“One fewer person” or “one less person”? It’s one of those nagging questions you only come across rarely. I did, when I had to translate a line from Dutch for my previous article. It went: “Een cadeautje minder, een friend meer” or (literally) “one fewer/less present, one friend more”.
My head says “one fewer present” is correct grammatically (if you can count it, it’s usually “fewer”), but my gut says “one present less”. So what should it be?
Determined, I set out to find a definitive answer.
I tried the BBC news style guide, and The Guardian style guide, both of which were utterly unhelpful.
Some websites gave sensible answers, an excellent example of which is the Arrant Pedantry blog, stating quite rightly that “less and fewer illustrates quite well virtually all of the problems of prescriptivism,” and opting for “one less” as the better option, on the grounds that no one recommends the use of “one fewer”. Another well sourced article here explains why this is not the sin some call it, and The Grammar Logs considers the example “there is one fewer student” and says: “we use “less” with uncountable quantities and “fewer” with countable. You really can’t count one student. Well, you can count him or her, but “one student” cannot be pluralized (forget cloning!), so “one student” is a non-count noun. This means we want “less” in that sentence.”
Of course there are those who are incensed by the growing use of “one less”. Their argument takes a purist view of the rule (if it is countable use “fewer”, if it isn’t use “less”), and that too makes perfect sense to me. I don’t like it when publications display ignorance, but I wasn’t sure about this one.
To resolve this question once and for all, I wanted to find out how the rules are treated in the media, which isn’t always grammatically pure, but is a good representation of accepted modern use, especially in places like the BBC that strives to uphold high standards of language, whilst staying current. I ran a set of searches on six major news websites and on Google News (that aggregates news articles).
And here are the results of my survey, which counts usage of the “one fewer” and “one less” on each site, presented in percentage rates for comparison:
Although “one fewer” is used some of the time, “one less” is the most common. Interestingly the BBC makes an effort and its hacks use “one fewer” the least, while the New York Times uses it the most.
“One less” wins. Overwhelmingly. If it was ever a rule then its time is up.
Geeky entry over.
Thanks for publishing this entry. I was just wondering about this debate. Kudos for posting the graphic and stats.
“Less” wins “fewer” in this case because one-syllable sounds stronger than two-syllable word. “One less …, one … more” sounds strongly metrical in rhythm and thus makes it powerful as a slogan.
“If it was ever a rule, then its time is up.”
In a blog post about correct grammar, one needs to be very cautious…
If it WERE ever a rule, then its time is up.
Although “one fewer” is used some of the time, “one less” is the most common.
When comparing two, it should be “the more common”.
If it were ever a rule, then its time is up.
Sinigular subject demands single predicate. “If it was ever …”
It’s funny, I changed it from “was” to “were” without thinking, following Phil’s comment and then back to “was” following W Barry’s.
On balance (and without too much research at this point), I think W Barry is right. Phil’s comment is based on the Subjunctive Mood which is a wish, a command, or a condition contrary to fact. In this case you could argue that I’m stating a fact or exclamation, rather than a condition, so “was” looks more appropriate.
Impressive! Very well researched! You solved my question!
how about “one fewer” when it does not refer to anything explicitly. as in this example…
Q.
Are all the fruit still in the bowl?
A.
No, there is one less apple
No, there is one fewer
p.s. @phil: actually there’s no comma in an if-then construction!
What a superb blog post and set of comments! After reading the post itself–thank you very much for the thorough research and the efficient reporting thereof–I thought it’d be fun for there to be the following comment:
(Beginning of the comment I thought I’d make)
The post states, “If it was ever a rule then its time is up.” In light of this post’s subject–one less versus one fewer–one might want to say something like, “If it was ever a rule, then there’s now one less–even if some hoping to be purists might prefer to say there’s now one fewer.”
(end of that comment)
Following etiquette, and in keeping with possibly the only thing I recall from studying the history of invention (that being, oftentimes more than one person or team comes up with a given idea), I first read the comments, to see if anyone else had posted such a comment. (Nope.) In so doing, I received a substantial benefit beyond the already superb level of the one less versus one fewer content: the comments regarding was versus were.
Thank you, to Danny for the post, to the three was/were commenters (including Danny), and, for expressing gratitude or additional questions, to the other commenters. At another time, I’ll probably have a look–or perhaps I should say, I probably will have a look–at this site’s other offerings.
My head says “one fewer present” is correct grammatically (if you can count it, it’s usually “fewer”), but my gut says “one present less”.
I wouldn’t use either phrase; I prefer ‘one present fewer’.
However, despite any rules or conventions, I admit that ultimately the English language is a democracy.
No, Phil is right! I don’t know where commas are supposed to go, and I am a horrible speller. But, I know subjunctive mood when I see it!
Was should be were, “If it WERE ever a rule, then its time is up,” because the opening clause is in the subjunctive mood. My favorite tense!
If we knew for sure that it was a rule, then we should use was. If we do not know if it was a rule or not, we use were. Some people also call it the verb you use when conveying a sentence contrary to fact – a longing for a different reality. For example, “if I were a rich man,” which I’m not. I’m a woman. =)
Thanks – I was trying to figure this out for a letter I’m writing and this perfectly addressed my quandary.
Although “one fewer” is used some of the time, “one less” is the most common.
Grammatically it should be “the more common” as it is a comparison between two choices!!
I can be such a pain in the ****! ;)
“If there was ever a rule” is correct, because it’s not a counterfactual conditional: the writer entertains the possibility that there really was a rule. (Contrast with “If I were you” where everyone knows that I am not you.)
I am very grateful for this article and the research, and impressed by it too. I too arrived at it really wanting to know the answer to this question, or rather, to back up my strong feeling that “one less” was correct.
Not so sure here. Seems like a bit of a slippery slope when we accept “one less” over “one fewer” for things we can count. It’s a short hop to “two less” items or “15 items or less” at the grocers (whoops…we’re already there). And then we’re off to the races. Fewer will be tossed in the junk heap next to “between you and I,” “data” as a singular and “If I would have known about….”
As a Lingustic/English major, I debated this question for years adhering to prescriptive grammar guidelines. While I agree with the article’s author, at this point I still prefer to be a guardian of grammar correct. We’re a disappearing breed, you know. I fear that all too soon, ‘I should of went’ will be acceptable, too!
Call me a purist if you wish, but I actually dispute the representation of the stats that you have provided, as they do not account for the context of the phrases “one less” and “one fewer”. The correct context for the phrase “one fewer” may simply have been less common and there may have been more instances where to use “one less” would be correct.
Thanks for your comment, Laura. Always happy to hear feedback.
It would be really helpful if you could give an example of what you mean by instances where “one less” would be correct, if you are a “one fewer” purist.
Laura caught the same flaw in your logic that I had caught! Congrats. I believe that “one less” is just an idiom, even if the actual rule would state that “one fewer” is correct.
I just think that the test that was done should in general not be done to prove grammatical usage, as there many rules where certain phrases should be used at times, and other phrases at other times. Often, the ratios won’t be 50:50, which doesn’t mean that either rule is more preferable.
Case in point, our was/were test. It simply depends on context. If an analysis was done in literature, we would find that “if he were here” appears significantly more often that “if he was here.” However, there will be many occasions for which the latter is the acceptable usage.
But… let’s pretend there actually were a rule to distinguish “one less” from “one fewer”:
One thought I have is about measurement versus quantities. Since we use “less” for measurements (e.g., “Less than 5 grams), perhaps it should be “one less” when used with measurements (and other rules of which I am not clear).
There was one less milliliter in the cup.
There was one fewer person on my team.
Pardon a few typos in the above. Didn’t have much time to proofread, as I am at work!
Hopefully you get the idea.
Although I understand Laura and Jonathan’s point, I think the BBC statistics show very clearly that the original post makes sense.
If the figures were not as striking, I would tend to agree context might point to bias, but the BBC is probably the most stringent linguistic guardian, and would allow not such an overwhelming usage of “one less” if it considered it incorrect, not even as an idiom.
A quick example of Laura’s point:
“Saying ignorant things makes one less likely to be elected to public office.”
Context is important! You might find “one less” in many contexts similar to the one above, all of which are irrelevant to the count noun/mass noun issue covered here.
I prefer to stick with the prescriptivists on this one; they had reasons for a lot of these rules. By maintaining the fewer/less distinction, ambiguity is avoided when encountering phrases like “less promising results.”
Re “If it was ever used…”:
“was” is past conditional
“were” is present subjunctive.
Though we may see the subjunctive called for more frequently than the past conditional is, in this case it doesn’t appear that the intent was to state something counter-factual, but to express something that either was or was not true. So it calls for the simple past conditional, not the subjunctive:
If it was true [it may have been], then “its time is up.”
Another example:
“If I was out of line [I may have been], then I’m sorry.”
Although my inner pedant often bristles at ‘Ten items or less’ checkouts in supermarkets, I regain my sense of perspective by reminding myself that the English language does not seem to make as much of a meal of addition as it does of subtraction. We cope quite happily with only one word, ‘more’, for increases in both countable and uncountable quantities. One more idiosyncrasy of the English language, I suppose.
It it WERE a rule then IT’S time is up. And FYI it should always be ‘fewer’ because its use depends on whether or not the thing in question can be counted. If you start the
sentence with ‘one’ you are, by definition, counting it so even of people use ‘less’ because it sounds better they are, by definition, catering for the thick.
Argh my “its” is wrong. No apostrophe. Damn.
Whew! One fewer thing to worry about. Oh, sorry…
And now for something completely different: the Dutch word for ‘friend’ is not ‘friend’, but ‘vriend’ :-)!
ThatDanny’s comment: that’s right, but the text I was translating used the English spelling, probably because it was a slogan.
Fair enough…!