Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
Member |
I'm sure that at least the UK posters will have already seen this but for those that haven't... Supermarket chain Tesco, in response to more complaints about "10 items or less" have decided that "10 items or fewer" is too confusing and are changing their signage to read "Up to 10 items". Unfortunately the initially sign painting didn't quite do the job as the "s" had been left off rendering it as "up to 10 item". The error has now, I understand been rectified. Meanwhile Languagelog points out, not for the first time, that less has a very long history of usage with count nouns. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | ||
|
Member |
I see Language Log's point, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why "10 items or fewer" is confusing. People surely know what "fewer" means, don't they? | |||
|
Member |
Yes, but it's really quite uncommon nowadays in speech over here. It sounds rather affected to most people, it's not something the average person in the street says. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
Member![]() |
"TEN-ITEM LIMIT' might work. | |||
|
Member |
I agree that 10 items or fewer is less commonly heard than 10 items or less, but I agree with Kalleh: is it really confusing? In the meantime, I'd argue that Up to 10 items means something different. It means 9 items or fewer/less. At a minimum, it is ambiguous. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
Perhaps we shouldn't belabor our UK brethren when this story appears in one of their papers. | ||
|
Member |
That's The Sun. It may be printed on paper (as well as being online) but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called a newspaper. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
I'd call it an advertising and publicity success for Harrod's. | ||
|
Member |
It's not that anyone finds the signs confusing. Prescriptive pedants like Lynne Truss will gleefully pull out their marker pens to "correct" signs containing "less". They are those trying to insist that "fewer" should be used. The general population, who usually say "Ten items or less", either couldn't give a flying duck or would be puzzled at the strange phrasing of "Ten items or fewer". "Up to ten items" seems a sensible way to compromise. On another tack, what about the < sign? I've always known it as the "less than" sign. Should it really be called the "fewer than" sign? Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|