Do we really need to go over this?
I have received suggestions from readers that I review the rule for “fewer” versus “less.” I confess, I dismissed these because the rule is clear and I assumed most people knew the difference. I am sorry to say I was wrong.
Last week I said I wouldn’t be taking Boniva or buying Honey Bunches of Oats for the same reason: my boycott of products whose commercials contain grammatical errors. Now I must add to the list MGD 64, the dieters’ version of Miller Genuine Draft. According to its current television commercial, MGD 64 has “less calories” than other reduced-calorie beers.
I am too tired to rant again so soon over the ad industry’s growing disregard for correct language. Instead, might I just ask, why not say “fewer calories?” I am tempted to believe it is less an oversight than it is a presumption that “fewer” flies over the heads of Miller’s target demographic. Please tell me I’m wrong.
Is it possible that advertising companies intentionally use poor grammar to appeal to a specific class of consumers? The ad gurus at Grey Poupon hit their high-brow target with their famous commercial years ago. Pardon me, but it seems Miller is deliberately going for a less sophisticated crowd with its overt illiteracy.
Everyone knows “less” refers to an amount of something, as in less beer. “Fewer” refers to a number of something, as in “fewer calories.”
Less snow, fewer snowflakes. Less hair, fewer strands. Yes, got it.
Now can we move on to something a little less obvious?
Postscript: Speaking of intentional poor grammar, am I the only one wondering why yesterday South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham phrased his question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, “Where were you at on Christmas Day?” He knows better.
Word Nymph 