Quoth Mishka:
> > Mathematically, however, we always say "three is
> > less than five"; the symbol "<" is called "less
> > than". Interesting that when we actually compare
> > numbers we use the amount word, not the number word.
> it sounds *very* logical: "three" is a noun/object here, and as objects,
> "three"-s are definitely not countable -- how many different "three"-s you
> can come up with?
(As opposed to the number of infinities, of which there are at least
two...)
To my *ear*, both "three is less than five" and "three are fewer
than five" sound not-wrong. (I hear, and spay, the first more
often than the second, unsurprisingly.) "Three is fewer than five"
does not sound _quite_ right.
-- Glenn
PS: Just so I can mention photography _sometime_ in a day when
I'm posting more than one message to the list ... tomorrow I'm
supposed to go shooting construction sites with my brother.
(It's information for his doctor regarding a disability thing.)
Gonna be shooting C41 so he can take it to a 1-hour lab, which
means I have to be more careful than usual about leaving space
at the edges of the frame. Gotta go dig up some of the prints
that pushed me over to using a pro lab, to see how much space
I'll have to leave to be safe. Bleah.
