this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
259 points (95.8% liked)

Games

38887 readers
924 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

Platform specific

Game specific

Language specific

Others

PM a mod to add your own

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io -2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Pedantic about something even experts argue about. Nice

[–] tiny_hedgehog@lemm.ee 8 points 6 days ago

Oh yes. My pedantry is nearly boundless.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What "experts" argue about that?

[–] atro_city@fedia.io -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Literally Cambridge University in 2004 and recently again

You will often hear less used with plural countable nouns in informal spoken situations, but traditionally it is not considered to be correct:

We’ve got less pizzas than we need. There’s ten people and only eight pizzas. (traditionally correct usage: fewer pizzas)

And a good blog post on the topic that actually fits to this situation

He goes on to point out what less/fewer purists often ignore: that even countables may, in a given context, be considered as quantities rather than numbers. "For instance: 'Not many of these buildings are fewer than thirty years old.’ The thought here is not of individual years but of a period of time; therefore, less."

Which is precisely what's happening here.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is the same "argument" that says "literally" can mean "figuratively".

Not a particularly interesting argument to point put that common misusage can alter meaning.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh no, language is evolving! Best be angry.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What a weird reply...

Do you think I'm angry?

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I know I'm not offended by a language changing. Dunno about you 🤷‍♂

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Do you think I'm offended by it?