Hacker News Reader

Comment by barry-cotter | Hacker News Reader

As a descriptivist[1] I’m sure you understand that languages evolve. Just as the learn/teach distinction was made up by grammarians, so was the least/fewest one. Likewise it stuck. Most attempts at linguistic innovation fail. This one didn’t.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/descript...

View on HN

> Most attempts at linguistic innovation fail. This one didn’t.

Didn't it? I've never seen a "10 items or fewer" lane at a supermarket but I sure see "10 items or less"

In terms of language I see and read daily I see less occurrences of fewer than less (In London, UK. I'm sure it varies slightly by region)

> I see fewer occurrences of fewer than less

Fixed that for you

Last time I was in a supermarket (Tesco near blackpool) I saw a sign for "5 items or fewer". I don't remember seeing an "or less" sign for a long time.

I often see "up to 10 items" which sidesteps the issue neatly.

From the point of view of a foreigner who attempts to speak correct English, this is a beautiful nightmare. Even the natives cannot agree among themselves.

Neverthefewer (/s), I try to use fewer when the items are obviously countable. But less seems to have a natural advantage of having one syllable only; people usually try to express their point as quickly as possible, and -1 syllable is better.

Hannaford supermarkets in New England has "10 items or fewer". At first it seems strange since "10 items or less" is so common.

While language can evolve, "Language Evolves" is very often just used as a blanket excuse for incorrect usage. Both can be true.

Do you have any information on the learn/teach distinction you mention? I couldn't find anything by googling - although those are very common words. Those two words seem very distinct in my mind, so it would be interesting to learn that it didn't used to be the case.

Someone just needs to learn you some better Google skills.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14778/is-learn-t...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/teach-em-or-le...

In some languages, "learn" and "teach" are the same word.

For example in Czech, the former is in reflexive form, to "teach oneself".

  učit se (learn) and učit (teach)

And in other languages, the meaning of "teach" can be expressed using the word for "learn", by adding the learner as indirect/transitive object:

  to learn someone how to play the piano

But I don't know what the parent comment meant by this:

> the learn/teach distinction was made up by grammarians

That distinction exists in some languages, and not in others. Perhaps they mean that this difference didn't used to exist in English, but in later years grammarians popularized it..?

Looking up the etymology of "learn", I found the answer.

> Transitive use (He learned me (how) to read), now considered vulgar (except in reflexive expressions, I learn English), was acceptable from c. 1200 until early 19c.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com