Grammatically and Politically Incorrect
By Catlibber on June 7, 2008 at 9:05 PM in Current Affairs
A new rant in our continuing series of rants written by our readers – SusanUnPC
There is one common grammatically incorrect mistake that drives me crazy! It is not the mixing up of “who” and “whom”. It is not the use of the word “irregardless”. It is not even the saying of “ain’t”. It’s the “less/fewer” blunder that makes me want to scream.
“Fewer” is used to describe things you can count (like chickens). “Less” is used to describe intangible things you can’t count (like time). The problem is that lots of people use the word “less” for both kinds of things.
There are at least three commercials (one is for a bladder medicine) that loudly and clearly and incorrectly use the word “less”. “You’ll have “less” bathroom problems with Urine-trouble”. Don’t they have copy editors, or do they just think “fewer” will sound awkward to most people so the heck with what is correct?
I once went to a teachers’ inservice where some guy came up from Boston and gave a talk about discipline. For two hours he said things like “less students respond to this kind of situation “ and “if we do this, less teachers will be needed to observe the students”. He must have used the word “less” in the wrong way a hundred times. I wanted to stand up and yell,”If you would make FEWER grammatical mistakes, your lecture would be LESS painful to hear.”
Anyway, for many years this less/fewer blunder has really been a pet peeve of mine, and I have prepared some examples of its correct usage so that you may never err again.
**There are FEWER misogynists in Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America than there are in the Democratic National Committee, but there is LESS interest in the media reporting it.
**Barack Obama has LESS experience than Hillary Clinton, but she has FEWER connections with Louis Farrakhan.
**The bitter people were clinging to FEWER guns and Bibles as the economy got worse, and there was LESS enthusiasm for “Yes We Can”.
**There was much LESS negative media bias towards Obama, and there were FEWER members of the DNC who wanted to fairly divide the delegates.
**Obama did not give FEWER vague David Axelrod speeches during the end of the primary because people enjoyed hearing LESS substance in his words.
**FEWER swing states and FEWER votes went to Obama, but the Super Delegates ignored this because they had LESS desire to win in November.
Well, my grammar lesson is over, and after this horrendous primary, I am voting for Nader (unless some one’s campaign implodes and Hillary has to step in) and as far as I am concerned, if McCain wins, I couldn’t care less (or fewer).






















