fewer vs less

Yes--that's why I put "were" first. After I had done so I pondered it. Was "only 17" a singular? I think had I missed out "only" "were 17" was right.

In XVIIIth English of the best sort "was" was always right. In Boswell, Sterne and Johnson. That's why I got pondering it. I liked that style. One hears it from young ladies of the better sort even now. "We was", "I were", "it were", "they was". It's quite common.

Amuse us contrex with a sentence containing those four usages out of the mouth of a garrulous English Rose after 4 pints of 4.2% describing her experience earlier in the day at the communal Christmas pudding making using a steamer borrowed from a soup factory whose CEO is the doting husband of the Chairwoman of the Christmas Pudding Committee.

That's the sort of thing a budding writer will practice on. And the scene setting for a reader who hasn't the knowledge of the CPC that the listener in the pub has. It's covered every year by local radio and TV and a representative of the Guiness Book of Records had been there once and had found them wanting.

There's nothing worse than giving kids boring subjects to practice composition on.

I'll be interested in what JTT thinks.

You, on the other hand, make nothing writing the crap you write here in the English section. The difference is Bickerton has put a lot of thought into his study and it's reflected in his stature. You put no thought into many of you ramblings, McTag, you simply repeat the old nonsense from your Fowler or some other equally useless style manual.



Illustrative of your ignorance.

You were an English teacher, were you not, Contrex. Put your brain to work for dog's sake!

It's not Contrex JTT. It's contrex.

contrex, kotex, it makes no nevermind to me, Spendi.

You miss the point - this is supposed to be the multicultural alternative to standard English; calling it crap simply labels you as a politically incorrect imperialist or some such. ESL innocents wandering on this site and getting linguistic advice from JTT should be warned it's caveat emptor around here

It is very common, unfortunately, but not heard in my submission from young ladies of the better sort. Unless they're deliberately adopting Estuary English or Lanky, for a laugh.

Lest you missed my previous point...it was not the creole I was labelling as crap, but the "linguistically lush" description. I don't deny it is inventive, expressive, all these things...but English it ain't. It is something else.
I know you're tongue-in-cheek here, but I thought it worthwhile to say that.

Yes, and it's worthwhile to ask you what "better sort" means.

These are deep waters into which I am loth to paddle.

I know what I mean by "better sort", anyway.

Pure in thought, word and deed. Self-respecting lasses. No obvious tattoos or metalwork affixed. An interest in reading for pleasure. Kind to children and the elderly. Especially that.

What about rattling the pots and pans Mac?

It's all very well if you're a materialist, preferably get one designed by experts, carpet slippers in the hallway, folded evening paper, cushions plumped sort of thing. A bit like Doctor Finlay's housekeeper. Knows your next need before you do.

That's the "better sort" from a misogynistic, materialist point of view. And one can see why. It's ace. What's 7 minutes once a month compared to endless days of comfort and ease and evenings by the fireside watching Dancing on Ice. It makes sense. Misogyny I mean. If there is a "Battle of the Sexes" then the sexes should square up to each other and battle despite the unequal nature of the weapons since male superior strength was legislated out by CND. (The Campaign for Neutralising Defence) and advanced education had to be brought in to try to fill the void.

Then there's the poet's muse. A spiritual dimension if I may so put it. The logical outcome of all the circumstances from a Darwinian point of view. High potency and highly dangerous.

Your trouble Mac is that you're ashamed of your misogyny and you shouldn't be. It's perfectly normal right throughout the English class system.

Or it was until that Germaine Greer infested our shores and quickly discovered that the TV ratings and the checkouts were firmly under the control of the hands that rock the cradles and what interested them most.

All we have is bloody Top Gear and that's run by a Mumsie's gainsway who does scripted and forced misogyny in order to have us think we get equal time.

What an absolutely fatuous notion.

You never make any point. You cobble together a bunch of nonsense to give the illusion that you're saying something of import. As soon as you are challenged the illusion, and High Seas, disappears.

It could be humor. Courtesy of another thread, more pidgin: http://alohaclubhawaii.com/members/humor_other_hawaiiandriverslicenseapp.htm

Well, if there was less pot, there'd be far fewer kettles, obviously.

It even worse than that JTT. Before the State can wither away communication has to precced it. Islands of alienated, anomic angsts: barking. With no Plan B.

Well--okie dokie Mac--I've pondered the subtlety of meaning offered by the choice between "less" and "fewer". Would you be so kind as to say what you have found it, or them, (it has to be more than one dimensional to be subtle) to be so that I can compare (Go Compare) my own with it, or them, (see further back), to determine how close I am getting to becoming as expert as wot u is in the refined higher levels of modern English Language usage.

Both "gridlocked" and "deadlocked" are wrong unless the announcer was referring to Mrs Entwistle getting her thighs round Mr Entwistle's neck. And one wouldn't bother whether one had repulsed or repelled one of the glassy-eyed women trying to cadge a drink as long as she buggered off.

States have long used language for deception, Spendi, that's for sure! But communication will never wither away because language will never wither away. It's as safe as safe can be because it has people guarding it; even those dunces like High Seas guard language though she hasn't the foggiest notion how or even that she is doing it.

I don't know what more you want, Spendy old bean.

I've already put my thought down carefully and clearly, and simply so JTT can understand them.

That's the problem, McTag. Often you give great thought to language and, those times, it shows in your advice.

But in this case and others of a similar nature, your thought isn't even your thought. It's you repeating the nonsense you've read in some style manual or heard from some other wag who has put the same level of thought into it.

I meant to write "thoughts". A typo. I do make mistakes sometimes.

But my advice here is not from any style manual, just from experience, interest and commonsense.

By the way, The Guardian has a house style manual. Maybe we should all get a copy, and synchronise.

By the way (2), I have ordered a new publication on English which seems to advocate some of your approach. I may mellow, but don't bank on it.

This is it
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Language-Wars-History-Proper-English/dp/1848542089/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top