This is actually a pointless distinction to make, as evidenced by the fact that (1) nobody is actually confused by one's meaning if they use 'less' where they were supposed to use 'fewer', and (2) there is no equivalent for 'more'.

Probably one of the best examples of a rule that should be dropped from the English language, imo.

If we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway.

Until the language is remade to conform to logic though, I think it's best to learn countable and uncountable distinctions. At the very least it's an advantage not to have others underestimate you based on grammar issues in your writing.

From the wiki page on this topic: "However, descriptive grammarians (who describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770:

I'm sure fewer people every year care whether you write "fewer" or "less". By now, many people could care less.

But quite a few will still notice and wonder why you didn't say "fewer", even if it's less of an issue than it used to be.

I think it's still worth it to get this "right", if only because fewer people will think less of your writing.

Watch out for that wiki page, if we're looking at the same one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less

This page seems rather biased; it's easily earned its "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag with crazy stuff like this:

> even most prescriptivists accept the most common usage "there are less cups of flour in this canister" [emphasis added]

Instead of worrying about the opinions of "prescriptivists" and "descriptivists", just listen to the people you know, hear, and read: would most of them really say "there are less cups of flour in this canister"? And does that sound fine, or a bit off, to your ear?

Of course, no one I know would say "there are fewer cups of flour in this canister" either - they would simply say "there's less flour in this canister". What do cups have to do with it?

Language does change, and usage that was once "wrong" becomes right. A good example is "because of" and "due to". There was a terribly confusing rule about which to use, but these days fewer and fewer people will care if you simply use "due to" in every context. "Due to" has won, and it's nice to have one less rule to worry about.

Alas, I don't think "fewer" and "less" are quite there yet.

> By now, many people could care less.

This should be "couldn't care less."

Nope, but you get an upvote for noticing, thanks! :-)

I used "could care less" deliberately, in keeping with the cheeky spirit of my comment:

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less....

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pi... (scroll down)

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/features/ct-tr...

I knew that you used it on purpose; just tossing you a softball, that's all.

Ha! I should have known you were up to something, my friend.

Well played. And I mean that not in the sarcastic sense! :-)

It depends, it can be read to indicate "inferior", rather than fewer.

Also, depending how it modifies the succeeding word, if can change meaning: "There are less busy people." There are people who are not as busy, or, alternatively, there are fewer busy people.

But generally the context makes it clear. However context can pretty much make anything clear.

No, what was written is that the kids are born smaller. Agreed most people would "error correct" the wording.

It's a grammatical rule in the same bucket as "i before e except after c" and "possessive apostrophes on words ending with s don't get another s"

"i before e" apparently has more words that violate the rule than follow it, and the possessive apostrophe rule runs opposite to spoken English: "This is James's book". The fewer/less thing is a general rule, not an ironclad one - there's plenty of examples where it sounds natural to use either.

I'd also argue that with a demographic the size of Australia (~22M), the number of children in it are not feasibly countable (like grains of sand), and as such, 'less' is fine. :)

oh noes! I have fewer karma!

Apparently some people disagree with this statement, but it's correct - karma on HN is definitely countable, hence 'fewer'. Of course, it sounds stupid, but apparently the rule is ironclad, to always be followed.

Which reminds me, the 'split infinitive' rule is yet another nonsense grammatical rule that is overapplied.

Can you explain the distinction for me?

Something that is continuous (power, water, money) use "less".

Something you can count, use "fewer".

No similar construct in the other direction. You say "more" of anything. English, feh! :-)

I prefer "manier". "Women are bearing manier children". "More children" sounds like it's a matter of degree, like their children now contain 120% more child.

Seriously, or are you just messing with us here? Because I don't recall having ever seen or heard "manier" used like that or "more" being interpreted only in continuous sense.

It's my invention, now I just have to get manier people to use it!

FYI I got a black eye cuz of you, I was reading this thread around 4.30am and for some reason that comment made me laugh out loud which resulted in me being elbowed by my GF. My lawyers will be in touch...

Bring it on, sucka!

It's really hard to read 'manier' without thinking 'more manly'.

I prefer this interpretation. Perhaps we can make a gentleman's agreement to let it enter the lexicon as a homophone.

Perhaps manyer could work, it has an old air of legitimacy to it.

Yes, that is its downside :-(

If you can count distinct items, use fewer. If it's a bulk quantity, use less.

Nevermind the critics. I upvoted you.

I can hear my mom yelling that at me every time someone uses it incorrectly.