No one ever said "there's fewer water in this glass than that one"
Fewer applies exclusively to countable things.
Apologies, in my rage posting I forgot to point out I was talking about the acceptability of using less to reference countable nouns rather than the use of fewer for uncountable nouns.
Anyone who wants to claim that fewer must always be used rather than less for countable nouns must struggle with saying "there is one fewer cup on this table than before" without sounding like an idiot.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
I'm amused by the Spanish quarantine fuss. Surely, it was alaways a matter of "Do you feel lucky? Well, punk, do ya?"
Now it's "He shot me."
Are they adults? if so, act like adults. However, I suspect most won't take much notice of the quaranrine restriction anyway. They're always the people who know best.
Is that Mr. CD13 calling gammon on red wall Tory Brexit voters?
I'm amused by the Spanish quarantine fuss. Surely, it was alaways a matter of "Do you feel lucky? Well, punk, do ya?"
Now it's "He shot me."
Are they adults? if so, act like adults. However, I suspect most won't take much notice of the quaranrine restriction anyway. They're always the people who know best.
The problem is that people neither do detail or think through the consequences of their action.
So people saw they could go to Spain and ignored the small print that the countries listed for travel without quarantine was subject to change.
And they aren't prepared for 2 weeks in quarantine which for my family would have had zero impact except not possibly skipping a bit of exercise.
Yet even though it's quarantine would have had zero impact we didn't go because well it didn't make much sense to go.
Glad to find I'm not the only one unsympathetic to the 'Spain Pain'. You book a foreign holiday in today's climate and you take a risk. Don't want anyone to suffer but if it all goes predictably pear-shaped because of a sudden change in quarantine rules, please don't ask me and other taxpayers to bail you out.
Btw, I automatically treble space after a full-stop. It's the way my Dad taught me and I've never thought about it. Now it's mentioned, I can see there is no logic, but I kind of like the aesthetics....and I am definitely too old to change.
I'm amused by the Spanish quarantine fuss. Surely, it was alaways a matter of "Do you feel lucky? Well, punk, do ya?"
Now it's "He shot me."
Are they adults? if so, act like adults. However, I suspect most won't take much notice of the quaranrine restriction anyway. They're always the people who know best.
The problem is that people neither do detail or think through the consequences of their action.
So people saw they could go to Spain and ignored the small print that the countries listed for travel without quarantine was subject to change.
And they aren't prepared for 2 weeks in quarantine which for my family would have had zero impact except not possibly skipping a bit of exercise.
Yet even though it's quarantine would have had zero impact we didn't go because well it didn't make much sense to go.
Glad to find I'm not the only one unsympathetic to the 'Spain Pain'. You book a foreign holiday in today's climate and you take a risk. Don't want anyone to suffer but if it all goes predictably pear-shaped because of a sudden change in quarantine rules, please don't ask me and other taxpayers to bail you out.
Btw, I automatically treble space after a full-stop. It's the way my Dad taught me and I've never thought about it. Now it's mentioned, I can see there is no logic, but I kind of like the aesthetics....and I am definitely too old to change.
R. I. P. Olivia de Havilland. Aged 104, double Oscar winner and last surviving star of Gone With The Wind. The last survivor of Hollywood's golden age.
If she died of the Rona then @Theuniondivvie has won the Dead Pool.
R. I. P. Olivia de Havilland. Aged 104, double Oscar winner and last surviving star of Gone With The Wind. The last survivor of Hollywood's golden age.
If she died of the Rona then @Theuniondivvie has won the Dead Pool.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Have just finished Stephen Hawkin's entertaining little book on Brief Answers to Big Questions. There are lots of pithy rebuffs, and he is particularly dismissive of UFOs. Basically he points out that if aliens were capable of contacting us and actually wanted to, we would know about it. He suspects it would be like Independence Day, but whatever...we would sure know they wanted to communicate.
Edit: I am reminded of a dear friend, now sadly departed, whose first job after University was with the Home Office. One of his briefs was to visit and interview people who reported seeing UFOs. Oddly, a high proportion of these were lorry drivers in Cornwall with a liking for beer.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Have just finished Stephen Hawkin's entertaining little book on Brief Answers to Big Questions. There are lots of pithy rebuffs, and he is particularly dismissive of UFOs. Basically he points out that if aliens were capable of contacting us and actually wanted to, we would know about it. He suspects it would be like Independence Day, but whatever...we would sure know they wanted to communicate.
While I know it’s not a word to throw out lightly in the context of Hawking, I see it as a little foolish to so certainly second guess the motivations and methods of something we have no understanding of. There’s clear reasons why a gradual exposure may be a sensible strategy on “their” part. In any case, if there’s lots more to show beyond the three Navy videos already released in April then it does start to pose some tricky questions.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
It’s absolutely pouring down this morning here on Tyneside. I’m enjoying it - it’s very relaxing.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
Nah. Windies to be polished off by lunchtime on day 5
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
If it’s that wet even Old Trafford’s famous drainage system is going to be working overtime if we’re to have play before lunchtime tomorrow.
From the Windies’ point of view they need heavy, sustained rain and no play. Not just for the obvious reason but because batting against Anderson, Broad and Woakes in short, bitty patches under overcast conditions and they will be lucky to get to 50 all out.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
R. I. P. Olivia de Havilland. Aged 104, double Oscar winner and last surviving star of Gone With The Wind. The last survivor of Hollywood's golden age.
If she died of the Rona then @Theuniondivvie has won the Dead Pool.
Wiki says "natural causes".
Tud denied by the French undercounting their numbers!
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Thanks! Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
Nah. Windies to be polished off by lunchtime on day 5
Forecasts have been all over the place. We are clearly in a very changeable pattern.
For once, I have a little bit of sympathy with the forecasters, but not too much. They will continue to be the butt of jokes until they start publishing regular and easily accessible results, just like most other tipsters do.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
Because I personally, and many other people, think it looks damn right awful. It creates “rivers” of white space down a page.
You’ll notice that no professional piece of printing, books or otherwise, does it.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
That sounds absolutely awful.
Spaces before exclamation marks are still common across the Channel.
R. I. P. Olivia de Havilland. Aged 104, double Oscar winner and last surviving star of Gone With The Wind. The last survivor of Hollywood's golden age.
If she died of the Rona then @Theuniondivvie has won the Dead Pool.
Wiki says "natural causes".
There’s me, thinking a 104 year old must have been assassinated.
I see that everyone is very animated by the Lib Dem leadership contest. The Lib Dems post-coalition have totally lost their spark. Hard to see what anyone can do about that. They are lucky there’s not PR, cos they’d likely be behind the Greens, as has happened in eg. Scotland, Germany and Sweden.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
Quite. And absolutely agree with the earlier point made about touch typing. If you can touch type then leaving a double space just comes naturally. And doing different is just unnecessary and reduces typing speed.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
That sounds absolutely awful.
Spaces before exclamation marks are still common across the Channel.
And people still query whether Brexit was a good idea? Sheesh.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. Labour are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
I see that everyone is very animated by the Lib Dem leadership contest. The Lib Dems post-coalition have totally lost their spark. Hard to see what anyone can do about that. They are lucky there’s not PR, cos they’d likely be behind the Greens, as has happened in eg. Scotland, Germany and Sweden.
They got nearly ten times as many votes in Scotland as the Greens at the last election.
They also got more votes than the Greens in 2016, although they ended up with five seats rather than the Greens’ six.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
My 1932 Imperial Model 50 typewriter has no exclamation mark key!
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
On my phone a double space click automatically produces a full stop. Not a great fan of predictive text but that is quite handy.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. They are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
Why should the fact that the Lib Dems and Cons are pushing through a very unpopular cycle lane plan mean they will have massive gains next year?
Mr. Pointer, by chance I happened to notice that Great Battles of the Hellenistic World, which I've started re-reading, has double spaces after the full stops. So does my slightly (though not very) older copy of Journey to the West.
A certain degree of natural change will always occur with language. It wasn't so long ago we had fore-arms and connexions.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
On my phone a double space click automatically produces a full stop. Not a great fan of predictive text but that is quite handy.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. They are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
Why should the fact that the Lib Dems and Cons are pushing through a very unpopular cycle lane plan mean they will have massive gains next year?
The Council is Labour. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
I see that everyone is very animated by the Lib Dem leadership contest. The Lib Dems post-coalition have totally lost their spark. Hard to see what anyone can do about that. They are lucky there’s not PR, cos they’d likely be behind the Greens, as has happened in eg. Scotland, Germany and Sweden.
Perhaps to create a bit of excitement they should run their leadership elections concurrently? One for the current leader, one for the next one, and one for the one after...
Perhaps that's the reason this one's taken so long - because they thought if they'd run on a shortened timescale they'd already be on the third by now.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. They are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
Why should the fact that the Lib Dems and Cons are pushing through a very unpopular cycle lane plan mean they will have massive gains next year?
The Council is Labour. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
OK, now I understand.
It seems their attempts to enhance cycling will lead to the electorate saying, ‘on yer bike?’
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
No one ever said "there's fewer water in this glass than that one"
Fewer applies exclusively to countable things.
Apologies, in my rage posting I forgot to point out I was talking about the acceptability of using less to reference countable nouns rather than the use of fewer for uncountable nouns.
Anyone who wants to claim that fewer must always be used rather than less for countable nouns must struggle with saying "there is one fewer cup on this table than before" without sounding like an idiot.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Well there are a few on PB that do, but I take your meaning as know IRL. I think it is to do with education. If your teachers don’t point it out as an error then it becomes normal. I know a lot of people my age are exercised by it and it may be significant that the “less” version is used in Tescos (or it was the last time I went to one) while “fewer” is used in Waitrose.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. They are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
Why should the fact that the Lib Dems and Cons are pushing through a very unpopular cycle lane plan mean they will have massive gains next year?
I suspect it's Labour pushing through the plans - as Labour has 54 of the 66 seats.
As with other northern places if elections had been held in 2019-20 I suspect the tories will have already won seats - although the method of election (1/3 every year followed by no elections in year 4) would tend to create a single party council.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
I see that everyone is very animated by the Lib Dem leadership contest. The Lib Dems post-coalition have totally lost their spark. Hard to see what anyone can do about that. They are lucky there’s not PR, cos they’d likely be behind the Greens, as has happened in eg. Scotland, Germany and Sweden.
Perhaps to create a bit of excitement they should run their leadership elections concurrently? One for the current leader, one for the next one, and one for the one after...
Perhaps that's the reason this one's taken so long - because they thought if they'd run on a shortened timescale they'd already be on the third by now.
That'd be a very good idea for SLAB, too. It would sure sace a lot of newspaper space about how X was the new threat to the SNP. They could just print "X, Y and Z".
I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Cheers, Horse.
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
Of course spelling never seemed to matter to writers in the middle ages. And we still live with the consequences today with all manner of ridiculous spellings still being considered acceptable alternatives as a result.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
Thanks DJ. I have seen that before and have tried to follow the principle most of my life.
You can see why three spaces made sense with typewriters of that period. It makes no sense now but is not offensive enough to make oldies like me change the habit of threequarters of a lifetime.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Not ending sentences with prepositions was one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something I could see the point of.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
Thanks DJ. I have seen that before and have tried to follow the principle most of my life.
You can see why three spaces made sense with typewriters of that period. It makes no sense now but is not offensive enough to make oldies like me change the habit of threequarters of a lifetime.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Rampant misuse of reflexive pronouns is the evil we have to fight with sword and flame.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
Thanks DJ. I have seen that before and have tried to follow the principle most of my life.
You can see why three spaces made sense with typewriters of that period. It makes no sense now but is not offensive enough to make oldies like me change the habit of threequarters of a lifetime.
Shouldn't that first para be "whilst energy has to be spent", not "while energy has to be spent"?
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
On my phone a double space click automatically produces a full stop. Not a great fan of predictive text but that is quite handy.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Not ending sentences with prepositions was one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something I could see the point of.
point of what?
It also isn't always possible, which rather undermines the case for it being a "rule" of the English language.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
Garmin would be an interesting case study for some Briefcase Wanker MBA type on how you can have genuinely shit products and still be the dominant market leader.
In other news, expect gains for Lib Dems/Con on Gateshead Council next summer. They are pushing through a damn right awful plan to convert one of the main approaches to the Tyne Bridge into a cycle lane only. By all accounts it’s very, very unpopular, and is/will cause massive delays.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
Why should the fact that the Lib Dems and Cons are pushing through a very unpopular cycle lane plan mean they will have massive gains next year?
I suspect it's Labour pushing through the plans - as Labour has 54 of the 66 seats.
As with other northern places if elections had been held in 2019-20 I suspect the tories will have already won seats - although the method of election (1/3 every year followed by no elections in year 4) would tend to create a single party council.
It will be an interesting election cycle next year. There are so many places up that I expect all parties will have some successes. The ones I will be keeping an eye on are met boroughs like Sandwell, where Lab still have 65/72 councillors despite now only having 1/3.5 MPs
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
My 1932 Imperial Model 50 typewriter has no exclamation mark key!
Quite right to.
Exclamation marks convey emotion and that displaying emotions was just not British.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Not ending sentences with prepositions was one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something I could see the point of.
It also isn't always possible, which rather undermines the case for it being a "rule" of the English language.
I take it everyone is aware of Churchill's rebuff to the Parliamentarian who criticised him for ending sentences with a preposition? He replied that it was impertinence '...up with which he would not put.'
Garmin would be an interesting case study for some Briefcase Wanker MBA type on how you can have genuinely shit products and still be the dominant market leader.
I quite like my Forerunner watch.
I considered an Apple Watch but it had sod all running features
I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Cheers, Horse.
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
Whilst that 25K to £31K may be right pensioners have less commitments than working age on average (rent/mortgage/student loans/kids/national insurance contributions) .The one collective commitment pensioners have that working age do not is care costs -and they are collectively trying to pass that on!
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
I have no doubt that two spaces after a full stop are unnecessary with modern typefonts but I still like to do it anyway, partly because I think it looks better that way and partly out of habit. Why anybody would find that objectionable is beyond me.
I may be the only three-space man on here but bear in mind I began with an ancient Remington and well-used typewriter ribbon.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with. I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong. Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?
That would be very odd .
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.
My 1932 Imperial Model 50 typewriter has no exclamation mark key!
Quite right to.
Exclamation marks convey emotion and that displaying emotions was just not British.
That's wonderful! Looks identical to the one which I first used back in the 1950s.
I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Cheers, Horse.
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
Whilst that 25K to £31K may be right pensioners have less commitments than working age on average (rent/mortgage/student loans/kids/national insurance contributions) .The one collective commitment pensioners have that working age do not is care costs -and they are collectively trying to pass that on!
Yes, the NI point is a key one - most of that £31k will be subject to NI whereas hardly any of the £25 k will. That probably narrows the real gap by £1-£2k.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with. I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong. Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with. I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong. Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Not ending sentences with prepositions was one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something I could see the point of.
point of what?
It also isn't always possible, which rather undermines the case for it being a "rule" of the English language.
It is possible, but you end up sounding like Yoda: not ending sentences with a prepositions is one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something the point of which I could see.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with. I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong. Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Do you think the OED will ever state:
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with. I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong. Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.
Some years ago, I had a long and rather acid correspondence with the Student Loan Company, which went right the way to board level.
All of the letters I received contained at least one error. Some of them actually changed the meaning of the words.
I advised Mr Kevin O’Connor that if his staff were that incompetent he should enrol them on the WEA’s excellent adult literacy courses.
He didn’t like that very much, especially as I had copied the letter to Vince Cable.
Depending on the covers and the amount of drying between showers, I'd go for a possible sliver of play (20-30 mins) at some point after an early lunch, and (more likely) the majority of the evening session in tact.
Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pit
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
The one that does involve a lack of clarity is the distinction between "may" and "might". But that battle seems to have been completely lost. At least judging by BBC journalists, who regularly write things like "Germany may not have lost the Second World War."
On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Agree in principle, Fysics. You should always consider your reader, but then the imaginary reader in your head has to be a reasonable one. For example....
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
Not ending sentences with prepositions was one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something I could see the point of.
point of what?
It also isn't always possible, which rather undermines the case for it being a "rule" of the English language.
It is possible, but yo end up sounding like Yoda: not ending sentences with a prepositions is one I ditched a few years ago as it really wasn’t something the point of which I could see.
Changing the order of words in a sentence makes more difference in English, where we rely on it to convey meaning, than in the majority of languages that use different endings on words to convey tense or case.
I'm reasonably sure the 'rule' of sentences not ending in preposition is actually a Victorian-era attempt to Latinise English (in the same way we had d for denarii rather than p for pence).
Comments
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
more obese-people
obeser people
(Working on the final stages of a book makes me hypersensitive to anything like that.)
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Interesting.
Btw, I automatically treble space after a full-stop. It's the way my Dad taught me and I've never thought about it. Now it's mentioned, I can see there is no logic, but I kind of like the aesthetics....and I am definitely too old to change.
Edit: I am reminded of a dear friend, now sadly departed, whose first job after University was with the Home Office. One of his briefs was to visit and interview people who reported seeing UFOs. Oddly, a high proportion of these were lorry drivers in Cornwall with a liking for beer.
None of the reports were credible.
Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
That would be very odd .
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
From the Windies’ point of view they need heavy, sustained rain and no play. Not just for the obvious reason but because batting against Anderson, Broad and Woakes in short, bitty patches under overcast conditions and they will be lucky to get to 50 all out.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
For once, I have a little bit of sympathy with the forecasters, but not too much. They will continue to be the butt of jokes until they start publishing regular and easily accessible results, just like most other tipsters do.
You’ll notice that no professional piece of printing, books or otherwise, does it.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Another example of one single urban core having four local authorities, all pulling in different directions. Madness.
They also got more votes than the Greens in 2016, although they ended up with five seats rather than the Greens’ six.
A certain degree of natural change will always occur with language. It wasn't so long ago we had fore-arms and connexions.
Perhaps that's the reason this one's taken so long - because they thought if they'd run on a shortened timescale they'd already be on the third by now.
It seems their attempts to enhance cycling will lead to the electorate saying, ‘on yer bike?’
https://www.businessinsider.com/memo-winston-churchill-on-brevity-improve-writing-2017-5
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I have stopped worrying about split infinitives because to go boldly is no more or less clear than to boldly go. Otoh, I refuse to give up my fight against the execrable phrase 'this moment in time' in which the last two words are not only redundant but a phony attempt to add emphasis and accuracy to an expression that doesn't need it.
I know a lot of people my age are exercised by it and it may be significant that the “less” version is used in Tescos (or it was the last time I went to one) while “fewer” is used in Waitrose.
As with other northern places if elections had been held in 2019-20 I suspect the tories will have already won seats - although the method of election (1/3 every year followed by no elections in year 4) would tend to create a single party council.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
You can see why three spaces made sense with typewriters of that period. It makes no sense now but is not offensive enough to make oldies like me change the habit of threequarters of a lifetime.
James Joyce had the solution.
It also isn't always possible, which rather undermines the case for it being a "rule" of the English language.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
Exclamation marks convey emotion and that displaying emotions was just not British.
I considered an Apple Watch but it had sod all running features
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
Of course, that also meant, due to early printers being predominantly Dutch, the sensible medieval spelling of 'yott' became 'yacht'...
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care.
All of the letters I received contained at least one error. Some of them actually changed the meaning of the words.
I advised Mr Kevin O’Connor that if his staff were that incompetent he should enrol them on the WEA’s excellent adult literacy courses.
He didn’t like that very much, especially as I had copied the letter to Vince Cable.