Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!ipv6.urchin.earth.li!twic From: Tom Anderson Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: OT language stuff (was Re: Class.forName().newInstance() vs new) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:29:57 +0100 Organization: Stack Usenet News Service Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <969kqsFjduU5@mid.individual.net> <4lPLp.1825$Q35.13@newsfe13.iad> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipv6.urchin.earth.li Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1308695398 54231 2001:ba8:0:1b4::6 (21 Jun 2011 22:29:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:29:58 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) In-Reply-To: <4lPLp.1825$Q35.13@newsfe13.iad> Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5497 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. tom -- No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. -- Heraclitus