He’s Gonna Lose Points For That One
Cidu Bill on Dec 10th 2008
Laurence Bunin, the general manager of the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test, the exam that measures the math and language skills of millions of college-bound high school students, told Newsweek magazine that there are “less kids taking [the] SAT.”
Um…
Which brings up an interesting question: Should a reporter (or the reporter’s editor) ever edit a direct quote? The point of a direct quote is, of course, to reproduce strictly verbatim what the subject said — but should a grammatical (or minor factual) gaffe ever be “fixed” for publication?
Filed in Bill Bickel, Newsweek, Scholastic Aptitude Test, media | 45 responses so far
Powers Dec 10th 2008 at 07:48 am 1
Well direct quotations are touched up all the time — removing pauses and “um”s and “uh”s. At least I’ve seen that done for official transcripts; I would be surprised if it never happened in newspapers.
This goes a little beyond that. You don’t want to assume that Mr. Bunin meant “fewer”; there’s a very slim possibility that he deliberately chose the word “less”.
Nicole Dec 10th 2008 at 08:09 am 2
Direct quotes should never be corrected within the quote. In this particular case, Mr Bunin made a common gramatical error and nothing more should be said about it. End of story.
In the case of gaffes large or small, the quote should be exactly what was said, if there is some sort of followup -”Ms. X’s campaign spokesperson said that what Ms. X meant to say was …” would then be reported as well. The reporter should never assume to know what anyone meant. Or abother way to put it is that what we assume was a gaffe mey actually be what the speaker believes.
I agree with Powers, removing UMs or UHs is very different from changing words.
Adny Dec 10th 2008 at 09:24 am 3
Just to throw something else into the mix, how about that “[the]” ?
Scarlettb Dec 10th 2008 at 09:34 am 4
You know, Adny, I thought the [the] was the whole issue. I mean…yes, fewer is more correct than less. But less has entered the vernacular to MEAN the same as fewer, so I’m going to give him a pass on that one. I’m guessing, also, that the [the] was in place of something he actually did say…”any” or “an” or “their”, and it didn’t work with the sentence. Sometimes there are quotes that just don’t work in the sense of the sentence you’re writing (I’m thinking mainly of quotes with lots of personal pronouns - I can’t tell you how many “I”s I’ve changed to “he”s)
furrykef Dec 10th 2008 at 10:07 am 5
I don’t see a problem with using “less” in place of “fewer” in colloquial speech. You can’t expect a guy to be speaking formal English just because he’s talking about the SAT, can you?
It’s also worth noting that “less” meaning “fewer” is attested as far back in the 9th century. At some point the rule was apparently just made up.
- Kef
yellojkt Dec 10th 2008 at 10:39 am 6
Kind of like “Is the turkey done or finished?”
Mark in Boston Dec 10th 2008 at 12:11 pm 7
What about “kids”? Our grammar-school teachers were adamant about slang terms in formal or semi-formal usage and in the classroom. “Kids are baby goats. You say you and the other baby goats took the test?” They would consider slang inappropriate when speaking on-the-record. (Wait … is “on-the-record” a slang term?)
Is our children learning?
DonBoy Dec 10th 2008 at 12:33 pm 8
And, even though I find “kids” fine in an informal context, “grandkids” infuritates me. “You have grandchildren. Yes, you’re that old. Calling them ‘grandkids’ won’t make you any younger.”
Charlene Dec 10th 2008 at 12:37 pm 9
Scarlettb, “less” has NOT entered the lexicon as a synonym for “fewer”. It’s lazy, sloppy, uneducated English that makes the speaker sound unintelligent. The same could be said for using “real” as an adjective, as in “real fast”.
There is no such thing as “more correct”. Usage is correct or it isn’t.
BlueRaja Dec 10th 2008 at 12:57 pm 10
Charlene, you make it sound as though the English language were something engineered, static and unchanging over time.
The fact is, languages are evolving now as they always have been - just not as quickly, since we’ve tried to force standardization.
My take on the matter has always been, if someone says something and there is no ambiguity in anyone’s mind as to what that person meant, then how could the usage of their words possibly be ‘incorrect?’
Lola Dec 10th 2008 at 01:00 pm 11
Of course this gaff is precious and I bet he’s getting a lot of ribbing for it. That being said, languages do evolve. There’s not much thee-ing and thou-ing these days.
No sane person would argue that you can’t use “gay” to refer to homosexuals because it used to simply mean happy-go-lucky or cheerful.
One of my favorite pair of idioms is: “I couldn’t care less” and “I could care less.” I’ve always felt the latter is hilarious unless followed by “but it’s not likely” or “but I don’t see how” or some such qualifier.
Nicole Dec 10th 2008 at 01:27 pm 12
From the online Meriam Webster dictionary:
3: a young person ; especially : child —often used as a generalized reference to one especially younger or less experienced
The first two defintions refer to goats, this it the third. Notice it doesn’t say that this is a slang definition. Some terms enter a language and after years of use, are no longer slang.
Sari Everna Dec 10th 2008 at 01:32 pm 13
To quote my dad whenever I’d get worked up over people who should know better messing up their English:
“The language just growed that way.”
Ray Brady Dec 10th 2008 at 01:58 pm 14
“Usage is correct or it isn’t.”
—–
Not only is this statement untrue today, it has always been untrue. Language usage is entirely a matter of convention. The question of “correctness” or “incorrectness” is simple pedantry.
David Dec 10th 2008 at 04:23 pm 15
Personally, I think it’s a silly rule anyway. Could anyone give a decent reason to why using ‘less’ instead of ‘fewer’ is such a Bad Thing? Did anyone have trouble understanding what he said?
CIDU Bill Dec 10th 2008 at 04:35 pm 16
David, the reason for using “less” rather than “fewer” is that they have different meanings. This isn’t a technicality, or a matter of semantics, or “one is more correct than the other,” but simply… These are two separate words and using them interchanmgably is just plain wrong.
And THIS IS THE GUY WHO RUNS THE SAT TEST.
The fact that we all understood what he meant is irrelevant: I understand when people (particularly online) confuse “their,” “there” and “they’re” — but that doesn’t mean they aren’t using the wrong word.
Alexandra Erin Dec 10th 2008 at 05:10 pm 17
I hate to disappoint the pedants, but the idea that “ten items or less” is wrong is the recent degradation to the language. Since it was first recorded as a word (~1100), “less” has been usable for both countable quantities and uncountable amounts.
Why did it change? Dumbing down, plain and simple. We had a similar word, “fewer”, that could only be used for countable quantities because its root word, “few”, referred to a quantity.
So somewhere along the line, somebody (teacher? editor?) started teaching the difference as “fewer if you can count, less if you can’t”.
Note that this is akin to saying, “Short people can only reach the bottom shelves. Tall people can only reach the top shelves.” The two words don’t bear any relationship to each other. The one was not proposed to cover gaps left by the meaning of the other.
Anybody who insists that “less” cannot be used for quantities is participating in the watering down and the weakening of the English language, a language whose strength has always been in the amount of different words with similar, overlapping meanings that allow us to pick the most aesthetically suitable one for each situation.
Sometimes “less” just sounds better. Sometimes it fits the meter or rhythm better. Sometimes a phrase just calls for it.
Anyway, whatever our English teachers have been misled to believe, children still learn the proper usage in some classes. 2 < 4 = “Two is less than four”.
S.P. Charles Dec 10th 2008 at 05:17 pm 18
Yes, two IS a smaller number than four, which makes “two is less than four” correct. Two apples remains fewer than four apples, though.
Alexandra Erin Dec 10th 2008 at 05:18 pm 19
Oh, correction: I was working from memory, and the word “less” actually dates back to the 900s, not the 1100s.
What’Anyway, sorry for the confusion. But what’s a couple of centuries, more or less?
Alexandra Erin Dec 10th 2008 at 05:19 pm 20
S.P. Charles: “Smaller”? I’m afraid that concept does not apply. A number does not possess any size except in the sense that it can stand as a unit of quantity. 2X is also less than 4X. This true whether X = 10 or X = apples.
dd Dec 10th 2008 at 05:31 pm 21
Alexandra’s correct. The “less/fewer” rule is much like the “rules” regarding ending sentences with prepositions and splitting infinitives. These rules were superimposed on the language and have never reflected the language as it is/was.
You can think of it like a kid playing a game.. they constantly add new rules to suit themselves, but that doesn’t mean those rules should stand. It might be more fun if you could win chess by knocking over your opponents pieces, but that doesn’t change the game as it actually is. Neither does adding rules to the language change how the language actually works, no matter how hard our 11th grade English teachers wish it to be so.
S.P. Charles Dec 10th 2008 at 05:38 pm 22
I think the point hre is that if the less/fewer question were on the SAT, Bunin’s choice would be marked wrong - even if you believe the distinction is nothing more than the ravings of misguided English teachers.
And FWIW, Alexandra, the wrong word shold never “sound better.”
Alexandra Erin Dec 10th 2008 at 05:50 pm 23
S.P. Charles: Is that the point? We should be laughing at the test, then.
And it’s not about what I believe. Words have meanings, after all. I’m just trying to defend the English language against a slide into chaos and anarchy.
As to your coda, I agree completely. The word that sounds best is always the correct word.
Matthew Dec 10th 2008 at 06:32 pm 24
Oh, my goodness, what a lot of semi-educated fuss. It’s like a Wikipedia nightmare.
Because the speaker was the general manager of the S.A.T., the misuse of “less” is funny, since, as someone already stated, such a use on the test would be wrong. Besides his working for the S.A.T., he was speaking for print; thus, he should’ve chosen his words with greater care. Using “less” when “fewer” is more accurate always sounds wrong, bad, & ugly, and anyone with a high school education should know the difference between the two.
As to Bill’s original question, the press should print precisely the words people say, supplying minor words—like articles—that the writer’s sentence requires. When a speaker makes a mistake, then the writer should supply a “[sic]”, which is such a useful device.
The distinction between “less” & “fewer” is not like the rule about prepositions, although if one practices not ending sentences with prepositions, then it makes one verbally much more adept. The distinction between “less” & “fewer” is part of a consistent distinction in English between things that can be counted & things that can’t. Thus, an awareness of the aptness of each word helps one see the world more clearly.
The dictum about prepositions came about in London, in the eighteenth century, has never been widely followed, and is based on the fallacious notion that prepositions show direction &, therefore, need something to follow that showing of direction. Not all prepositions show direction, so it has always been a questionable policy.
As to the use of “kids”: “Kids”, meaning “children”, is certainly common speech, but again the general manager of the S.A.T. could’ve done better—and shown more respect to his test-takers—if he had said that there are “fewer people taking [the] S.A.T.”. Why refer to these people as either children or kids? They are on the verge of higher education, are either eighteen or very nearly. If the S.A.T. people show them more respect, then maybe they will write a test that ain’t so dumb.
Haley Dec 10th 2008 at 07:24 pm 25
As an English teacher who sidelines as a journalist, I would’ve left it in to for sheer, sheer irony.
But, my editor would’ve had the right to do the old
“There are [fewer] students taking the SAT.”
tofor Dec 10th 2008 at 09:44 pm 26
Alexandra - This is most definitely the point. And I will gladly join you in a hearty guffaw at the SAT. I took it back before it was altered a few years back, and I can definitely say that the real subject the SAT tests is test-taking ability, not any real math or language ability. On the other hand, I fail to see how distinguishing between ‘fewer’ and ‘less’ contributes the the decline of the language. It seems to me it would be the other way around. Then again, our language is such a mess anyway it hardly seems to matter.
CIDU Bill Dec 10th 2008 at 09:48 pm 27
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the SAT is the worst method of determining a student’s math and verbal aptitude, except for all the others.
Dan Dec 10th 2008 at 10:48 pm 28
Editing direct quotes for grammar is insanely stupid. They said it, you report it. You don’t have to print it if you have an issue with their grammar. This is aside from cleaning out the “ums” and other pauses. In fact, if you have a real issue with the grammar, make it an indirect quote and correct it. Problem solved.
Alexandra Erin Dec 10th 2008 at 10:55 pm 29
@Matthew:
Um, yeah, you’re right about the origins of the preposition rule, but precisely when and where do you think the dictum about “less” came about? You’ve just illustrated how perfectly alike the two examples are.
Using “less” always sounds ugly and bad? I’m sorry, Michael, but that’s what you’ve been taught to hear.
The words overlap in meaning and since both words can mean a numerically smaller quantity, the choice between them is purely aesthetic. There is no other consideration. They aren’t interchangeable—fewer fits in less situations—but any situation in which fewer can be used, so, too, can less. That’s according to its historical usage, its etymology, and its dictionary definition.
In a language blessed with words from multiple Germanic and Romance languages (and a healthy sprinkling of Greek and Amerindian), this is exactly how it should be. Our quivers overflow with arrows. We should pluck the one that best hits the mark, not look for mental shortcuts like “Well, if this one is ONLY for counting, this other one must be only for NOT counting.”
So how should one decide which word to use, when dealing with countable quantities?
Well, “less” flows more smoothly in many cases. It draws less attention itself. Thus, “ten items or less.” is a very casual declaration. Excepting people who have been programmed to process it as an error alert, it flows right through the reader without a ripple. It’s a good choice for a retail environment, where they’re trying to give a gentle proscription.
“Fewer” is a harsher word, apart from being a longer one. It’s also worth noting that while “less” is a word in itself, “fewer” the comparative form of “few”, thus right off the bat it connotes a sense of “greater lessness”, if you’ll pardon the phrase. The “-er” suffix triggers a sense of emphasis in the listener/reader. So, something like “fewer than ten men remained standing.” is quite a bit bolder and punchier than “less than ten men remained standing.”
“Less” is euphonious. It glides off the tongue. “Fewer” is, well, less so. As “few” refers directly to quantity, it keys the listener/reader to listen for the number and heightens the impact when it arrives.
As they say dans la belle internet: “Nuance. Do you has it?”
This kind of distinction is what language is really about. It’s how it’s meant to be used. Real artists paint by looking at the colors, not by matching numbers.
CIDU Bill Dec 10th 2008 at 11:24 pm 30
Speaking as an editor now, I would be unhappy with any writer who edited a direct quote. That being said, though, I might do so, under very strict circumstances: First, it makes a difference to me whether the article is about the person, or about a topic the person is giving me information about. In the first case, a direct quote with a grammatical or minor factual error tells the reader something about the subject; in the second, my priority is getting the information across.
Of course when possible, as Dan says, changing it to an indirect quote is the way to go.
What would make the Bunin case tricky for me is the fact that his use of the wrong word, given his position, amuses me. Once I decide to keep it in the article, though, I’m faced with the Prisoners Dilemma: If I simply use the quote, a small number of readers will assume the gaffe is mine as well as his — but if I add a [sic], I’m absolving myself while pointing out his mistake to every reader (with the added complication that Alexandra will take issue with my [sic]).
This was probably all covered in the Guidebook written up and passed down to me by the managing editor whose job I inherited — but in a moment of sudden clarity, I realized that I was in charge now and I didn’t need no steenkin’ Guidebook.
Winter Wallaby Dec 11th 2008 at 12:14 am 31
I don’t see what basis you’ve given for claiming that using them interchangeably is wrong. As other have pointed out, the English language is defined by usage. I could claim that “red” should only be used to modify types of fruits, but given that “red” is not in fact used that way, such a claim would be bizarre. If I managed to find a writing guide that gave that rule, the guide would be in error, not the speakers who used “red” according to its common usage.
To quote from my Webster’s unabridged:
To sum up, in favor of “less” as “fewer,” we have long-standing use of the word, current modern usage, and an the definition in the dictionary. On the other side, all we have are rules in usage guides. I don’t see how it the contest can even be close, unless you think the English language is designed are directed top-down, by a central authority.
S.P. Charles Dec 11th 2008 at 12:40 am 32
Winter, by the time you hit the 7th definition of a word, you’re pretty much arguing the other side.
Powers Dec 11th 2008 at 07:30 am 33
Usage guides aside, can someone tell me why my refusal to use “less” for countable nouns is less important than someone else’s desire to do so?
Arvy Dec 11th 2008 at 08:35 am 34
Their [sic] is a fundamental difference between the “fewer/less” controversy and people who use a preposition to end a sentence with. Yes, our language does evolve, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. We cannot simply define acceptable usage as “whatever gets the meaning across,” as the same word, phrase, or expression may not mean the same thing to different people. That is why we have reference sources like dictionaries, grammar books, etc. and why they are constantly being revised.
While one exception was posted above, a quick check in most any dictionary will show you that the current rule is that fewer is for counting nouns and less is for mass nouns. It doesn’t matter when these definitions entered our lexicon, at this point in time, that is how those words are defined.
However, if you consult style guides and grammar books (and I own a number of them) you will find that the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition is either not addressed or is specifically defined as being a myth.
I should point out that I did find support for using less with certain counting nouns (e.g. It’ll take less than two hours) and that some style guides caution against ending a sentence with a preposition because it will be perceived as wrong.
Mark in Boston Dec 11th 2008 at 12:45 pm 35
Somewhere I have a list of grammar reminders. I’ll have to see if I can find it. Things like:
1. About sentence fragments. Don’t.
2. Avoid unnecessary redundant words.
3. A pronoun must always agree with their antecedent.
4. Always proofread your work carefully to see if you any words out.
Matthew Dec 11th 2008 at 01:55 pm 36
Alexandra, please don’t impose your ear on the rest of us, claiming that those who don’t agree with you have been “programmed”. You may call in “programming”; we call it “education”.
My examples illustrate the consistent distinction between “less” for the uncountable & “fewer” for the countable, just as, heading the other way, we use “much” for the uncountable & “many” for the countable, or are you about to say “Since I got paid, I have many more money”?
The choice between them is semantic, not purely aesthetic. When we use “fewer”, we refer to something countable. It is not simply a sound. You admit as much when you state that using “fewer” “keys the listener/reader to listen [or read] for the number”. There are no two words in English that mean precisely the same thing, although colloquial use frequently blurs meanings so that one word can appear interchangeable with another.
(Your example, “fewer fits in less situations” is inaccurate. Try “fewer fits in fewer situations”. The moment that you make “situations” plural, you make them just as countable as fits.)
Your guideline, which word “flows smoothly” is redundant. The guideline exists: “Less fruit, fewer oranges”.
Wallaby, your Webster’s unabridged describes how people use the word. We are describing a nice distinction between two words.
Arvy, your sentence using “less” with counting nouns (“It’ll take less than two hours”) still uses less for the uncountable &, in that sentence, understood “time”. Your sentence isn’t saying, “It’ll take less hours than two hours”; it’s saying, “It’ll take less time than two hours”.
Ooten Aboot Dec 12th 2008 at 07:18 am 37
Okay, having settled that point, let’s discuss the usage of “amount” rather than “number” in #17.
Arvy Dec 12th 2008 at 08:42 am 38
Mark in Boston:
Although I can’t find my copy to verify this, I’m pretty sure your list is from “Fumble Rules,” by William Safire.
Matthew:
Thanks for your response. It is obvious now.
Singapore Bill Dec 12th 2008 at 04:16 pm 39
When I was working at a magazine in Singapore my editors had a policy for us to follow on this issue. As many of the people we were interviewing did not have English as a first language we did not want to make them look stupid. An error that is minor in speech can look quite bad in print. Therefore we would praphrase anything that we wanted to quote but was too mangle to use. If we needed a direct quote (and various editors had different opinons about how many quotes were needed in a given article) we would try to massage it so that it looked good but still try to keep it in a voice that was recognizable as the speaker. That was sometimes a challenge.
In a case like the one you describe, quote away and let him bear the consequences.
Jeff S. Dec 15th 2008 at 10:51 am 40
I heard a similar misuse/misunderstanding of a word during the discussions of the Heisman Trophy award. The reporter said “… even though Tim Tebow actually won most of the first place votes.” There are 928 votes possible. Most would seem to be closer to 928 than to 309, the amount he actually pulled, which was just 9 more than the winner, Sam Bradford. I assume what the reporter meant to say was, “…even though Tim Tebow actually had the most first place votes of the nominees.”
Wisteria Dec 17th 2008 at 09:58 pm 41
I think in this case it’s pretty obviously a grammatical error. I learned everything I know about grammar in grade school, were there were fewer smart kids than kids who were less smart.
Seriously, “few” USUALLY refers to number and “less” USUALLY refers to size or value. However, there are many perfectly acceptable exceptions to this rule in current usage, because as noted above, the language is dynamic and evolving constantly. So it’s kind of a moot point, especially when arguing with a few less smart people on the internet.
A lesser mind might disagree with me on a few points,
about which I could care less.
Wisteria Dec 17th 2008 at 10:01 pm 42
“where”, not “were”, then “were”. Beat you to it!
Matthew Dec 18th 2008 at 10:51 am 43
Wisteria, I think that you probably meant that you COULDN’T care less.
Wisteria Dec 18th 2008 at 04:33 pm 44
Ah, Matthew, thank you so much for rising to the bait.
Matthew Dec 19th 2008 at 05:44 pm 45
You’re welcome, Wisteria. Always glad to help.