“One fewer” or “one less?” – A definitive answer
"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.
May 22nd, 2009 - 22:29
Thanks for publishing this entry. I was just wondering about this debate. Kudos for posting the graphic and stats.
July 12th, 2009 - 23:01
“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.
May 8th, 2010 - 09:12
“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.
July 2nd, 2010 - 08:58
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 …”
July 2nd, 2010 - 10:13
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.
July 20th, 2010 - 19:41
Impressive! Very well researched! You solved my question!
July 21st, 2010 - 13:25
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!
August 18th, 2010 - 17:24
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.