is it a dead word? I rarely see it being used and often hear/see 'less' where fewer would be correct.
So dying, if not dead?No, it's not a dead word. Many languages have, in recorded history, undergone a process of vocabulary constriction. It's a natural process that emphasizes convenience at the cost of semantic depth. It's happening now, and it will continue to happen
Is this a vicious circle (cycle?), in that fewer might be understood by fewer people, so less is used instead, but we fast approach the point where a significant proportion (a majority?) aren't even aware of the difference.Supermarket check-outs all get it wrong; it's nine items or fewer.
So dying, if not dead?
The internet, making things worse since 2007.In my view, it's the law of the lowest common denominator ... unfortunately.
Less is fewer letters so it fits betterOne of my pet peeves - less when fewer should apply. Supermarket check-outs all get it wrong; it's nine items or fewer.
That’s one way of looking at it. I reckon more people are using it less.Fewer people are using it.
Uh oh. You're in danger of unleashing my inner grammar Kraken. My current pet peeve is the way "get" has taken the place of "become", "receive", "achieve" and probably 10 other words. In the future the English language will consist of only one word -- get -- at least in the US. The UK still seems to have some respect for their language.
This^^^grammar teacher