who would feel comfortable sharing sensitive information with larger and larger audiences.

That is what that paragraph means... they used the word "less" in direct reference to a countable noun.

As I have explained in gory detail at this point... this is the very same style choice Conan chose to whine about.

"Fewer" is a fine style choice... but the word "less" does not violate any grammar rules either. These are style choices and nothing more.

Needless to say I don't expect you to acknowledge that any of this is correct... that isn't how people like you operate.

At this point is Conan were to declare that 3+3=BANANA and I correctly pointed out that actually 3+3=6... you would insist that the word "banana" has six letters therefore Conan was right all along and start awarding "points" as if someone elevated you to the position of a referee.

3+3=6 regardless if you publicly recognize it as such. Similarly, Federalist #64 was talking about people when it used the words "more" and "less". That's just reality.

Spiderfall,

Lastly... as it pertains to Federalist #64 there appears to be a contagion of illiteracy here.

I'll even start from where Conan suggests and break it down for you so you can better understand:

"It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery."

This first portion establishes that for the purposes of foreign affairs it is sometimes necessary to negotiate with a fair degree of privacy because people will feel more free to discuss items with the President if those conversations are not widely disseminated. In other words, the President should be able to have confidences with people he/she is negotiating with.

"Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives;"

This section explains that the need for confidential conversations will naturally exist for both friendly and adversarial people.

"and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President,"

Now we establish that there are many people of both descriptions (mercenary or friendly) who would depend on this secrecy to speak more freely. Let's emphasize again that the "many" here is talking about people.

"but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly."

This is just reiterating that of the same group of people who might feel comfortable confiding in one person (i.e., the President), only a subset of those people would also feel comfortable confiding in the entire Senate, and an even smaller subset of those people would feel comfortable confiding in Congress as a whole.

Let's actually do a rewrite using the word "fewer".

While it may happen infrequently, there are times when it will be necessary for the President to negotiate treaties in confidence. These situations are likely to arise when sensitive information is being discussed and the people involved have concerns about this information being revealed to the public. Such concerns can operate on people that have either benign or hostile motivations; and there are certainly many people of both descriptions, who would rely on the confidence of the President to maintain these secrets. Fewer of these people would feel comfortable confiding this sensitive information in the entire Senate and fewer still in relying on the entirety of Congress to keep their confidence.

Again... we are talking about a diminishing quantify of people who would feel comfortable sharing sensitive information with larger and larger audiences.

That is what that paragraph means... they used the word "less" in direct reference to a countable noun.

As I have explained in gory detail at this point... this is the very same style choice Conan chose to whine about.

"Fewer" is a fine style choice... but the word "less" does not violate any grammar rules either. These are style choices and nothing more.

Needless to say I don't expect you to acknowledge that any of this is correct... that isn't how people like you operate.

At this point is Conan were to declare that 3+3=BANANA and I correctly pointed out that actually 3+3=6... you would insist that the word "banana" has six letters therefore Conan was right all along and start awarding "points" as if someone elevated you to the position of a referee.

3+3=6 regardless if you publicly recognize it as such. Similarly, Federalist #64 was talking about people when it used the words "more" and "less". That's just reality and reality doesn't care about your feelings.

Orion.

Crid,

Less of links... more of sentences.

I've written in the native tongue of the roaming blog imbecile so you can understand.

You’ve done a yeoman’s work on this and on the sports ranking post. Here, I think Artemis is a bit at sea. He even argues with himself. ~ Spiderfall at February 15, 2021 11:07 PM

It's all for naught, Spidey. Artie is a know-it-all. You can't teach a know-it-all.

He's not only wrong, he's wrong at the top of his voice.

Conan,

You keep insisting in this conversation that you know better than The Cambridge Guide to English Usage:

"That aside, it was and is essentially a stylistic choice, between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less."

And linguistic experts like Mark Liberman who had the following to say on the subject:

"The primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false "rules" that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed."

I am not a "know-it-all" here Conan.

You are at war with the dictionary and professional linguists.

I'm certainly not going to ignore them in favor of you.

They actually know what they are talking about.

You on the other hand internalized something when you were young and cannot learn.

Your brain seems to have ossified and will not permit the accumulation of new knowledge.

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage settled the case from the start.

The rest of this has been me trying to teach you because you have clearly been failed by whatever educational system you went through.

Actually read the full entry in the Cambridge Guide... you should be capable of learning from it.

Artemis,
Re: fewer/less. I read the Wikipedia entry too. I’m not ashamed to say I learned something. But, as you mention, Regularization tends to depend on the frequency of word usage. The less mass/fewer number rule is ascendant. I hope that holps.

Re: Federalist #45. Still not right. “There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter.”
Q. There will be less of what?
A. Personal influence; here rather than there.

Re: Federalist #64. Still not right. You’ve added something; a diminishment in number. That is nowhere in the passage. Let’s strip down the text:
“who would rely on the President, but who would not confide in the Senate,”
No diminishment in the number of people doing the relying on. Then, "still less” emphasizes the even bigger risk of relying on the secrecy of a large, popular assembly. That concept is common knowledge even among teenagers.

Perhaps your personal linguist, Mark Liberman, can help you get your foot out of your mouth. You should call and ask.

And, as much as you’ve railed against Mr. Trump, you may have something in common:

“The problem we face,” says social psychologist Carol Tavris, “is not from bad people covering up their mistakes and not wanting to face the truth. It’s from good people who deny the evidence in order to preserve their belief that they’re good people.

https://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/why_cant_law_enforcement_admit_their_mistakes/

Spiderfall,

You should never be ashamed to say that you learned something... that is what the purpose of these conversations is supposed to be about.

The point I was making to Conan is that as it stands the less/fewer debate isn't some settled matter and is actually a point of consternation for linguistic prescriptivists (which as far as I can tell is the camp Conan falls into).

The issue of course is that actual authorities on English usage that study the subject in detail have a VERY different view on the topic than Conan does.

However he isn't interested in any of that.

I encourage you to read the entry in the Cambridge Usage Guide... it is much more detailed than anything you will see on the wikipedia site and I found it to be extremely interesting (I only quoted a small fragment of the text)

https://archive.org/details/cambridgeguideto00pete_0/page/205/mode/2up

Based on what is there it is not actually clear to me if this less/fewer thing is actually ascendant or descendant based on the statistical analysis they reference in the usage guide.

In any event, for the time being it remains a stylistic choice depending on if one wants to take on a formal or casual tone.

If this were not a blog and instead some professional publication I would agree that "fewer" is the way to go... however this is just the internet, why stand on ceremony here?

As for Federalist #64, I am quite confident in my understanding of the text in this case.

I've explained it in detail a few times already.

The "still less" portion is referencing still less people willing to accept that additional risk.

I'm not saying you don't get the general idea of the text... clearly you do... but what I don't think you have an accurate bead on is what the "less" is specifically referencing.

What we are talking about is a group of people willing to confide in 1 person contrasted against a smaller group of people willing to confide in 100 people... contrasted against a still smaller group willing to confide in 500 people.

The word "less" is talking about the smaller number of people willing to confide a secret amongst a larger group.

That is all there is to it.

The point remains that back in the 1700's... no one really made the style distinction between less/fewer that we are talking about now... Robert Baker was the first and he made his opinion known in 1770.

It wouldn't be the least bit strange or incorrect for any of the Founding Fathers to use less and fewer interchangeably.

Please keep in mind that I am not asserting that any of them wrote anything incorrectly. I am drawing attention to the fact that the false rule Conan is referencing didn't exist back then.

1770 was the moment of it's origin based on the individual preference of Robert Baker. That is all there is to it from a historical perspective.

I am not a "know-it-all" here Conan.

Well, not just here. One assumes you are similarly obnoxious in your professional and personal lives.

And linguistic experts like Mark Liberman....

While I'll concede there is some split on the fringes of the less/fewer controversy and room for differences of opinion (e.g., 15 items or less/fewer), I'd be willing to bet that even your Mark Liberman would agree that "less exceptions" is clunky and poor usage.

And Artie, I can quote experts, too.

Richard Lederer, the original "Conan the Grammarian," and his coauthor, Richard Dowis, say in their book, The Write Way: The Spell Guide to Good Grammar and Usage: "Less means ‘not so much’ and refers to amount or quantity. Fewer means ‘not so many’ and refers to number, things that are countable—’less food’ but ‘fewer cookies’; ‘less nutrition’ but ... ’fewer calories.’ "

Patricia T. O’Conner, former editor for the New York Times Book Review, advises in her book, Woe is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English, "Use fewer to mean a smaller number of individual things; use less to mean a smaller quantity of something."

Essentially, "less" takes a singular noun and "fewer" a plural noun. There would be exceptions, of course - e.g., "30 minutes or less" in which one would assume the "or less" refers to "less time" rather than "less minutes" for one's pizza delivery.

Your "less exceptions" is not one of those exceptions and is just wrong.

1770 was the moment of it's [sic] origin based on the individual preference of Robert Baker. That is all there is to it from a historical perspective. ~ Artemis at February 16, 2021 9:07 AM

So, what you're saying is that your consistent misuse of words, failure to punctuate properly, failure to capitalize, etc. is okay because English changes over time.

However, because a standard that people have adopted and promulgated over time was originally expressed as a matter of preference by a very influential critic over 250 years ago, that standard is unacceptable and "false" today?

So, changes with which you agree are okay, but changes with which you disagree are "silly" and "false." Got it. You're the arbiter of acceptable language usage and evolution.

In the future, instead of checking with widely-acknowledged experts like O'Conner, Lederer, or Dowis, I'll be sure to run any usage questions I have by you, Artie. After all, you once proclaimed that "Everyone I work with and have ever worked with have [sic] always praised my communication skills both verbal and written." Everyone! Ever! Always!

The never-say-die thing just -screams- institutionalization… Mental health, physical disability, something. This pretense of humorless personal perfection doesn't come from anyone who's socialized with fellows from the age of six onwards. I picture a guy/gal locked in an upstairs wing of a facility out in the country, trying to build an identity through a laptop that he never shows to his/her caretakers, 'because it's just too important....'

If it IS a test of language software by the CCP or the Norks, it's difficult to imagine why this would be the persona selected for an experiment.

As Radley once put it on Twitter— 'For somebody fluent in over six million forms of communication, it's weird that C-3PO went with "gay-tinged passive aggression."'

By the way Conan, do you read/listen to McWhorter? Not just grammar, but often engaging.

Conan Says:

"While I'll concede there is some split on the fringes of the less/fewer controversy and room for differences of opinion (e.g., 15 items or less/fewer), I'd be willing to bet that even your Mark Liberman would agree that "less exceptions" is clunky and poor usage."

Look... I heard your criticism... I checked with authoritative sources on the subject... and you were wrong. That honestly should have been the end of this argument for you.

Nothing I've presented is even inconsistent with your personal view when it comes to formal writing.

That is the distinction made in the usage guide.

So the next question we must ask is if an internet blog is a place for formal or casual writing?

I virtually guarantee that Mark Liberman would conclude that this blog does not have an expectation of formal writing requirements, hence your entire point is moot anyway.

Had I been writing something for professional publication and passed it by you for your thoughts and you pointed out a spot where the word "fewer" was more elegant I'd seriously consider the change (I also would have written in a more formal manner anyway so this would be a moot point even then, but I digress).

As it stands what you are doing here is analogous to you bitching at someone in McDonald's because they aren't using a proper salad fork... as if they were in some find dining establishment.

Needless to say, your criticism in this venue was completely out of place.

My writing was perfectly in keeping with English usage guidelines expected for a casual writing environment.

Feel free to wander your local fast food places and complaining about how straws are an unseemly way to drink from a water cup... you aren't acknowledging the environment you are in.

You'll also look like an idiot there when the person you are talking to tells you to get lost and you refer to them as a "know-it-all" simply because they understand the difference between fast food and fine dining whereas you clearly do not.

Conan Says:

"So, what you're saying is that your consistent misuse of words, failure to punctuate properly, failure to capitalize, etc. is okay because English changes over time."

No Conan... I'm saying nothing of the sort. What you are doing here is known as a strawman argument (look it up if you are unfamiliar).

What I am saying is that I'm not misusing words at all given an understanding of the medium we are using to communicate.

We've gone through this before several times and what always happens is you are complaining about some area of English usage where there is either a disagreement amongst English language experts or where the usage guide indicates that your stated preference is just that and nothing more.

While we are on the subject of misusing words... you are the one who was arguing that you could use the word "archaic" to refer to the 1990's when you didn't realize that the term "Gish Gallop" was a modern term.

That is an abuse of vocabulary and you know this because the definition of the word specifies that we are talking about something that is "very old".

As I explained to you before, if someone born in the 1990's can be described as "archaic"... how should you be described?... do you prefer "older than dirt" or "long in the tooth"?

By the way Conan, do you read/listen to McWhorter? Not just grammar, but often engaging. ~ Crid at February 16, 2021 4:40 PM

I haven't, but I'll give it a shot.

In the most recent year(s), he's as known for his open mind about race relations as for his linguistics expertise.

If you're not consulting Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary as you try and interpret the Federalist Papers (or any of the founding documents), you will not understand what the writers really meant with their choice of words.

Jay J. Hector,

I don't believe we are so very separated in time that we cannot hope to comprehend writings from the late 1700's and early 1800's.

That being said, I thought your suggestion was a very interesting one.

Even more interesting was that when I made an attempt to look up the word "fewer":

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fewer

It does not return any results.

This early volume does have an entry for the word "less" of course.

What is also interesting is that when looking through their online collected works one can identify over 15,000 use cases of the word "less", but the word "fewer" actually overwhelmingly returns results for the related word "few".

It seems that the word "fewer" was very rarely used at that time in history.

This finding suggests two conclusions:

1 - That language does in fact change to a remarkable degree over just a few generations (which is what I had argued at the start of this discussion)

2 - That the frequency of use for the word "fewer" was so low at the time that it couldn't have been all that popular to use as a replacement for the word "less"... which is why the founders so frequently used the word "less" in formal writing that a modern prescriptivist would identify as an example of inelegant writing (which is the second point I argued).

Thank you for helping to add some additional evidence in support of these points.

Who cares to what uses "less" or "fewer" were put to in the 19th century. This is the 21st century and modern usage dictates that "fewer" is used to refer to distinct countable items and "less" to refer to things that can be measured, but not counted distinctly - with a few exceptions.

Whether the Founding Fathers used "less" more often than "fewer" is irrelevant. Whether Noah Webster put "fewer" in his 1828 dictionary matters not. Whether the practice of using "fewer" started with the 1770 preferences of Robert Baker is also irrelevant.

By the way, Artie, if Baker initiated the practice in 1770, the word was in use by 1828, whether it's in Webster's dictionary is beside the point.

If we're using Webster's 1828 dictionary as a the final authority on modern words, you should know that "thou" is in it, but "thee," its root, isn't, except in the definition of "thou." Should we start using "thou" again? What dost thou think?

Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary was Webster's attempt to create a uniquely American spelling and usage. He excluded and changed words at his whim. Not all of Webster's changes caught on, but many did.

Had Webster's rival in the Dictionary Wars, Joseph Emerson Worcester, prevailed American English would look much different today. Worcester stuck to the original British spellings and usages. Oliver Wendell Holmes preferred Worcester's dictionary to Webster's, as did Washington Irving and Edward Everett Hale.

Artie, your rationalization for your own lazy usage, that the preferred modern distinction between "less" and "fewer" is not an actual rule because it stems from the preference of one man 250 years ago -- in this case, the influential critic, Robert Baker -- is irrelevant to its application today. The preferred modern usage in your earlier sentence was "fewer exceptions," not "less exceptions."

A great deal of our language usage today stems from the preferences or influences of individual critics or writers. In fact, "critic" is a word invented by William Shakespeare.

Shakespeare invented many words that are in common usage today. Should we eliminate them because they were the brainchildren of one man?

Artie, you know next to nothing about sentence structure and English grammar. Your misidentification of the referenced nouns in your cites of The Federalist Papers demonstrated that quite clearly, as did your misapplication of "dangling participle" in an earlier thread.

Your long-winded attempt here is to rationalize your own sloppy usage, not to attack prescriptivism or defend the fluidity of language over time.

English is a mongrel tongue (tung, if Webster had had his way). That lineage makes it one of the most versatile and flexible languages in the world. It subsumes other languages and made-up phrases easily; and it readily adapts itself to new inventions and conventions.

While proper American English usage at any given point in time is not set in stone, it is set. That's why usages like "I had ran" and "between you and I" and "parents such as myself" grate on the ears; they indicate ignorance and apathy, as does "less exceptions."

Conan Says:

"Who cares to what uses "less" or "fewer" were put to in the 19th century. This is the 21st century and modern usage dictates that "fewer" is used to refer to distinct countable items and "less" to refer to things that can be measured, but not counted distinctly - with a few exceptions."

If you want to make an argument from tradition it would actually help your case if the "rule" you were advocating was actually a long-standing tradition.

It's funny how suddenly you do not care about how the Founding Fathers used the words "less" and "fewer"... or more accurately how the frequency of their use of the word "fewer" is extremely low.

Prior to you acknowledging that the word "fewer" doesn't even appear in a contemporary dictionary you were fervently defending their use of the word "less" in places where the very same 21st century prescriptivist mantra would require you to acknowledge their usage as lacking in elegance.

The point being that you cannot bring yourself to criticize their usage... despite it violating the same "rules" you insist are absolute.

Needless to say there is no traditional rule in this case.

You believe in a fairy tale... it is a fiction.

"Whether the Founding Fathers used "less" more often than "fewer" is irrelevant. Whether Noah Webster put "fewer" in his 1828 dictionary matters not. Whether the practice of using "fewer" started with the 1770 preferences of Robert Baker is also irrelevant."

It is extremely relevant when the core of your argument is that language has some immutable structure that cannot or should not change.

Here is the reality. "Less" was the word of choice for nearly 1000 years prior to the invention of the word "fewer".

It was then hundreds of years more before Baker expressed his personal preference to use "fewer" over "less" in certain situations.

It was then several generations before Baker's preference gained any popularity.

You just so happen to have been born at a time when Baker's preference was taught to you in a prescriptive manner when you were in grade school.

This false rule you absorbed as a child is little more than a linguistic fab... it is the bell bottom jeans of style choices for a group of people born within a 20-40 year time span.

It wasn't popular before then... and it is losing popularity now.

You can bitch and moan and stomp your feet all you like... but language is an ever evolving organism.

I don't adhere to your specific form of prescriptivist religion. Especially not when you say the following:

"While proper American English usage at any given point in time is not set in stone, it is set."

While it is true that certain structural elements of English are set... for example we say "there are many cars" and do not say "there are many car" (i.e., we have set rules for pluralization) What is not set are style choices that fluctuate significantly over time and space. The less/fewer discussion falls into this category.

That is precisely why well researched modern usage guides find your position to be improper.

I am in extremely good company for holding this overall position as well:

"Language is an ever-changing and developing expression of human personality, and does not grow well under rigorous direction." - C. L. Wrenn, The English Language

Conan Says:

"Your misidentification of the referenced nouns in your cites of The Federalist Papers demonstrated that quite clearly, as did your misapplication of "dangling participle" in an earlier thread."

First of all, I continue to conclude that you are the one that misidentified the referenced nouns.

I stand by my conclusions and find your arguments unpersuasive and incorrect.

Secondly... I've been through this already with you... I didn't "misapply" the term "dangling participle".

I was making fun of your propensity to be a stick in the mud. The term "dangling participle" was injected as a point of humor as part of the joke.

You need to work on your sense of humor since not only did it go over your head then it continues to go over your head even after explanation.