That's one thing less to worry about

[KentPhilip]

one

pants.

(sorry)

[Sysman]

or should that be "one thing fewer to worry about" ?

Everyone knows that "fewer" is used for discrete objects such as biscuits, and "less" for continuous things like butter.

So as "things" you might be concerned about are discrete, shouldn't one use "fewer"? But then everyone, including me, says "less" in that phrase.

Now I'm worried it might be bad grammar, which means that's one more thing to worry about!

Ot could it really be that "things we worry about" is continuous like butter, except it doesn't run out so often.

[OwlHoot]

"Less" is used all the time now by people who actually speak English, as opposed to those who troll around "correcting" other people (despite there being no official regulation of the English language, and where "less" often sounds far more natural than "fewer").

True, and as you say "less" often flows better.

It will be interesting to see how the language OCD crowd get on with Google Wave actually. In there you can go in and directly edit posts written by other people (well, you can in the current version anyway) ...

Trolls and ne'er-do-wells must love that feature!

Presumably the editing history is available though. Hmm, must check Google Wave.

[dang65]

"Less" is used all the time now by people who actually speak English, as opposed to those who troll around "correcting" other people (despite there being no official regulation of the English language, and where "less" often sounds far more natural than "fewer").

It will be interesting to see how the language OCD crowd get on with Google Wave actually. In there you can go in and directly edit posts written by other people (well, you can in the current version anyway). So we may have a situation where some people simply spend their entire day reading through waves and changing other people's spellings and grammar like little elves. Maybe these people could have a Worker Elf avatar which will automatically appear next to all the blips they edit. Or just:



And they should have their own regulatory body where people can go to appeal if they feel their post was edited irrelevantly. Which will be most of the time.

[TimberWolf]

That's strange - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1828&fsdt=2328&q=%22tha t%27s+once+thing+less+to+worry+about%22&btnG=Google+Search&m eta=&aq=f&oq= only returns 2 results, one of which is this thread.
I thought that was a fairly common expression??

one

[KentPhilip]

That's strange - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq= only returns 2 results, one of which is this thread.
I thought that was a fairly common expression??

[NickFitz]

"That's one thing that is no longer a member of the set 'Things I have to worry about'"

With this formulation, you no longer have to add it to the set "Things I have to worry about"

[thunderlizard]

You might be OK on a technicality.

If there is one thing to be entirely subtracted from the total number of things to worrry about (or thingsToWorryAbout-- , if you will) it is "one thing fewer to worry about".

But if there is one thing about which you still have to worry, but to a lesser degree, then that is a thing to worry about less. Or, in a more old fashioned word order, one thing less to worry about.

Ending a sentence with a preposition however is a different matter

[OwlHoot]

or should that be "one thing fewer to worry about" ?

Everyone knows that "fewer" is used for discrete objects such as biscuits, and "less" for continuous things like butter.

So as "things" you might be concerned about are discrete, shouldn't one use "fewer"? But then everyone, including me, says "less" in that phrase.

Now I'm worried it might be bad grammar, which means that's one more thing to worry about!