@checkervest @mikeburns Technically you *wouldn't* be correct, but it would still be fine make sense. That doesn't mean the distinction is useless and should be done away with.

@checkervest @mikeburns oops, forgot an "and"

@noxy
Having read more into this I must ask: in which way would you technically not be correct? (And, apparently, in which year?)
@checkervest

@mikeburns @checkervest You would technically not be correct because since the late 16th century (iirc) that has been the rule. That's what you both mean by "technically," no? According to the rule. It's fine to break the rules, that's what language is all about. Being super technical often sounds stilted, obviously. That's not exclusive to English. Doesn't change the fact that words mean things and that clarity can be useful.

@noxy @mikeburns the issue with linguistic prescription is that you have to pick your line in the sand. The "less/fewer" distinction exists entirely because in 1770 a man named Baker expressed a personal preference that it sounded more elegant to say "no fewer than a hundred." Should we freeze all word usage to remain in compliance with the way people used words in 1770? Words do mean things, but they change over time as a part of a language's natural growth.

@checkervest @mikeburns But it's not just an arbitrary preference at this point, it's been a tacitly accepted rule for over 200 years. It's frequently broken, but the general consensus that is the essence of meaning is still there. If someone uses "less" for a count noun in a non-idiomatic way, it sounds incorrect. We don't have an academy that decides grammar so the general agreement on what "sounds right" is as close as we will get.

@noxy @mikeburns I believe that the primary purpose of language is to communicate, and that it's easy to get too caught up in the "rules" and alienate other people from the conversation. What "sounds right" changes from year to year and from community to community. I can see where you're coming from, because I spent many years feeling the same way, but I think that you and I are not going to agree on this issue.

@checkervest @mikeburns That's fine. For what's it worth, I don't disagree with what you just said. I have said repeatedly that I'm not in favor of prescriptive grammar. People should speak English in whatever way they like, and I don't think I'm alienating anyone by acknowledging a general consensus.