Fewer or less? The one rule that clears it up

You're in the supermarket queue and the sign says 10 items or less. Something in you winces. Shouldn't it say fewer? You're not alone. That twinge is what a 250-year-old grammar opinion feels like from the inside, and the story behind it is more interesting than the rule.

Here's the short version: use fewer with things you can count, and less with things you can't.

The rule, in practice

• Fewer goes with countable nouns: fewer calories, fewer mistakes, fewer people.
• Less goes with uncountable nouns: less sugar, less time, less water.

Quick test: can you put a number in front of it? "Three mistakes" works, so use fewer. "Three sugars" sounds off, so you're in less territory.

Where the rule came from

The distinction is surprisingly young. English has used less with countable nouns for over a thousand years. The oldest example the Oxford English Dictionary gives is from King Alfred the Great, around 888: "with less words or with more". Nobody in Alfred's court was confused.

The split came in 1770. The grammarian Robert Baker wrote in his Reflections on the English Language:

This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. 'No Fewer than a Hundred' appears to me, not only more elegant than 'No less than a Hundred', but more strictly proper.

Look at the wording. Baker says "I should think" and "appears to me". He was giving a personal taste, not a law. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage points out that his preference was later "generalized and elevated to an absolute status" while the evidence against it was left out. Over the next century, grammar books turned the taste into a rule.

Where it breaks down

Descriptive grammarians point out that people have always used less with plural countable nouns, and most of them never notice. The prescriptive rule is widely followed for fewer. The rule for less is not.

Some prescriptive guides go further and say less should be used with money, distance, weight and time:

• less than ten pounds (an amount of money, treated as one quantity)
• less than five miles away (a distance)
• less than two hours (a length of time)

Most native speakers say these without thinking, and many modern dictionaries accept them. If you're thinking of the figure as one total, less is a natural choice.

The supermarket problem

That sign is the famous case. Strictly, the items are countable, so fewer is the prescriptive answer. But "10 items or less" is short, and the sign reads perfectly well to most shoppers.

In 2008, the British supermarket chain Tesco replaced its "10 items or less" notices with "up to 10 items", avoiding "10 items or fewer" altogether. The change followed a public debate about the rule. It shows how much attention a small grammar point can get, and how a company can dodge the argument instead of settling it.

The descriptivist view is that the sign is fine. Some linguists even call the fewer version hypercorrection, because it sounds more formal without being more clear. "10 items or fewer" can sound pedantic on a sign, and "10 items or less" is what most people write.

Fewer, less, and the exceptions

A few fixed phrases use less even with countable nouns, and they are never wrong:

• one less thing to worry about
• no less than a hundred
• more or less

Watch out for the superlatives too. The matching pairs are fewest and least, and the same argument applies to them.

Quiz

Pick the word that fits. The answer depends on whether you're counting things or measuring a total.

Quick reference

• Can you count it? Use fewer.
• Is it a total amount, a distance, a time, or a sum of money? Use less.
• Fixed phrases like no less than and one less thing are always fine.

Sources

• Wikipedia — Fewer versus less — history, Baker quote, Tesco, exceptions
• Baker, Robert. Reflections on the English Language. J. Bell, 1770.
• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Merriam-Webster, 1995. Entry: less, fewer (pp. 591–592).
• BBC News — When to use 'fewer' rather than 'less'? — 2008
• Liberman, Mark. If it was good enough for King Alfred the Great.... Language Log, 2006.

Keep those quantities in check! — Pip 🌿