You have missed the point.It is not size dependant, you can have less of anything or fewer of anything.
Less sugar or fewer grains of sugar, fewer shoes or less shoe.
(Less sugar or fewer grains of sugar, fewer shoes or less shoe.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:24,
archived)
I had some shoes that fell apartso techinically I had less shoe
(
discomeats This canoe,
Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:27,
archived)
You are sort of right:"Use fewer to describe countable things. Use less to describe uncountable quantities, collective amounts, and degree. These terms are not interchangeable."
It is number dependant, not size-dependant. Or dependent. Whatever.
(It is number dependant, not size-dependant. Or dependent. Whatever.
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31,
archived)
No, it is not number dependant.If there are so many it is a bitch to count then it is still countable.
You never have less grains of sugar, no matter how much sugar there is, yet you have less sugar, even if there is only 1 grain left.
(You never have less grains of sugar, no matter how much sugar there is, yet you have less sugar, even if there is only 1 grain left.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 31 Aug 2008, 18:37,
archived)