Την Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:51:54 -0400,ο(η) Laurence Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> έγραψε:
> David Tubbs wrote: >>> Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote: >>> >>> Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be "countable", >>> and went onto my "infinity" theme. >>> >> >> Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for >> the >> picking. >> >> > Not my nit. TF's definition sounded wrong, somehow. I mentioned it to > someone else. They gave me the correct (or should that be "a /more/ > correct") rule: "Use 'fewer' iff plural". No mention of counting. > Not necessarily wrong. If anything else it is easy to remember, particularily for us on the other side of the pond where many words that do have plural are not used properly. So for example you say: I have ten pair of shoes (Which is actually acceptable in college in the US believe it or not). By the plural definition, your average American would say: I have less pair than you :-) Now accepting that most of the simplification of English comes from our side of the pond, Tony's definition helps a lot more than the "accurate" definition :-) > Who else uses "iff" for "if, and only if,"? All the logicians and > mathematicians, stand up please. The rest of you (philosophers excepted, > if they exist) can sit down. I imagine you mean Philosophers that use Symbolic Logic (a great sub-discipline of philosophy I may add and should be required in school) ? > >> but does the of a finite line by the zero magnitude of the point need >> such >> a bulky demo ? >> >> > I don't think I understand your banter... I never mentioned a finite > line or a zero magnitude and I don't suffer from BD. > Cheers, Ffibys -- Phoebus R. Dokos - B.Sc (Hons) in Management Information Systems _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
