It just feels so petty. Not a single person reading "less cops" was confused by its meaning. I get fighting against misuse of your/you're, its/it's, etc. because they can make things harder to read. Fewer and less, though, have the exact same underlying meaning (a reduction).

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 38 points 4 months ago

Your write. Choose you're battle wisely

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 11 points 4 months ago

Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I thought it meant cops should lose weight so there's less of them overall.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 2 points 4 months ago

Can we at least stop allowing people to use 'of' instead of 'have'?

It doesn't make any sense and I need to read the sentence twice to understand what they're saying.