No Bull
Sunday, January 6th, 2008Forget the Straight Talk Express, how can one not appreciate Fred Thompson’s candor?
Fred On Shamnesty
Saturday, January 5th, 2008This is why I like Fred Thompson. He needs to get his message out there better because he was on tonight! The following is his smacking Rudy Giuliani over immigration. Frankly, I thought Giuliani looked weak this evening.
Wow!
Sunday, December 23rd, 2007What a political ad! McCain is really pushing for the presidency. Without question, he is right on the war. Immigration and campaign finance reform are big stumbling blocks, however. But just look at this ad.
And then there’s Fred Thompson’s message. Maybe his campaign is not dead after all. Powerful!
No Hand Shows
Thursday, December 13th, 2007This is why I like Fred Thompson; he refuses to let others define the agenda.
Fred has plenty of issues and has not done what he needs to do win primaries. I am encouraged, however, when I see and hear him like he is above. Do not accept being pigeon-holed into someone else’s corner.
It’s Fewer
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007No, I am not the spelling police. While I am known for red-lining memoranda, the online world is such that misspellings abound. When everyone has a voice, we see it all. Heck, there are mistakes of mine on this blog (although I do fix them when I find them).
Nevertheless, some folks are held to higher standards. The Scripps Spelling Bee web site, for example, is expected to be error free. Likewise, written communication from schools is expected to be perfect. If those entrusted with teaching your children cannot get it correct, how can we expect students to do so?
A couple weeks ago I wrote about a grammatical error on Fred Thompson’s web site. The error still stands. For me, a man who wants to be president should hire competent staff.
Today I received an e-mail from Thompson campaign Finance Director Dorinda Moss. She wrote:
Now, with less than 100 days until the first primary election, Fred is going to need your help now more than ever.
I have been reading the alt.usage.english (AUE) Usenet group since the early 1990s. It is a wonderful resource. According to AUE:
The rule usually encountered is: use “fewer” for things you
count (individually), and “less” for things you measure: “fewer
apples”, “less water”. Since “less” is also used as an adverb
(”less successful”), “fewer” helps to distinguish “fewer successful
professionals” (fewer professionals who are successful) from “less
successful professionals” (professionals who are less successful).
(No such distinction is possible with “more”, which serves as the
antonym of both “less” and “fewer”.)“Less” has been used in the sense of “fewer” since the time of
King Alfred the Great (9th century), and is still common in that
sense, especially informally in the U.S.; but in British English it
became so rare that the 1st edition of the OED (in a section
prepared in 1902) gave no citation more recent than 1579 and gave
the usage label “Now regarded as incorrect.” The 2nd edition of the
OED added two 19th-century citations, and changed the usage label to
“Frequently found but generally regarded as incorrect.”Fowler mentioned it only in passing, and cited no real examples.
In a section whose main intent was to disparage “less” in the sense
“smaller” or “lower”, he wrote: “It is true that less and
lesser were once ordinary comparatives of little [...] and that
therefore they were roughly equivalent in sense to our smaller
[...]. The modern tendency is so to restrict less that it means
not smaller, but a smaller amount of, is the comparative rather
of a little than of little, and is consequently applied only to
things that are measured by amount and not by size or quality or
number, nouns with which much and little, not great and
small, nor high and low, nor many and few, are the
appropriate contrasted epithets: less butter, courage; but a
smaller army, table; a lower price, degree; fewer opportunities,
people. Plurals, and singulars with a or an, will naturally
not take less; less tonnage, but fewer ships; less manpower,
but fewer men [...]; though a few plurals like clothes and
troops, really equivalent to singulars of indefinite amount, are
exceptions: could do with less troops or clothes.”Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1934), gave the
usage label “now incorrect, according to strict usage, except with a
collective; as, to wear less clothes.” Of the panelists for The
Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage (1975), 76% said that they
observed “less”/”fewer” distinction in speech, and 85% in writing.
The editors noted: “even those panelists who have not observed the
distinction in the past now regard it as a useful precept to bear in
mind in the future.”Partisans of “fewer” use “one car fewer” rather than “one
fewer car”, and “far fewer” rather than “much fewer”.
Referencing the Oxford English Dictionary and Henry Fowler is excellent. The number of days left before the primary is finite, therefore it can be counted. Fewer is required in this sentence. Less than is incorrect.
A president should surround himself with those who use proper English. Fred, you need to crack the whip on your staff. The slipshod communication from those around you cast you in poor light.