A friend took pleasure in pointing out that I used a grammatical construct in my last post that I had criticized in the post immediately prior. At least he thinks I did. Clearly, he didn’t bother the read the supporting link that I posted:

According to this rule, less should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation. Thus “less than three miles” (with “three miles” being a single distance, not three individual miles), “less than $50″ (fifty dollars as a sum of money, not fifty one-dollar bills).

I used the construct “less than two weeks”, which indicated an approximation of a specific period of time in a manner that fits into the acceptable use listed above. The “10 items or less” construct refers to a specific enumerated quantity – nine is ok, but eleven is not, and is therefore more correct to use “fewer”.

Of course, everything is relative. The English language, particularly as used by Americans, is extremely flexible and adaptive. Perhaps I shouldn’t pick on Americans – after all, it was in the land that came to be known as England that the language evolved from Old to Middle to modern English. No one is formally in charge of policing the correct use of English, unlike French, and since the prime function of language is to communicate thought between individuals, one can see the advantages in adhering to “common usage”, even when the standard of common usage starts deviating from old, accepted rules. To illustrate my point, I’ll bring up another example – how peeved I am that the word “gender” has come into standard use to replace the word “sex”. “Gender” is, or was, a grammatical term that referred to the masculine, feminine or neuter quality of a noun in languages where it made a difference, and English isn’t one of them. The noun “sex” refers to “The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), but we’re mostly familiar with another usage – the contraction from “sexual intercourse.” It’s always been my belief that squeamishness about discussing this other usage in public (especially in America) is what lead to adoption and adaption of the term “gender” to refer to whether a person is male or female. But the use of “gender” to refer to sex has become common usage, and it would be pointless of me to try to get everyone to change back.

Now, I am in no way an expert on English grammar, as a quick perusal of my writing here on this blog would readily reveal. My interest in adhering to more formal grammar, whether I achieve it in practice or not, is rooted in my life experiences. I was initially educated in Australia in the seventies, back when they still referred to the principal of the school as the headmaster, which taught me to aspire to formalism, even if it screwed me up on spelling when I came to the States. In high school, in the US, I studied Latin, which taught me more about the rules of grammar than I ever learned in English classes. My entire life I’ve been an avid reader of both fiction and nonfiction, which exposed me to the ins and outs of usage and taught me the value of good editing; and I’ve often kept a dictionary handy to look up words I encountered when I wasn’t exactly sure as to their precise meaning. And I’m an engineer because my nature prizes precision and detail, which is reflected in my approach to writing.

So when I get on my soapbox about language, I’m really just exemplifying the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, how linguistic determination shapes not only how I approach my world, but reveals who I am. Now there’s a chewy morsel to sink your teeth into.

Well, it’s ten o’clock. Time for me to listen to A Way With Words!

Posted by Greg in Posts About Me, Society

No Comments »