Many or much?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

I need to talk about two places: one has many customers and the other one has just a few clients. If I were to talk about them in Spanish, I would have said "uno tiene muchos menos clientes que el otro".
How should I say this in English: "Much fewer customers" ("much" modifying "fewer") or "many fewer customers" ("many" modifying "customers")?


All help and explanations will be highly appreciated.

[SPX]

Much fewer would be correct. You wouldn't really say "many fewer."

"Much fewer" . . . "many more."

Or you could say "a lot less."

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

How should I say this in English: "Much fewer customers" ("much" modifying "fewer") or "many fewer customers" ("many" modifying "customers")?

Originally Posted by SPX

Much fewer would be correct. You wouldn't really say "many fewer."

"Much fewer" . . . "many more."

Or you could say "a lot less."

Sorry, I disagree. "Much fewer" is uncommon, "a lot less" is absolutely wrong.

For a start, "less" is only ever used for uncountables, so you can have less of a crowd, but fewer people. This is standard, but a lot of people don't know this.

"Much" is much more complicated because it is both an adjective and an adverb. Usually used for uncountables, whilst "many" is for countables, so there was much hope, and there were many possibilities.

The BNC gives 10 hits of "much fewer", but 117 hits on "far fewer". This one sounds much more natural to me, so I would say "far fewer customers" myself.

Edit: After much thought, I checked the OED and found that "much" can also be a quasi-noun (I didn't know they existed). For example "There is much in what you say".

[aleCcowaN]

CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH

"much fewer" = 27 hits
"far fewer" = 674 hits

[Awaken]

This is a great question Angelica.

As add on to what Perkiles pointed out, less is only used for uncountables with the exception of money, time, and distance.

"many fewer" does not sound right to my ear. Even though many is the correct counting adjective, it just sounds wrong.

"far fewer" is definitely the way to go on this one and is what you would hear in speaking.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Awaken

As add on to what Perkiles pointed out, less is only used for uncountables with the exception of money, time, and distance.
.
.
"far fewer" is definitely the way to go on this one and is what you would hear in speaking.

Yep - far fewer people would use "many fewer" than the many using "far fewer".

But surely, money, distance and time are all uncountables I have less money, less time than most, and can travel less distance than most.

Please don't tell me you would say you have less dollars than me

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Thanks, everyone.
It's interesting to see this "asymmetry". Now I won't forget "far fewer".

@Perikles: "Much" is certainly tricky. I'll have to study much more.

@Awaken: So I should say that I have fewer money and fewer time or that the train is at a fewer distance from me? Or are you talking about the units for each?

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I have less money, less time than most, and can travel less distance than most.

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

So I should say that I have fewer money and fewer time or that the train is at a fewer distance from me? Or are you talking about the units for each?

What I said above is absolutely correct. I await Awaken's answer. Wake up.

[Luna Azul]

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

So I should say that I have fewer money and fewer time or that the train is at a fewer distance from me? Or are you talking about the units for each?

That sounds terrible.. I think Awaken made a mistake. He'll probably rectify..

I agree it was a very interesting question. It really made me think..

[SPX]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Sorry, I disagree. "Much fewer" is uncommon, "a lot less" is absolutely wrong.

Much fewer may be uncommon, but many fewer is never used. So given the choice . . . much fewer. Why would you disagree? I do think "far fewer" would be better, though.

As for "a lot less," well if you go somewhere regularly and one day you notice there are "fewer" people, you can say, "There are a lot less people here today." Likewise, someone might say, "There were a lot less customers today." Maybe the issue is between grammar books and how people in real life actually talk. At the end of the day I will always instruct people to sound normal if being "correct" means their speech will stand out as odd and unnatural.

Then again, maybe I didn't really understand the question because I couldn't read, "uno tiene muchos menos clientes que el otro." But based on the English, I stand by my answer.

[Luna Azul]

The use of "less" with countable nouns is certainly very common. We hear it all the time, but it's still incorrect.

The good news for English speakers who are learning Spanish is they won't have that problem. Just one word: "menos"

[SPX]

Originally Posted by Luna Azul

The use of "less" with countable nouns is certainly very common. We hear it all the time, but it's still incorrect.

The thing about language and the "rules" of language is that everything is in a state of flux, driven by the whims of those who use it. Beowulf is written in "English" but no one today without special training can read it. The King James Bible is far more comprehensible and at least recognizable as English, but still difficult to understand. Books from the early 1900s are easy to read, but the speech often sounds slightly odd and unusual.

I'm sure in a hundred years generations will read Stephen King novels and they will seem quaint by contemporary standards.

I'm a journalism major and write for a magazine called Ultimate MMA, and it is always stressed in the profession to write "conversationally" . . . that is, to write how people talk. Do we still follow the "rules" of grammar? Well, sometimes. But style and clarity always take precedence.

Besides, the rules change over time. Not far back at all it was considered a hard rule to never begin a sentence with "and" or "but." Now it's done all the time. It was also a rule to never join two statements together with a comma (a "comma splice"), but it's now acceptable in certain instances if it's dialogue and using a comma most faithfully replicates the cadence of the original speech.

So what I've learned is that what is correct is not determined by grammarians, but by "common usage" and the majority of people who speak and write a language. If everyone starts using a word, the word will make it into the dictionary. If everyone starts using a phrase that breaks a rule, the rule will eventually be amended.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by SPX

If everyone starts using a phrase that breaks a rule, the rule will eventually be amended.

Ultimately, you are right. If everybody starts saying "less people" then it becomes correct. What annoys me is that it derives from incorrect or sloppy usage, so I don't like to see it take over. "less people" sounds dreadful to me, but I do know some people who would say it. (Do I need an uppercase L there to start the sentence? )

Edited to add:

Originally Posted by SPX

I'm a journalism major and write for a magazine called Ultimate MMA, and it is always stressed in the profession to write "conversationally" . . . that is, to write how people talk. Do we still follow the "rules" of grammar? Well, sometimes. But style and clarity always take precedence..

It does not follow that the advice given is universally sound. It depends on whom you are writing for. I actually dislike modern journalism because it gives the impression that journalists don't always know how English works, which is the result of that advice, presumably. The irony is that yes, style and clarity always take precedence, and the only way to achieve clarity is to stick to accepted rules of grammar.

[Luna Azul]

@SPX: Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree. I've always said that languages are ALIVE and they keep changing. It's the usage what eventually makes the rules, but it's something that takes time, it doesn't happen instantly.

Many of the terms that are being used today are not considered correct yet by the grammarians.

I think one of the problems the English language has is it doesn't have, like Spanish, French and others, a language academy where very knowledgeable people discuss the language and make decisions as to when --or if-- to accept a term as correct.

So far I understand that the use of "less" with counting nouns is still considered a mistake. The likelihood is that in the future this usage will become correct.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

I think we all agree on the fact that languages are dynamic institutions that change over time and with the way most people use them. Unfortunately for those of us who have been raised on "principles of correctness", the "sloppy usage" tends to become the rule in the end.

For my own part, the language my parents taught me and those I have learnt on my own initiative, deserve the effort to keep them rich and tidy.


Oh, and thank you very much for these replies, they do improve my comprehension.

[SPX]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Ultimately, you are right. If everybody starts saying "less people" then it becomes correct. What annoys me is that it derives from incorrect or sloppy usage, so I don't like to see it take over. "less people" sounds dreadful to me, but I do know some people who would say it. (Do I need an uppercase L there to start the sentence? )

Ha ha, yeah. I can understand that. I guess it's just not something that bothers me because years and years of hearing it have conditioned me to not regard it as incorrect. In fact, I think that if I heard someone say, "There are far fewer people here today" then it would sound a lot more unnatural to me than if someone said, "There are a lot less people here today." I think it would pass through my head that they are trying to sound quite "proper," ha ha.

Originally Posted by Perikles

It does not follow that the advice given is universally sound. It depends on whom you are writing for. I actually dislike modern journalism because it gives the impression that journalists don't always know how English works, which is the result of that advice, presumably. The irony is that yes, style and clarity always take precedence, and the only way to achieve clarity is to stick to accepted rules of grammar.

I agree that it depends on who you are writing for. Writing for Newsweek would be different than writing for a mixed martial arts publication aimed primarily at males under 30 (like Ultimate MMA).

As for journalists not knowing how English works, if you're talking about the textbook mechanics of the language, then you're probably right. The last time I was taught any grammar in an English class was in middle school. In high school the focus is predominantly on literature. In college, it's mostly writing.

I really know very little about grammar. When I come to language forums like this and people start throwing out terms like "past participle" and "independent clause" I have no idea what they're talking about. I learned to write by reading . . . I have been a pretty consistent reader since I was 14 and I'm 29 now. Somehow all that reading lead me to understand something about communicating with words and how to construct sentences in a way that is clear and, when appropriate, entertaining. This is probably why I don't concern myself much with rules. They were just never necessary for me to write well, and in fact, sometimes they just seemed to get in the way.

In actual journalism classes it's taken for granted that you already know how to write. In fact, when I stepped into Journalism I for the first day, a notice was handed out that if you are not already comfortable with your ability to write then it's probably not the class for you.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by SPX

I really know very little about grammar. When I come to language forums like this and people start throwing out terms like "past participle" and "independent clause" I have no idea what they're talking about. I learned to write by reading . . . .

Nothing wrong with that at all. There is no general method of learning which works for everybody. But - a second language as an adult may be different. You ask questions about why this and why that, and the answers can only be given in terms of grammatical concepts. I can't explain why something is as it is in a language without using grammatical terms - they are the vocabulary needed to explain things. Now some people are able to learn a second language simply by listening and repeating as a child would. Lucky for them. Here on this forum, it is different. Please feel free to ask anything, but also be prepared for an answer which requires some understanding of formal grammar.

[SPX]

No, I wasn't knocking the teaching style around here. I actually have learned a lot more about Spanish grammar that I have ever known about English grammar. I was talking about how a lot of people in the journalism field don't have a strong technical base when it comes to grammar, but that I don't think this has a lot of bearing on their ability to communicate effectively.

[Awaken]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Yep - far fewer people would use "many fewer" than the many using "far fewer".

But surely, money, distance and time are all uncountables I have less money, less time than most, and can travel less distance than most.

Please don't tell me you would say you have less dollars than me

Both of your statements are correct. The only reason I brought up the money, time, distance is because sometimes those are confused as countables since they can be "counted" (sortof). Less is the correct term for each as you stated. And no I don't say "less dollars" =)

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

Thanks, everyone.
It's interesting to see this "asymmetry". Now I won't forget "far fewer".

@Perikles: "Much" is certainly tricky. I'll have to study much more.

@Awaken: So I should say that I have fewer money and fewer time or that the train is at a fewer distance from me? Or are you talking about the units for each?

No, you would use less with those. Don't second guess yourself. You have it right.

Just ignore what I said everyone.

Separate but related topic.

When you add "than" after the phrase, what is the correct usage?

He scored fewer than 10 goals? He scored less than 10 goals?
It's fewer right? Does the countable/uncountable still govern this?

Originally Posted by Perikles

What I said above is absolutely correct. I await Awaken's answer. Wake up.

I finally woke up. And yes you were correct.

[Luna Azul]

Originally Posted by Awaken

When you add "than" after the phrase, what is the correct usage?

He scored fewer than 10 goals? He scored less than 10 goals?
It's fewer right? Does the countable/uncountable still govern this?

You know what? this is a very good question. I'll be waiting for the answers

I actually would use "less" there but only because it sounds good to my ears.