Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Date: 22 Jun 2011 20:03:12 GMT Organization: None Lines: 71 Message-ID: <96f040F46aU5@mid.individual.net> References: X-Trace: individual.net gvJoG3OKF9kB7dukHMuW+gNqNiA1IKeklA8+KC/aaK+p4lKqPE X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:C5/T3tNamXX9QyqwP+whps6/kFY= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5545 In article , John B. Matthews wrote: > In article , > Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > > On 11-06-21 07:29 PM, Tom Anderson wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > > > > >> On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > > >>> In article , > > >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > >> [ SNIP ] > > >> > > >>>> The best measure of this detailed design document that I > > >>>> produced is that, in marked contrast to the usual design docs > > >>>> that floated around that office, the higher up the food chain > > >>>> you went with it, the less people were able to understand it. > > >>> > > >>> "Less" or "fewer"? (You probably do mean "less", but the > > >>> widespread practice of using the former to mean the latter means > > >>> that one can't really be sure, maybe.) > > >> > > >> I did mean less, but by definition you also would have had fewer > > >> people able to understand it. :-) > > > > > > This less/fewer thing is largely dubious: > > > > > > http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/495/less-vs-fewer/505#505 > > > > > > I don't think it's defensible to say that Arved's sentence was > > > incorrect. Lots of people might not write it that way, but lots > > > would, and everyone understands it. Just for the record, I don't think I meant to claim that there was anything wrong with Arved's sentence, even to those pedantic prescriptivists who disapprove of using "less" where "fewer" would work. I think there might be a subtle distinction between fewer people who understand, and people in general understanding less, but -- maybe not. > > In fact, in the original construction, if I had written > > > > "the fewer people were able to understand it" > > > > that would have been stilted and wrong. Agreed. > > It's the "the" there that > > makes all the difference. I could have written > > > > "...went with it, fewer people were able to understand it." > > > > and that would be OK (if still marginally US Constitution-sounding > > like). I don't think that really works -- "the higher up" seems to me to want a parallel "the" before whatever follows the comma. > > "The less" in my construction actually operates as a single unit. > > Although I'm not sure what part of a sentence it corresponds to. > > I read "less" as an adverb modifying "able", moved to enhance > parallelism: "The higher ... the less able ..." I think you may be making the same point here I was getting at just above .... -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.