How have rising fuel prices changed your behaviour?

CCLEANER.COM

freeware and does

 

LOL

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Snowleopard

<waves hand>

You're not wrong.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Paul Corfield

Slight problem coming up for those who are using PT in London:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7317391.stm

Still, at least for users of South West Trains the arrangements they've
made for next week won't be needed now. Good practice for next time
though, eh?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

And your point would be?

You haven't got one, have you?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

Don't come complaining to me! I didn't invent the fucking language mate,
I just use it.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

No useful purpose? Are you quite mad?

It amuses me, and that's purpose enough for anything.

 

"Useful purpose" is not a satisfactory criterion by which to judge a
language. Half the letters in our standard spelling serve no useful
purpose. Distinctions like I/me, who/whom etc. serve no useful
purpose. There would be little poetry if superfluous words were deemed
to serve no useful purpose.

I'm with WUN.

I'm therefore worried.

 

Doubleplusgood.

 

...other than to give WUN something to complain about..

And the words mean different things so it does serve a useful purpose.
Agreed - it may be a subtle difference that escapes the majority but
that doesn't mean it doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist!

Phil

 

Is there any difference between 'less' and 'fewer' which is not
clearly indicated by the context? I'm struggling to find one.

 

Yes.

Less = smaller amount of a thing (less alcohol)
Fewer = less of a group of objects (fewer drinks).

So for example you could say 'I had less drinks' - which is
understandable but grammatically wrong. It works where 'fewer' is
replaced by 'less' but not nearly as well the other way round.
So to say 'I had fewer alcohol'[1] wouldn't really work as a statement -
which pretty much indicates that there *is* a significant difference
between the two.

Phil.

[1] But you could say 'I had fewer alcoholic drinks' since 'drinks' are
discrete objects which occur in multiples.

 

You are just illustrating the point that the meaning is entirely defined
by the context.
I'm looking for a counter-example where ambiguity would be caused if there
was a single word used for both 'less' and 'fewer'.

 

Is this based on faith or rational science?

I suspect people don't (unless they think about it) consciously know
the difference - it just seems 'right'. And of course the 'seems right'
bit changes quite quickly.

That's a straw man of the first water you have there.. You are assuming
that English is a logical language when in fact it's a language that
has grown by accretion and assimilation.

If you want a logical language try Esperanto!

Phil

 

Well duh. English is (technically) a context-driven language so I'd be
very very surprised if it wasn't..

But there is no single word that means both 'less' and 'fewer' (and I
know that's not exactly what you meant - but it's the end result). You
could indeed use 'less' almost always where you use 'fewer' (but not
the other way round).

And looking at an etymological dictionary reveals why - few is *always*
plural. Less is a comparator - and so can cover single and plural.

As for a counter-example - I can't think of one off the top of my head.
But then language is full of redundancies and duplication (especially
English because of it's very mixed heritage) so it's no real surprise.

And if the mutation of the language means that 'less' has become
synonymous with 'fewer' then so be it. You *do* need some structure in
a language though..

Phil.

 

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:17:56 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Oh he has - more or less.

 

Thank you :~)

At the same time, the lessening of ducks I seek is uncountable, which
is not fewer. Or something.

Mind you, I've no complaints about a bit of thwappery..

 

I'm sorry, I'm not much into Pokemon

--
Lozzo
Suzuki SV650S K5
Honda CBR600 FW trackbike
Yamaha SR250 Spazz-Trakka
Suzuki GSXR750 L
Suzuki TS50X
Suzuki TS50X

 

You're wrong on this, but this doesn't surprise me. The last SWT-wide
strike (in 2006) lasted one day before the company bailed and I can't
recall the previous one - It was probably the last BR national strike in
1995.

So Souter's "well practiced"? We always seem to get to where we want to
be.

This time we put on four days consecutively knowing they had no real way
of resourcing it and their losses would be huge but we knew we could
sustain it.

TBH, personally I'd rather not go on strike as we lose money, it's a lot
of work and organisationally draining. I also don't see 'dropping the
handle' as the preferred method of negotiation.

The long term gain in this instance is a maximum working day of 9.30 so
made it worthwhile. The sad thing is this could have been sorted through
sensible negotiation without recourse to damaging ballots but SWT thought
they knew better.

Probably worth pointing out this wasn't simply about cold cash, despite
SWTs protestations.

 

Christ on a bike, you don't believe that shit, do you? Historical
inflation figures have always been a pile of donkey dung.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."