EDIT: you guys have dug up some truly horrible pisstakes :D Thank you for those.

To the serious folk - relax a little. This is Mildly Infuriating, not I'm dying if this doesn't stop. As a non-native speaker I was taught a certain way to use the language. The rules were not written down by me, nor the teachers - it was done by the native folk. Peace!

  • Malix@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago
    [malix@derp ~]$ fewer .bashrc 
    bash: fewer: command not found
    

    :(

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        No.

        There’s two types of grammar rules. There’s the real grammar rules, which you intuitively learn as a kid and don’t have to be explicitly taught.

        For example, any native English speaker can tell you that there’s something off about “the iron great purple old big ball” and that it should really be “the great big old purple iron ball”, even though many aren’t even aware that English has an adjective precedence rule.

        Then there’s the fake rules like “ain’t ain’t a real word”, ‘don’t split infinitives’ or “no double negatives”. Those ones are trumped up preferences, often with a classist or racist origin.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The trouble with double negatives in I think Germanic languages in general is that they’re possibly ambiguous, relying on either tone and context or complex grammar to disambiguate whether you mean to negate a negative or mean to pile them up. Also negating negatives should be avoided if you can say things straight-up, there has to be plenty of reason to choose “Don’t not go there” over “Do go there”.

          But that’s all style. It has also been said that you should describe how things are, not how they aren’t, and then Douglas Adams comes along and describes a space ship as “hanging in the air in the way that bricks don’t” which is pure brilliance (because it says, in negative space, something else about what that ship is: Eerie to the onlookers). Rules are there so you stop and think before you break them. If you want to write like Douglas Adams just make sure that you always wait until the traffic light turns yellow.

          • Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            One important thing to realize is that different dialects of English have slightly different grammars.

            One place where different dialects differ is around negation. Some dialects, like Appalachian English or West Texas English, exhibit ‘negative concord’, where parts of a sentence must agree in negation. For example, “Nobody ain’t doin’ nothing’ wrong”.

            One of the most important thing to understanding a sentence is to figure out the dialect of its speaker. You’ll also notice that with sentences with ambiguous terminology like “he ate biscuits” - were they cookies, or something that looked like a scone? Rules are always contextual, based on the variety of the language being spoken.

            • gordon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              “Nobody ain’t doin’ nothing’ wrong”.

              I’ve always heard it more as “ain’t nobody doin’ nothing wrong”

          • gordon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            …“Don’t not go there” over “Do go there”…

            So many tour guides for cities say things like “do not skip going to” or similar. It’s just a linguistic choice.

  • viralJ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m also a non-native speaker and I’ve also been taught to speak a certain way (“you and I are going” but “he saw you and me”; don’t split infinitives; don’t end sentences with prepositions, etc.), but then I read Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct and - even more relevant here - The Sense of Style. We’ve been taught to use language a certain way, but our teachers were following the prescriptivist school of thought. You say these rules were written by native folk, but it’s often (if not usually) the native folk that say less when they “should” be saying fewer.

    I know you said it’s only mildly infuriating to you, but if proper use of language is something dear to your heart (as it is to mine) - I really recommend the above books as I think this is something not worth to get even mildly infuriated about. The border between less and fewer is fuzzier than you think and - in the words of Pinker - once you really master the distinction - that’s one fewer thing for you to worry about.

    Edit: typo

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Arguably, that is correct: “minute” is a countable noun, so should take “fewer” as a modifier.

      • Cloudless ☼@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah it is grammatically correct but most people would say “less than 5 minutes ago” or “less than 50 seconds”, instead of using “fewer than”.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Minutes may be countable but time itself isn’t, I’d say. Generally applies to units: You can certainly count litres but it’s still “less than five litres”, at least when talking about a volume say left in a tank as opposed to things that come in individual 1l containers. The space between that (e.g. 500ml or 1.5l containers) is fuzzy.

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I refuse to acknowledge anyone’s struggle with common words like that except lose and loose.

    Unlike less and fewer which are basically interchangeable unless you’re being pedantic lose and loose are two completely different words entirely

        • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s exactly the point. There’s nothing pedantic about acknowledging the difference. “Fewer” is for a countable number of things like “pollutants”, and “less” is for uncountable things like “pollution”. It’s not hard.