It looks like it...Originally Posted by FarSideOfTheMoon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobin...votes_for.htmlNick Griffin is now a Member of the European Parliament even though he won fewer votes than he did five years ago.
That's right, fewer.
In 2004, the BNP in the North West polled 134,959 votes. In 2009, they polled 132,194. So, why did he win?
In short, because of a collapse in the Labour vote from 576,388 in 2004 to 336,831 in 2009. In Liverpool, Labour's vote dived by 15,000; in Manchester by almost 9,000; whilst in Bury, Rochdale and Stockport, its vote halved.
And a more detailed article in The Guardian.
There is also a link to the "Not in Our Name" petition at the bottom.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-vote-success
No, although it's a very common error: it actually got fewer votes this time
' Ere, guv'nor! Ain't votes a mass noun, then?No, although it's a very common error: it actually got fewer votes this time
This one will inevitably call for pistols at dawn...' Ere, guv'nor! Ain't votes a mass noun, then?
I've heard somewhere that the Scots use English in a generally more gramatically correct way than do the English, however my vote goes to fewer. Perhaps DrS will adjudicate?
Or perhaps we ought to vote on it? Least votes loses?
To clarify (marching this thread determinedly off-topic): what I've been taught is that less should be used with mass nouns like water or sugar, fewer for plural nouns (like vote/s). So it's less of the population, but fewer people (plural of person).
And while I'm on my hobby-horse of common errors, I'm intrigued by the number of professional commentators on television who get the choice between "Chris and me" and "Chris and I" wrong. My rule is simple: just imagine what it would sound like without the "Chris and". So it's "this is useful for Chris and me" but "Chris and I will be there".
Any more for any more
Get a copy of Fowler's "Modern English Usage" and find out how contemptuous this guru of the English language is of pedantic nit-picking ...
Yep, I have a copy of Fowler and a few other books on English usage as well. And I know that what is considered correct is constantly shifting (did you notice how I daringly started a sentence with "and"? I feel positively wicked). And if I were Lord Over All (this is catching), with the power to impose my will with a wave of my Divine Hand, I would drastically simplify the grammar and spelling of English, and ban irregulars.
However, I feel that while we have rules, those in a position to set an example should be sticking to them. Not that I necessarily notice all of the mistakes of course - I'm not a grammatical expert, and have never fully grasped the "who/whom" and "while/whilst" distinctions, for example. I just find that the incorrect uses that I do notice grate on me - possibly because I used to be a teacher at one time.
Yep. The old aide-memoire was "less fat fewer calories".
I just can't see votes as other than a plural, so fewer it is.
... perhaps one could say that we would need less pedantry if fewer people broke the rules!
Can one of our north of the border contributors please explain the rationale behind the phrase "a few broth" ... ?
Trinoc , you were cut off in mid sentence. Was the last word "brothels"?
Also, are you inferring that those north of the border are different to us?
I'm with Tony. I don't get everything right but when professional communicators get it wrong it bothers me.
This thread is comprised almost completely of errors.
Ah, the estate agents' favourite..."comprises of".
I think we've got enough going here to start a "pedants united" party - pity we've missed the European elections, we might have beaten Labour...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks