??? Besm what are you trying to say? Speak English, man! You've got less than a 100, I think you're allowed to play

I have fewer than 100 points. It has to do with the actual usage of the two relatives("less" is for unmeasurable like "water" and fewer is for countable like bottles of water). The diffference is about English usage, which used to matter and still does to somethough less and less to fewer and fewer it would seem). I would love to play

Really? So 1 < 2 should read: "One is fewer than two". Cuz I always thought it was "One is less than two".

The < (less than) sign used here, is for things countable.

Don't mind me though, I'm just picking nits. :)

< is math shorthand which work for either as the meaning is clear and brief. As for the quote, you are correct. But when you look up usage, fewer and less are not interchangable as I note.By the way, it is best, when picking nits, to not leave your wits behind. Either way, nice to meet you, you nittiness.

If we're going to talk about English usage, BESM, I spotted a typographical error in your second post in the thread (fusing "some" and "though"). Additionally: "quote" is (strictly speaking) a verb, not a noun; you might instead have wanted to say "as I had/have noted" rather than "as I note", since your noting had occurred prior to your posting your recent message; you have a split infinitive in "to not leave" (should be "not to leave your wits behind"; you have far more commas than you need in your penultimate sentence, though admittedly I am not sure it is grammatically incorrect; and I'm guessing you had been looking for "your nittiness" rather than "you nittiness".

Damnation, I'm missing a closing parenthesis.

hmmm...well, I wonder what the difference is between them according to dictionary.com (used for accessibility reasons)...

LESS = smaller in size, amount, degree, etc.; not so large, great, or much: less money; less speed.

FEWER = of a smaller number: fewer words and more action.

so smaller in amount is NOT the same as a smaller number?

And if you notice they both use countable examples: fewer words and less money.

I still don't see how they aren't interchangeable.

Just to clarify, "quote" is either a nour or a verb depending on usage as in "I quote(vertb) his quote(noun)". And smaller in amount is not the same as smaller in number, which was the point. By the way, etc. should be italicized as a foreign phrase. (even if I can'tspell italicized). I really do hate that I missed the last paren. Sloppy of me.
So when does the game start?

BESM's right.... sort of.... except that it is in the nature of a living language that it changes over time. So many people are now using the word 'less' when 'fewer' would be more appropriate that few people are even aware of the correct usage anymore.... so if 'less points' is now in common usage, who's to say that it's still wrong?
A case in point.... the plural of 'cactus' is now 'cactuses'. Yes, it is.... look it up in a dictionary. By the time most of us are dead, the word 'cacti' will be regarded as archaic.

Thank you for you brilliance, Mr. Clod. Just to make one more point, the actual place to find such information is not in a $7 dictionary. One wants to fine a usage dictionary(perhaps New York Times or Chicago Style or something more than most people have. As to the plurals of Latinate expressions, just because the IQ of the world is constant while the population is increasing, written English still obeys rules that spoken language doesn't. We don't run the language based upon the lower common denominator. ttfn

Why should "etc." be italicized, given that it's a severely compacted abbreviation only originating in the English language for what otherwise is a Latin phrase? ("Et cetera" is two words.) The construct is English.

Also, you can't italicize on these forums. Why the hell are you correcting me on that when I couldn't fix it even had I wanted to?

Darwyn: By smaller number, countable, vs. (sorry BESM, no italics) smaller amount, uncountable... you can usually count anything, but you need a different unit in order to count something that we say is "uncountable". Going back to your money reference-- you don't say 1 money, 2 monies, etc.; instead you have to say something like, "three dollars' worth of money" (or just three dollars). In that case, the word "dollar" is countable, because you don't need another unit for it, and you would say you have fewer dollars. However, fewer dollars translates to less money, because money is uncountable and so you should use "less".

You can say monies(accountants do) and etc. is in fact from the Latin to English and, if you checked, would be in italics if we could. Fewer dollars but less money would be right as you noted correctly..Thanks for your support.

Written english clearly does not always obey all the rules. Maybe if your novels being edited for a competant publisher.... but this is the internet, my freind, and less critical standerds apply hear. What any of this has to do with I.Q. (not "IQ" and population is beyond me.

Have fun with this post. Their are 12 error's that I'm aware of, and I dont care about any others you might find.

"And if you notice they both use countable examples: fewer words and less money.

I still don't see how they aren't interchangeable."

you wouldn't say fewer money, you would always say less money. I think there is definitely a usage difference there, on the other hand both less and fewer words are fine in my personal version of theenglish language.

"and etc. is in fact from the Latin to English and, if you checked, would be in italics if we could"

You didn't read my earlier post thoroughly... I know that the phrase "et cetera" is Latin. That is two Latin words. "etc.", however, seems to imply that the full phrase is just one word long. That is an English construct upon an otherwise entirely Latin phrase. (Note that "et al.", short for "et alia", is two words in both cases, so it is merely an abbreviation of a Latin phrase; I would italicize even the abbreviation in that case.)

I stand corrected.