Την Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:00:43 -0400,ο(η) Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> έγραψε:
> Laurence Reeves wrote: >> 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. > Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted? > > Tony > Not everything with a plural can be quantified: See for example "waters" as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico... You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix it with "amounts". There is a plural in waters however you cannot say fewer in that case :-) I do not know therefore if this case in an exception (like most things in English) however your definition covers it, while the plural one doesn't. So I choose your definition: fewer iff quantifiable :-) 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
