atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'

  • From: "Daniel Frankham" <Daniel.Frankham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:00:55 +1030

"Less" instead of "fewer" used to get my goat as an example of the
degrading of the language, until I saw it in a novel from the 1810s.
Actually, it still annoys, but I feel less able to tell people it's

Daniel Frankham 


        From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
        Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:35 PM
        To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'

        Add it onto the list for our evolving language, along with:


        Enormity (to denote size or complexity - showing my age, but I
have a dictionary at home where the only meaning is great wickedness.
Apparently, we're going full circle as centuries ago it used to mean
size - so I'm younger than that!!)

        Less (e.g. less people, instead of fewer)

        Lay, where lie should've been used (e.g. I was laying on the

        'Should of' instead of should've or should have


        And a common error in docs I'm currently fixing is
principle/principal, where both meanings are used and pretty much each
time it's wrong.


        If it is a generational thing, I'd say it's rooted in the
diminution of reading.





Other related posts: