Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
I would say it's "fewer" not "less", but every time I do, I get a lecture and downvoted.
Even though this time it's quite clearly a case where "fewer" is the proper choice as "cop" is most definitely a countable noun (yes, I know there are exceptions, this is generally not one.)
Bring on the downvotes.
I agree with the sentiment.
Literal grammar police.
ACAB.
Hey man, do you want to be grammatically correct, or do you want to speak clearly to people who want to be a cop? Sometimes you have to make a choice.
Haha! Fair enough.
You wanted a lecture, here you go:
You can use less for countable nouns, any of them. We've been doing it for literally centuries. In fact, it has never been used only for uncountable nouns (unlike fewer, which has generally only been used for countable nouns). Correct language is determined by what native speakers use on purpose, not what a textbook or teacher says.
At least read the Wikipedia and the dictionary if you want to keep a strong opinion about this:
However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less. As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.”
OK, so I'm a prescriptivist and don't agree. As mentioned in the paragraph before the one you quoted. Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm? Why not spell it "definately"? It's very common and everyone understands it.
I'm all for evolving language, but the fewer words we use, the less elegant it becomes. IMO of course.
Should we just let any old thing that slips into common usage to become the norm?
Yes.
Why not spell it "definately"? It's very common and everyone understands it.
I don't think that quite meets the threshold yet, since most people who do that would still agree that it's not correct. However, it's close, and I wouldn't be against recording it as an alternative spelling.
It's a bit tangential, but English spelling is awful anyway, it bears hardly any relationship to the pronunciation, and I think it's great if it evolves to be a bit less unintuitive.
I suppose you probably do accept the existence of American spellings, even if you aren't from there? So the only difference between us is time, and how many people use a variant. Everyone is a descriptivist, some people just also think they should force their opinions on others, which is wrong. ;)
Common usage the the norm are literally the same thing.
Prescriptivists act like 'the norm' is some ordained perfection and everything in their own lifetime is an aberration, but that's just temporal exceptionalism. Do you really think you just happened to be born at a time when the people writing style guides pointed at the be all the all of the English language and all advances are just corruption?
You can't be downvoted because this is on blåhaj.
Fewer.
Recently I've started to think that these and other similar battles are lost.
I’m a grammar loving curmudgeon. Even I check myself more often than not after I realized the kind of classist tones that come through when arguing against lexicon.
This one isn't even real. "Fewer" can only refer to countable things, but "less" can refer to both countable and uncountable things, and has been used that way for hundreds of years. It has never been wrong to say "less."
Language prescriptivism is a useless endeavour, let the language evolve as it wants, I personally don't mind the use of less in this situation
I actually kind of disagree in this context. Less is sharper and more readable while conveying the same meaning. The grammar books might say it’s technically incorrect, but I think it was the right word to use here.
Ahh, I went on a rant about this, and someone already did it for me much more concisely.
Yeah, they used less words
Why?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less
Essentially, fewer is normally used for discrete numbers of things (e.g. "fewer apples", "fewer boats", or "fewer cops") while less is used for amounts (e.g. "less water", "less sand", or "less money").
As noted in the above link, there are exceptions. However, the exceptions listed are all with "than" or "or" added. Specifically, it's pointing put that while "fewer items" is correct, "3 items or less" is also considered correct.
In the case of the sign, it is referring to the specific number of officers in the city, so it should use "fewer". Does it matter? No, not really. Why did I bother saying anything? I got a chance to rep grammar and quote Stannis Baratheon at the same time.
Good to know. Thanks
Apparently an unpopular take, but wouldn't the world (or at least, this country...) be a better place if the folks who became cops were the type of people who were also considering being a librarian?
Basically it seems like the ACAB mindset is in part self-fulfilling: "cops are bastards , I'm not a bastard, therefore I won't be a cop." Ok, so now some bastard who is less qualified than you becomes a cop, with no competition from you.
I get that the institution of policing in this country is deeply flawed; but is what we're currently doing really working?
Maybe a progressive, grass roots "infiltration" of the police is doomed to fail, I dunno. But I'm not sure we'll ever find out.
Good people who become cops get bullied into either becoming bad cops or leaving (or worse)
YouTube content creator and ex-police officer That Dang Dad notes that it's not just the current killology-riddled precinct culture in which every civilian is a potential threat that drives pro-escalation attitudes in law enforcement, but also a degree of combat PTSD, as police are directedmto where social trouble spots occur, and have to deal with the potential of violence even when all the people in a situation are polite.
That Dang Dad quit law enforcement before coming to terms with how it affected his brain. He is a total police abolitionist now, saying not only that police officers are driven by the culture to be cold and cruel but also by the work to be afraid of everything, that danger might come from anywhere at any moment.
These days, we know the police are not here to protect the public, rather to serve as an occupying garrison for the ownership class, and while this was always the case, the DEA and war on drugs and the 1033 program have made this role even more clear. But it also means we're not going to get a public serving response service until we are no longer occupied by the ownership class.
Funny you mention PTSD.
There's practically a direct pipeline from military to police.
Really gotta wonder how much current police behavior is manifesting from combat related PTSD.
These days, we know the police are not here to protect the public, rather to serve as an occupying garrison for the ownership class, and while this was always the case, the DEA and war on drugs and the 1033 program have made this role even more clear.
American police. Police in different countries are structured in very different ways.
American police. I know that Scotland Yard is willing to bash journalist faces when the MPs are upset with the news. France has brutality problems similar the US if not so extremely common.
Maybe you're speaking of nations other than those. I assume Liechtenstein law enforcement are polite and professional.
Not really talking about brutality, although that varies from place to place, but more the occupying garrison for the ruling class comments. Police structure vary from country to country.
Also Scotland yard is a building, it doesn't do anything.
Maybe a progressive, grass roots “infiltration” of the police is doomed to fail, I dunno. But I’m not sure we’ll ever find out.
You not wanting to find out doesn't mean it hasn't been confirmed, over and over and over and over again.
but is what we’re currently doing really working?
No, that's literally why people who say ACAB also want to abolish the police.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/officer-a-cab-confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-the-police
You generally need a Master's degree to become a librarian.
Less cops. More people with higher education.
Wish it was free
Don't be worse than Russia. Please fix.
Lmao, you need a fucking masters to catalogue and check out books to local schoolchildren but you don't need it to be trusted with a badge and a gun.
We're so fucked dude.
Edit: Mentioned in reply to another comment, but sorry for making librarians sound like they don't do much. My point wasn't that they're not important, my point was that they don't make life or death decisions for random members of the community on the daily.
You are dramatically underestimating the responsibilities and skill set of a librarian.
I don't doubt that. Handling large groups of kids, especially in the summer when they've got nowhere else to go, all while keeping a vital resource to the community alive.
Admittedly that was a shitty way to paint librarians, so sorry about that.
That being said, a bad cop can do a lot more damage to a community than a bad librarian.
Actually to be a school librarian you only need a bachelor's of education focusing in something IT-related, plus whatever teaching cert your state requires. And in public libraries, you also only need a bachelor's in information science to be a library tech, which is the one that stocks the shelves and checks out books to local schoolchildren. Only being a full librarian needs a Master's. That said, academic libraries won't even look at you if you have less than a Master's.
focusing in something IT-related
Ok, how? IT-librarian? I can belive in IT-related assistant, but librarian? In school? Where I live they usually have degree in pedagogy.
a library tech,
Ah. Nvm. I thought you said about only librarians.
IT stands for Information Technology. Library Science is a subset of IT.
Why master's? But you WILL need a degree. Bachelor in Library Science, alternatively Pedagogy or Philology.
It may seem odd, but librarians are pre-internet search engine. You tell them "I want I don't know what, but something like that and that" and they point where to find such information.
Librarians need to be trusted to do research to work in most private and academic libraries. So public libraries just follow the trend. Private librarians tend to focus on organizing databases, since they generally work with computer archives instead of books. Academic libraries do literature reviews, where they read large amounts of research on a subject and then summarize everything they've learned.
Most librarians hop between these fields a few times, and it can be very jarring to adjust to each sytem.
bep?
Better. Eattle.
So you be wanna be p? a cop?