Hi, Bob.

BL>  DD> There are less sparrows along the Gwydir Highway than there
BL>  DD> used to be.

BL>  BL> I think you may find that your Macquarie gives "fewer" as a
BL>  BL> secondary meaning for "less." There is nothing
wrong with "less
BL>  BL> sparrows" unless you are Frank.

BL>  FM> There is nothing wrong with less sparrows, but David meant
BL>  FM> fewer.

BL>   "Fewer" is what "less sparrows" means in that context.

PErhaps, but David meant fewer sparrows.

BL>   The word has become so corrupted that it could not be used in any
BL> other way, in that context. This is what annoys me about so-called
BL> "modern" usage. A perfectly good word becomes useless and you are
BL> forced to use a phrase instead. The classic is "gay". What
do you now
BL> use for gay? It's a lovely word with hundreds of years of meaning
BL> behind it... destroyed in a fortnight of sad homosexuals looking for a
BL> better image that won't work anyway. A poofter by any other name still
BL> roots arseholes. They can call themselves cuddly Koalas and in a month
BL> the meaning will be the same as before.

One of the beauties of English is that it allows one to be precise (or
vague, if one wants to). Knowing which words to use when enhances
communication which is, I think, why we have language.

BL>   Image advertising is worse. I'd ban all image advertising. I'd put a
BL> supertax on image advertising. Or shoot the fokkers.

I think we've been down this track before. :-) Imagine what the
image-makers could do with an image of Bob Lawrence! I hope they
wouldn't just shoot the fokker. :-)

Regards, fIM.

 * * 'Cause that's the way the computer crumbles.
@EOT:

---