You are correct.

"thirty years" is considered a mass, like "50 kilos" or "10000 baht".

Proof is in the fact that it takes a singular verb. "Thirty years are a long time" = unthinkable.

IMO, much of the current trend for correcting "less than" is stupid in any case. English allows forflexibility in such things (cf. the team is/are) and if people are comfortable with "10 items or less", it should be considered a case where the "mass" noun rule can apply.

Vielen Dank! Also ist "fewer than thirty years" dann einfach falsch?

It depends on the meaning:

"The share price has risen by more than twenty per cent in less than 30 years."

"The share price has risen by more than twenty per cent in fewer than 30 years."

I suppose your second example could be correct, Mike, if you meant 20% in a given year in fewer than 30 (out of a larger number of) years.

The emphasis is on "each year" - hence the 30 years are not considered as a mass but as distinct entities.

And in the OP, that could be the case if the full sentence (in context) was something like:

"Each year passed with the usual seasons: seedtime, growth, harvest, and the long, long winter. Fewer than 30 years had passed in this way when war returned to the region."

mikefm's pair of sentences need a few seconds' deciphering. The difference is clearer if you say:

In fewer than 30 years has the share price risen by more than 20%

In less than 30 years the share price has risen by more than 20%.

Note the inversion.

MikeE's (not mikefm's) sentences are indeed good, though I'm not sure it would occur to most people to use the one with 'fewer' unless they were deliberately constructing examples. escoville's inversion is also good, or you could think of other contexts, like Graeme's, or e.g.

Droughts usually last for less than five years.
Rainfall this low has occurred in fewer than five out of the last 100 years.

Nicki's catch is also good -- someone was trying to be careful with 'less' and 'fewer,' but they didn't think this one through well enough.

Just to confirm, the same holds true for other quantities.

100 years is a long time.
This neighborhood is less than 40 years old.
18 degrees is very cold for our region.
We seldom have temperatures of less than 25 to 30 degrees.
$1500 dollars is a lot of money for a TV.
You should be able to get a TV for less than $500.
etc.


However, the question

>>Ist die Korrektur als alternative Formulierung auch möglich?

is a good one, and the more I think about it the less sure I am.

As a hypothesis, I would say it might depend on the mental question the sentence is answering. If we don't know whether the question was 'How many years had passed' or 'How much time had passed,' either one could be okay, I suppose.

It does at least seem fair to say that 'How much time' seems more likely / more natural.

Vielen Dank euch allen!

Ich glaube, ich verstehe jetzt, was ihr meint. Hat leider etwas gedauert ...

In fewer than 30 years has the share price risen by more than 20%. (= Der Aktienkurs ist nur in 27 Jahren jeweils jährlich um 20 % gestiegen)

In less than 30 years the share price has risen by more than 20%. (= Der Aktienkurs ist über einen Zeitraum von 27 Jahren hinweg insgesamt um mehr als 20 % gestiegen).

In meinem ursprünglichen Satz ging es um einen Zeitraum. Der Kontext war etwa so:

Noch nicht einmal 30 Jahren trennen Ereignis X von Ereignis Y, aber dennoch waren die Reaktionen, die diese Ereignisse hervorriefen, völlig unterschiedlich.

*failing to re-edit* (Oh well.)

Yes, that's the difference in meaning.

Given your actual sentence, my gut feeling is that either one is fine, but I might have actually voted for 'fewer' too, though I'm not sure I can explain why. Perhaps because a relatively small and clearly finite number is in fact countable, and that's the point you're actually emphasizing?

See what others think.

Vielen Dank! Oh nein ... ich glaube, ich habe das Problem dann doch noch nicht richtig verstanden.

Re #0.

Nicki, on this thread you have received good analysis, to which I cannot add anything very erudite. Instead, I'll just give you this practical observation:

I have heard and read each of the formulations presented in the OP, and (on the bare context you've given us) find them interchangeable. I would not criticize either of the OP sentences. (AE)

I will add that, in my experience, most Americans would most often say, "Less than thirty years had passed."

My apologies to MikeE for the incorrect attribution above.

Re the (non-)inversion in my version of his sentences:

Inversion follows a negative adverbial at the head of the sentence. However, this 'negative' is to be understood pragmatically rather than formally. The sentence with 'less' sounds positively 'positive'.

#5,#11

Yes, my sentences did need some thinking about. The second sentence wasn't very likely without additional context, but I wanted to have basically the same sentence with only the one difference. Graeme's example was better.

I had also been thinking about your two examples and wondering how to explain why inversion seems OK in one but not the other. I agree that the sentence with "less" sounds positive, and I see the sentence with "fewer" as similar to sentences starting with a restrictive modifier like "only", e.g.

"Only then did he notice . . . ".

Come to think of it, one could contrast

"Only in 30 (of those) years has the share price risen by more than 20%."

"In only 30 years, the share price has risen by more than 20%."

A lot of these sentences sound a little bit "iffy" without more context.

Did either of you have an opinion on whether 'fewer' is possible, given Nicki's actual sentence in #7? Does it matter if the underlying question is 'How many years' or 'How much time'?

five items or less

Stephen Fry Kinetic Typography - Language

Spoiler alert: little bit OT

#13
I don't really think it is possible in that meaning - in the sense that an ideal native speaker would not spontaneously produce such a sentence.

However, I'm not sure whether some similar uses may have become marginally acceptable because of frequent violation of the intuitive rules by people following badly formulated "rules" about count nouns.

My rule of thumb would be to distinguish between real numbers and integers:
if 29.75 years satisfies the condition (< 30), then "fewer" is inappropriate.

Thinking about hm's hypothesis in #6, I think it is conceivable that "fewer than thirty years" might just be acceptable (in the sense intended) in some unusual context where the years have to be counted in integers and 2.75 years would not be a possible length of time.

I would also ask whether such a statement could provoke the question "how many fewer?" rather than "how much less?"

My spontaneous reaction as a perhaps non-ideal AE speaker would be "fewer than 30 years". I didn't respond earlier because I wasn't sure I could muster much of an explanation or linguistic argument.

hm--us asked, though, so I'll add my two cents.

My use of fewer may be hypercorrection, in reaction to the "ten items or less" signs and other confusion regarding fewer/less and count/noncount nouns. Despite generally taking a non-prescriptive approach to variation and despite seeing less/fewer as a probable language change underway, this particular linguistic change grates. Which might explain the hypercorrection. As graeme points out in #1, "thirty years are a long time" is unthinkable, also for me.

I would instinctively say "I have less than ten dollars" because the quantity is viewed as a mass noun (amount of money), not count (individual dollar bills). I'd also say "Ten dollars is the most I'd pay for that." I don't know why I would treat years differently than dollars, but I suspect that I do. The more I think about it, in fact, the better "thirty years are" sounds to me.

I did a little gurgling and got some results.

fewer than 5 years = 22,200,000 ...10 years 60,700,000 ...30 years 18,300,000
less than 5 years = 128,000,000 ...10 years 10,900,000 ...30 years 9,890,000

It would appear that the number of years affects how likely the time period is to be viewed as one single amount of time (less than x years) or a group of individual years (fewer than x years).

Maybe it's not a hypercorrection at all.

Edith asks me to mention that not all of the hits are relevant, of course. A sentence such as "State support for Albany County school districts is 5.3 percent, or $13.3 million, less than five years ago" doesn't prove anything in the case under consideration, but the sheer number of hits must at least prove that many more people use "fewer than x years" than posited by some of the earlier respondents.

@Amy
The Google hits for differing lengths of time may reflect the likelihod that fractions of a year are not thought of as a possibility, i.e. something is measured only in years.

"Fewer" may be more common in AE, though I suspect this reflects a tendency in the US (compared with the UK) to follow style checklists rather than grammars or intuition.

As regards language change, I think the change has been the other way, with less having been used in this context since Alfred the Great.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage has an interesting article, according to which the rule originated with a preference expressed by Baker in 1770, and by 1988 had been elevated to absolute status by some.
They write: "How Baker's opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such."

Of fewer and less used with units of time etc., they write "Fewer can be used in the same constructions, but it appears less often than less. It is sometimes used in such a way as to make one suspect that an editor rather than a writer is responsible."

Yet another reason why I wouldn't go out and buy M-W on usage. What, pray tell, are editors for but to nudge or correct writers? M-W's 'one' (what is that if not over-edited?), and perhaps even you, Mike, with your image of 'style checklists,' make it sound as if editors are automatically evil and writers are automatically good -- as if the former have no intuitive sense of grammar, and the latter an impeccable one. Surely that's not the case.

My question is still whether a similar dynamic might even be at work in the responses to Nicki's question here. The first knee-jerk response is that 'less' is often wrong -- the supermarket checkout shibboleth. I think we've all got that down.

The second and opposite knee-jerk response, though, might be that correcting to 'fewer' is usually wrong. But is 'fewer' really wrong here? Here, again, it seems to me that a case could be made for it, based not on a style checklist or on automatic reaction to 'fewer' regardless of context, but rather on what the writer wants to express.

less than 30 years had passed - a period of time had passed which was less than 30 years
fewer than 30 years had passed - a number of years had passed, but not as many as 30

I'm just not sure enough reliable native speakers have addressed that actual question for Nicki to get a sense of what is possible vs. typical vs. advisable. So I appreciate Amy's adding to the discussion, and anyone else who might still have an opinion.

Re #18: I'm just not sure enough reliable native speakers have addressed [Nicki's] actual question


"Reliable" native speakers are (only) those who regularly agree with hm, of course.

Nicki:
This thread gives some very fine theoretical analysis, but the correspondents have reached no consensus (yet). While their intentions are honorable and their erudition is admirable, I think that, as a practical matter, they have overcomplicated the answer to your question.

If you want to know how most English-speakers would answer your question, please review #10 and #1 ("IMO, much of the current trend for correcting "less than" is stupid in any case. English allows for flexibility in such things . . ..") And while I don't want to speak for Amy-MiMi (#16), she also seems less than certain that one or the other (less vs. fewer) is more correct.

I think you will be safe using either formulation.


MikeE:

Though I might be using your quote in a broader context than you (or M-W) intended, I definitely agree, also for more general application, that many of the niceties discussed in this thread--and on all Leo forums--are "sometimes used in such a way as to make one suspect that an editor rather than a writer is responsible." (#17)

#18
I would definitely recommend buying The Dictionary of English Usage. The little I quoted does not do it justice, and you would really need to read the whole entry, which goes into much more detail - and is, of course, more nuanced (it has well over a page on the subject). The concise version is not very expensive.

I have no problem with copy editors (I have done enough copy-editing myself), but I think we need to accept that some of them do, sometimes very obviously, apply rules with little thought - or possibly with the thought that another reader will know the "traditional" rules and object to "less than five", split infinitives, etc. because they read it in Strunk & White. Since such readers may include members of the Supreme Court, this may be a real problem.

I do think there is a big problem with what I call style checklists. Even Strunk & White, which is badly written in places, also suffers from people reading the "checklists" and treating them as gospel, without properly reading the full text.

As regards this particular problem, we are probably in greater agreement than might be apparent at first sight. Reading the examples is a bit like looking at the picture that could be seen as the image of a witch or of two candlesticks. Once one has accepted one interpretation it is difficult to see the other.

You wrote "fewer than 30 years had passed - a number of years had passed, but not as many as 30" as a possible interpretation permitting "fewer".
but also "It does at least seem fair to say that 'How much time' seems more likely / more natural."

I wrote ". . ."fewer than thirty years" might just be acceptable (in the sense intended) in some unusual context where the years have to be counted in integers and 2.75 years would not be a possible length of time' and "The Google hits for differing lengths of time may reflect the likelihod that fractions of a year are not thought of as a possibility, i.e. something is measured only in years."

So we seem to differ a little on the likelihood of one interpretation over the other in a particular context.

#18, #19.
An example given in the M-W book is
". . . has never gained fewer than 1,222 yards in a season" - Rick Telander, Sports Illustrated.

I think the point about a copy editor is that they often have less understanding of the text due to the fact that they are reading a text at speed, and need to quickly focus on and fix possible problems. So that the text can be quickly tumed from turgid prose into forcible writing, after all, none of us are perfect.

I would be interested in knowing what evidence the good folks at the Dictionary of English Usage have for their statement: "Fewer can be used in the same constructions, but it appears less often than less. It is sometimes used in such a way as to make one suspect that an editor rather than a writer is responsible." This is not reflected in the search results I cited in #16.

In #17 MikeE wrote: “Fewer" may be more common in AE, though I suspect this reflects a tendency in the US (compared with the UK) to follow style checklists rather than grammars or intuition.

I had a response to this statement, but it was lost due to an errant mouse click, so rather than recreating it here, I'll just point to a G**gle search I did using site:.uk

fewer than 5 years 6,980,000 ...10 years 3,680,000 ...30 years 9 (sic)
less than 5 years 1,510,000 ...10 years 3,580,000 ...30 years 8,920,000

There does appear to be an AE/BE difference, but it doesn't appear to be what MikeE has claimed it is, nor does it seem to be properly explained by the robust intuition of BE speakers or the dependence of AE speakers on style checklists.

While a discussion of language use based on knowledge of grammars or style guides or ones own hypothetical usage is interesting, an analysis of the language as it it is actually used could be more informative.

#21
You would have to ask Merriam Webster what corpora they used, but I am sure they had access to quite a large database of actual usage.

I don't think I mentioned anything about *robust* intuition. My comment was apparently read as being disparaging toward Americans; it was intended as a neutral comment that they may follow the advice of style guides organized in the form of checklists (typical problems) rather than trusting their own intuition. Some might find that praiseworthy.

I was thinking particularly of the popularity of books like "The Elements of Style" and the uptake of some of Fowler's suggestions (on things like "that" and "which") in the US.

A normal Google search is now pretty meaningless (with respect to counts) since it depends on so many things. I was not able to reproduce your Google results, and I don't get any counts when I select "verbatim".
Just out of interest, I obtain
about 46,100,000 for "fewer than 10 years" and
about 447,000,000 for "less than 10 years".

I think Google Books ngram results are more meaningful, though they should also be treated with a little caution:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content...

This appears to show that "less than 10 years" is an order of magnitude more common than "fewer than 10 years" (in Google Books).

Re #22 and personal intuition:

it was intended as a neutral comment that they may follow the advice of style guides organized in the form of checklists (typical problems) rather than trusting their own intuition. Some might find that praiseworthy.

MikeE:

I do think it praiseworthy to go with one's own experience--certainly in cases, like the OP, where the right answer is not obvious.

As I've maintained in other Leo discussions, it is possible that two (or more) ways of expressing something are equally valid. Both can be right.

#23
I think it's best to approach both style guides and personal intuition with some caution.
Intuition may be influenced, for instance, by factors dependent on social class and age, and it can be indirectly affected by unquestioning acceptance of what influential people said in a person's formative years.

Prescriptive style guides are useful, but when an issue is covered a lot by style guides (as opposed to grammars) it may indicate that educationalists or others have been teaching something contrary to many people's intuition, since (unlike grammars) they tend not to discuss fundamental issues that all native speakers agree on.
There are probably about a dozen major issues of this type (some of which crop up regularly on Leo), including
- less/fewer,
- "nominative" complements following the verb be (mainly in the first person singular)
- split infinitives
- use of the passive voice
- starting sentences with various conjunctions
- singular "they" and generic "he"
- use of commas to separate independent clauses
- use of the period (full stop) with abbreviations/contractions
In such cases, I like to see if the style guide is presenting a simple answer where people's intuition seems based on a more differentiated approach. When this is the case, I seriously consider the possibility that it is the rule that it is wrong (or oversimplified).

Unfortunately, people giving advice on style may believe in "strong" or "forcible" writing, so they will write stupid things like "never use the passive where you can use the active," and even sensible recommendations may later mutate into absolute prescriptions or be completely misunderstood.

Perhaps you mean forceful rather than forcible, unless that's another AE/BE difference?

We've had the meta-discussion before too, of course. Since discussions here in the forum are relatively casual and we don't all weigh our words every day as if we were writing a style manual, of course sometimes we use shorthand advice like 'never' where in practice we mean 'as a rule of thumb it's usually better not to.' I don't think that's a cardinal sin, and I do think it's useful for both learners and native speakers to be aware of such general guidelines, even if they later need to learn exceptions or adjust their intuition.

But, again, what I'm interested in in this particular case is not reacting automatically either for or against 'fewer' in other contexts (so I don't see how G**gle is even relevant), but in this context. I've been trying this whole time to get native speakers to answer the question without reference to a rule one way or the other, just to look at this sentence and say what their gut reaction is. Indeed, I wish we could have had the sentence

Fewer than 30 years had passed since ...

and just heard whether native speakers find it acceptable/possible or not, without introducing any element of comparison.

I still wish a few more people had responded to that question, precisely so that Nicki can form a better impression with less risk of any one individual opinion overinfluencing the discussion.

But at this point I suppose everyone's already headed off into the weekend, so never mind. It's true that it's not an earth-shattering issue; I was just curious after we had gotten this far.

In reply to hm--us's last question:

Fewer than 30 years had passed...

is something I would find acceptable but slightly odd. And the reason is as above: if I said this, I'd be talking not about the individual years, but about a period of time (which is singular). However, I suppose it is possible that someone else might see it differently. But whatever the case, the sentence is not analogous to

Fewer than 30 trees survived the hurricane...

which I would regard as perfectly acceptable, and in my more pedantic moods, as the only correct version.

#25
Perhaps you mean forceful rather than forcible, unless that's another AE/BE difference?
You'd have to ask Strunk what on earth he meant by "forcible" when he wrote
"The habitual use of the active voice, however, makes for forcible writing. "
He had his own weird preferences, which were, as White put it "as whimsical as the choice of a necktie". Nevertheless, some seem to regard Strunk & White as law. Which is unfortunate if those people include Sonia Sotomayor (;-).

. . . discussions here in the forum are relatively casual and we don't all weigh our words every day as if we were writing a style manual, of course sometimes we use shorthand advice like 'never' where in practice we mean 'as a rule of thumb it's usually better not to.' I don't think that's a cardinal sin
I don't mind that sort of thing on the forum, since it's an interactive medium and things can be clarified if challenged. The exhortation to "never use the passive where you can use the active" is from George Orwell, in his published (and, we hope, edited) essay "Politics and the English Language". That does annoy me, since he is often quoted and he should have known better. Indeed, he did know better and ignored the advice in his own writing.

I hope any "snarkiness" directed at Orwell an Strunk did not come across as directed at any members of the forum.