"much more friends" vs. "many more friends"

[grammarian1976]

Greetings,

Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?

(1) He has much more friends than I do.
(2) He has many more friends than I do.

I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."

As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
"five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"

However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
"much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.

Would you agree?

Thank you!

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-7, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>
> (1) He has much more friends than I do.

Wrong. An example of correct usage of much:
We are much more friends than coworkers.

> (2) He has many more friends than I do.

This is correct.

>
> I find them both acceptable,
>

> As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier,
>

> However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
> a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
> "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially,

If you agree that much is an intensifier, what does it intensify in (1)
and why do you think that (1) is correct and/or that it has the same
meaning as (2)?

[CDB]

I'm with Dingbat. You could think of the construction as "He has many
friends more than I do", if that helps.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:07:25 AM UTC-4, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>
> (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> (2) He has many more friends than I do.

Yes, (1) are not acceptable. Count/mass, while under attack, is not dead.

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>
> (1) He has much more friends than I do.

Terrible. Unacceptable.

> (2) He has many more friends than I do.

Fine.

> I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
> inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
> this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
> to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
> to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."
>
> As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
> "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
> seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
> does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
> not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"
>
> However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
> a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
> "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
> it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
> the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.
>
> Would you agree?
>
> Thank you!
>

--
Ken

[grammarian1976]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> >
> > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> Terrible. Unacceptable.

But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends." Why not
accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.
Thank you.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:00:09 AM UTC-4, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:

> > > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> > > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> > Terrible. Unacceptable.
>
> But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
> a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
> which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends." Why not
> accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
> applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
> nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.

Because "more" isn't an adjective that admits of degrees?

[grammarian1976]

Well, you can't say "very more" or "really more," but doesn't "more"
seem to admit of degrees in expressions like "a lot more people"
and "a great deal more people," in which expressions "a lot" and
"a gread deal" seem to modify "more," specifying a greater degree?

For what it's worth, "people" is a count noun, "much more people"
has one hundred and forty-seven MILLION (147,000,000) results on
Google. It would thus be rather surprising from a descriptive
linguistic standpoint if that turned out to be "terrible" and "unacceptable"!

Is "many more people" really so much better than "much more people"?
I would challenge anyone who asserts that it is to account for why
so many native speakers seem to have no problem whatsoever
with "much more people." Is it mass grammatical hysteria?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:05:45 PM UTC-4, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:39:13 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:00:09 AM UTC-4, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> > > > On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:

> > > > > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> > > > > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> > > > Terrible. Unacceptable.
> > > But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
> > > a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
> > > which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends." Why not
> > > accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
> > > applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
> > > nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.
> > Because "more" isn't an adjective that admits of degrees?
>
> Well, you can't say "very more" or "really more," but doesn't "more"
> seem to admit of degrees in expressions like "a lot more people"
> and "a great deal more people," in which expressions "a lot" and
> "a gread deal" seem to modify "more," specifying a greater degree?

They don't come in different count/mass versions. "a lot of bread,"
"a lot of cupcakes."

> For what it's worth, "people" is a count noun, "much more people"
> has one hundred and forty-seven MILLION (147,000,000) results on

No, it doesn't. If you start clicking through the pages, the number very
quickly falls to something more credible.

> Google. It would thus be rather surprising from a descriptive
> linguistic standpoint if that turned out to be "terrible" and "unacceptable"!

(I am not the responsible of Ken Blake's comments. That, BTW, is a bit
of Iraqi-English that an archeologist brought back in 1974, and it's cute.)

> Is "many more people" really so much better than "much more people"?

Yes. The English-speaking community says it the one way and not the other.

> I would challenge anyone who asserts that it is to account for why
> so many native speakers seem to have no problem whatsoever
> with "much more people." Is it mass grammatical hysteria?

You haven't demonstrated that they do.

[Bebercito]

No, because if "much" doesn't relate to "friends", it must, together with
"more", relate to "have" itself in "have much more friends". However,
"have" can't be intensified, but only quantified. Using an adverb that's
exclusively intensifying helps clarify that:

- *He has substantially friends: The adverbial usage is wrong, and
"many" (which is here part of the determiner) is needed.

- He has substantially more friends: OK, but can only be interpreted
as "substantially-more-friends" i.e. as part of a determiner phrase,
which, with "much" instead of "substantially" would require the
use of "many" (determiner vs "much" adverb).

>
> Thank you!

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 8:00 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>> >
>> > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
>> Terrible. Unacceptable.
>
> But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
> a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
> which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends."

No, no trouble.

> Why not
> accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
> applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
> nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.

It's nowhere near borderline to me. I'll repeat "Terrible. Unacceptable."




--
Ken

[grammarian1976]

I'll repeat: wrong; wrong.
>
>
> --
> Ken

[grammarian1976]

Take any common count noun, put "more" before it and "much" before
"more," and you will find plenty of instances, many of which will arguably
have been produced by educated native speakers of English.

> > Google. It would thus be rather surprising from a descriptive
> > linguistic standpoint if that turned out to be "terrible" and "unacceptable"!
> (I am not the responsible of Ken Blake's comments. That, BTW, is a bit
> of Iraqi-English that an archeologist brought back in 1974, and it's cute.)
> > Is "many more people" really so much better than "much more people"?
> Yes. The English-speaking community says it the one way and not the other.

I am a member of the English-speaking community, and I am OK with saying
it, reading it, and hearing it said either way. Therefore, not all of the English-
speaking community says it the one way and not the other. There is variation.

[grammarian1976]

"Substantially" is a wonderful example of an adverb that can modify
"more," Bebercito. Thank you. "Much" in "much more people" and
"much more friends" means exactly that: "substantially."

You seem to be trying to argue that "much" cannot be likened to
"substantially" in "substantially more people," "substantially more
friends." I do not follow your argument, but I'll give it some more thought.

It seems to me that the case of "substantially" and "much" here
is precisely the same from a syntactic standpoing. It also seems to me
that "many more friends" is not identical in meaning to "much more friends."

> >
> > Thank you!

[Ken Blake]

Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want to
ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer, why ask
the question?


--
Ken

[grammarian1976]

I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede fuzziness in this
area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss dismissiveness with dismissivess.

>
> --
> Ken

[Sam Plusnet]

No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an error.

"He has much more friends than I do."

It's wrong.

Not borderline, just wrong.



--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[grammarian1976]

You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I am fine with it.
Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for over a decade, teach ESL
for a living, advise nonnative speakers as a grammar--website moderator,
and have a grammar and linguistics library bigger than you can possibly imagine.

[Bebercito]

My point was that the verb "have" doesn't accept any "intensity", i.e.
you either have or don't have something. Consequently, "much
more" in "have much more friends" can only refer to friends, and
therefore be a solecism, as the grammatical form would be "have
many more friends". By contrast, "much more" followed by plural is
quite conceivable with other verbs. For instance, one could
say both "He curses much more people than she does" (which
would mean something like "He's more in the habit of
cursing people than she is") and "He curses many more people
than she does", with an obviously distinct meaning.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

That would be "He curses people much more than she does" in
any English I know about.

--
Jerry Friedman

[grammarian1976]

Very interesting, Bebercito. Thank you for clarifying. I see how you are interpreting
"He curses much more people than she does"; however, for that meaning (the
greater frequency/habit reading), I believe that "much more" must come after the
direct object ("people"): "He curses people much more than she does."


> > > >
> > > > Thank you!

[grammarian1976]

Let's approach the question from a different angle, shall we?
I feel an argument hatching in my mind. What is the opposite
of "much more"? It is "much less" or "much fewer," depending on
the case (count or noncount), right?

(1a) There is much more salt in that salt shaker than there is in this one.
(1b) There is much less salt in that sallt shaker than there is in this one.

(2a) There are much more marbles in that bag than there are in this one.
(2b) There are much fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this one.

What, therefore, are we to do about the fact that "many fewer" is also possible?

(3) There are many fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this one.
(4) How many fewer marbles are there in that bag than there are in this one?

To those of you who reject "much more marbles" and say that it must be
"many more marbles" instead, how do you propose to reconcile your position
with its being possible to say BOTH "much fewer marbles" AND "many fewer marbles."
Or do you wish to maintain that "much fewer [plural count noun]" is likewise not English?

[Peter Moylan]

On 20/10/21 18:07, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>
> (1) He has much more friends than I do.

Unacceptable.

> (2) He has many more friends than I do.

Normal.

[...]

> However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have a
> different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that,
> in "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such
> that it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does
> not violate the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.

Do you mean that in a sense something like "He doesn't have many
friends, but his friends are much more friendly than mine"?

I find it impossible to interpret (1) in that way. But I guess you could say

(1a) he has much more friendly friends than I do.

where it's now clear that the "much" modifies the adverb, not the noun.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Peter Moylan]

If he has a hundred and forty-seven million friends, you could perhaps
make a case that "friends" in this situation is a count noun. Most of
us, though, have a countable number of friends.

[Peter Moylan]

In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
"much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
with illiterates.

[grammarian1976]

Go fuck yourself.

[grammarian1976]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 20/10/21 18:07, grammarian1976 wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> >
> > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> Unacceptable.

To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?

[Snidely]

grammarian1976 scribbled something on Wednesday the 10/20/2021:

Your hat must be very expensive.

>> Not borderline, just wrong.

It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

[grammarian1976]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
> grammarian1976 scribbled something on Wednesday the 10/20/2021:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 20-Oct-21 21:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>
> >>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede fuzziness in
> >>> this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss dismissiveness with
> >>> dismissivess.
> >>>
> >> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an error.
> >> "He has much more friends than I do."
> >> It's wrong.
> >
> > You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I am fine
> > with it. Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for over a decade,
> > teach ESL for a living, advise nonnative speakers as a grammar--website
> > moderator, and have a grammar and linguistics library bigger than you can
> > possibly imagine.
> Your hat must be very expensive.
>
> >> Not borderline, just wrong.
>
> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.
>

I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer until someone responds:

To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?

[Tony Cooper]

I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does bother
me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write. To use a
wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not illiteracy.

It's rather amusing, here, that using "epicenter" wrongly raises
hackles, but "illiterate" wrongly used escapes notice.

As far as "much more friends", I wouldn't use it, I would notice it if
someone else did, but I wouldn't think it to be a particularly
grevious error in conversation. Worse, though, if written when the
person has given consideration to what is being written.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[grammarian1976]

Thanks, Tony. Since you indicate that you find "much more friends" to
be substandard, even if not illiterate, as Peter Moylan stupidly finds it,
I shall ask you the same follow-up question, which I am still waiting for
someone to notice. Perhaps someone will see the argument at work in it.

To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?

[Snidely]

grammarian1976 wrote on 10/20/2021 :
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:

>> grammarian1976 replied to ...

>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>> Not borderline, just wrong.
>>
>> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.
>>
>
> I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer until
> someone responds:
>
> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I
> do" is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I
> do"?

Yes.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

[Peter Moylan]

Sorry; of course I meant to write "a mass noun".

P.S. Did you remember to put "much more people" in quotation marks, and
then go to the last page of results? I got 60 hits on Google, which is
slightly less than 147 million.

Typical example: "Here's how much more people in Retford will pay in
council tax".

[Peter Moylan]

Much more bigger?

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Blake is right. Grammarian is wrong. They use to pay me to make that kind of decision.

bill

[Peter Moylan]

On 21/10/21 14:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:32:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
>> with illiterates.
>
> I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does bother
> me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write. To use a
> wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not illiteracy.

OK, I'll concede that I exaggerated for rhetorical effect. "Illiterate"
has many more impact than "person with poor command of English".

[Peter Moylan]

On 21/10/21 13:39, grammarian1976 wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 20/10/21 18:07, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>>>
>>> (1) He has much more friends than I do.
>> Unacceptable.
>
> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
> is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?

Yes. Although I'd be more likely to say "far fewer".

[grammarian1976]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:33:21 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/21 14:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:32:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
> > <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> >> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> >> with illiterates.
> >
> > I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does bother
> > me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write. To use a
> > wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not illiteracy.
> OK, I'll concede that I exaggerated for rhetorical effect.

You're an arrogant, condescending son of a bitch.

"Illiterate"
> has many more impact than "person with poor command of English".

"Many more impact"? Holy shit, Peter Moylan. Who's the illiterate one now?

[grammarian1976]

"Far fewer" is great, I know. So is "far more." But all of that is beside the point.
I just want you to be clear about just how much you and your buddies here
are lumping into the category of illiteracy or whatever slightly downtoned
but equally condescending and offensive category you prefer.

From Google:

"much fewer trees": 2,130
"many fewer trees": 3,040

"much fewer errors": 7,920
"many fewer errors": 11,500

"much fewer animals": 5,040
"many fewer animals": 4,020

Just how many people are you prepared to insult as being illiterate, Peter Moylan?

[grammarian1976]

When they paid you to make that kind of decision, had someone informed
you that there should be a "d" in "used to"? Blake is wrong, as are you.

>
> bill

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't doubt that you've got lots of books, but it doesn't alter the
fact that Sam (and others) are right and you are wrong. The point you
don't seem to be getting is that "many" is appropriate for countable
things and "much" for things that are not.

"He ate many more biscuits than I did."
"He had much more icecream than I did."

You might just get away with "much" with thigs that are in principle
countable but usually aren't:

"There are much more ants in my garden than there were last year."

but it still sounds odd.

>
>>
>> Not borderline, just wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sam Plusnet
>> Wales, UK

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Peter Moylan]

On 21/10/2021 18:25, grammarian1976 wrote:

>> From Google:

On the left, I've put the corrected count you get if you go to the last
page of the Google results. This is necessary because, as many
experiments have shown, the first count that Google shows you is almost
always wildly exaggerated.

164 > "much fewer trees": 2,130
171 > "many fewer trees": 3,040
>
183 > "much fewer errors": 7,920
158 > "many fewer errors": 11,500
>
131 > "much fewer animals": 5,040
160 > "many fewer animals": 4,020

That's fairly close, which doesn't surprise me. The choice between "much
fewer" and "many fewer" is less clear-cut than in the original question,
which was about "much more" vs "many more". Doing the same check for
those, I get

45 "much more trees"
219 "many more trees"

50 "much more errors"
177 "many more errors"

46 "much more animals"
160 "many more animals"

You might get different counts, because we already know that Google
gives different counts for different countries, but the overall trend
should be the same.

Unfortunately, a statistician would possibly say that in all of the
above the Google counts are too low to draw any conclusion.

In addition, the counts are not the full story. For example, when
searching for "much more trees", the first hit has a period between
"more" and "Trees". That is, "Trees" starts a new sentence. The second
hit was denied to me, because I have an ad blocker, when I tried to find
the word "much" in the text. The third hit had "We also looked at how
much more trees could help ..." which is correct by my rules. The next
hit again had a period between "more" and "Trees". I gave up at that
point, but from the Google search results I didn't see /any/ example on
the first page of results where "much" was being used instead of "many".
To find such examples, it looks as if you have to go to later pages
where there are examples from countries where English is not a majority
language.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes.

>
>> /dps
>>
>> --
>> You could try being nicer and politer
>>> instead, and see how that works out.
>> -- Katy Jennison

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-10-21 02:32:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>>> why ask the question?
>>
>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>
> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

Has _anyone_ at all agreed with him?

>
> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> with illiterates.


--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

A convincingly argued logical case. In general, when people are reduced
to childish insults it's an admission that they have no other arguments.

>
>> --
>> Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Richard Heathfield]

On 21/10/2021 12:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 02:32:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>>>> why ask the question?
>>>
>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>>
>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> Has _anyone_ at all agreed with him?

Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed with
him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of Usenet. No, I
killfiled him because he acts like an ass.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <0bad2932-1dd2-4958...@googlegroups.com>,

"I know know you are, but what am I?"

Let it be.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 21/10/2021 12:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 02:38:19 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:32:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>>>>> why ask the question?
>>>>
>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
>>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
>>> with illiterates.
>>
>> Go fuck yourself.
>
> A convincingly argued logical case.

Indeed.

> In general, when people are reduced
> to childish insults it's an admission that they have no other arguments.

I doubt very much whether he'll understand your reply.

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 12:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2021-10-21 02:38:19 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:32:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
> >>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
> >>>>> why ask the question?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> >>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
> >>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
> >>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> >>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> >>> with illiterates.
> >>
> >> Go fuck yourself.
> >
> > A convincingly argued logical case.
> Indeed.

"Go fuck yourself," and "arrogant, condescending son of a bitch" are for
Peter Moylan and ANYONE who agrees with his wildly offbase insult.
Describing me as anything less than an educated, highly literate native
speaker and member of the English speaking community is simply
incorrect, offensive, and unacceptable to me.

If you have labeled me thus, overtly or in your minds, stay the fuck out of my threads.

The logic of my case is this. Both "much more [plural count noun]" and
"much fewer [plural count noun]" are used by literate, educated native speakers
of English, even if they are not in the majority. You can confirm this by
inserting any plural count noun into those expression and Googling it and
opening your mind to the possibility there is (literate, native, educated) variation here.

It is true that "much fewer [plural count noun]" was not part of my original
question. That's because its existence -- and relevance -- came to mind after I
started defending my position. "Fewer" is used with count nouns. If "much" is used
before "fewer" in the same phrase, "much" does not take away from the fact that
the whole phrase appropriately, by means of "fewer," applies to plural count nouns.

In "much/many fewer/more [plural count noun]," there are three syntactic
positions: (1) the position occupied by the plural count noun, (2) the position
occupied by "fewer/more," and (3) the position occupied by "much/many."
The syntactic position which requires "agreement" with a countable plurality
is that occupied by "fewer/more," not that occupied by "much/many."

That explains why those of you who wish, incorrectly, to equate phrases like
"much fewer friends" and "much more friends" with an obviously ungrammatical
phrase like *"much friends" (*"He doesn't have much friends") are mistaken.
The fact that there is another word ("more" or "fewer") involved, which comes
AFTER "much" and BEFORE the plural count noun, makes all the difference in the world,
because it is that other word, not the word before it, that deals with the countability issue.

My position is, therefore, syntactically solid, no matter how many of you bash it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:19:34 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 octobre 2021 à 22:26:00 UTC+2, grammar...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:58:00 PM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:

> > > Le mercredi 20 octobre 2021 à 09:07:25 UTC+2, grammar...@gmail.com a écrit :

> > > > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> > > > (1) He has much more friends than I do.

> > > > (2) He has many more friends than I do.
> > > > I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
> > > > inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
> > > > this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
> > > > to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
> > > > to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."
> > > > As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
> > > > "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
> > > > seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
> > > > does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
> > > > not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"

> > > > However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
> > > > a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
> > > > "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
> > > > it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
> > > > the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.

> > > > Would you agree?
> > > No, because if "much" doesn't relate to "friends", it must, together with
> > > "more", relate to "have" itself in "have much more friends". However,
> > > "have" can't be intensified, but only quantified. Using an adverb that's
> > > exclusively intensifying helps clarify that:
> > > - *He has substantially friends: The adverbial usage is wrong, and
> > > "many" (which is here part of the determiner) is needed.
> > > - He has substantially more friends: OK, but can only be interpreted
> > > as "substantially-more-friends" i.e. as part of a determiner phrase,
> > > which, with "much" instead of "substantially" would require the
> > > use of "many" (determiner vs "much" adverb).
> > "Substantially" is a wonderful example of an adverb that can modify
> > "more," Bebercito. Thank you. "Much" in "much more people" and
> > "much more friends" means exactly that: "substantially."
> > You seem to be trying to argue that "much" cannot be likened to
> > "substantially" in "substantially more people," "substantially more
> > friends." I do not follow your argument, but I'll give it some more thought.
>
> My point was that the verb "have" doesn't accept any "intensity", i.e.
> you either have or don't have something. Consequently, "much
> more" in "have much more friends" can only refer to friends, and
> therefore be a solecism, as the grammatical form would be "have
> many more friends". By contrast, "much more" followed by plural is
> quite conceivable with other verbs. For instance, one could
> say both "He curses much more people than she does" (which

Maybe _you_ can, but _one_ can't.

> would mean something like "He's more in the habit of
> cursing people than she is") and "He curses many more people
> than she does", with an obviously distinct meaning.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:38:27 PM UTC-4, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:

> Let's approach the question from a different angle, shall we?
> I feel an argument hatching in my mind. What is the opposite
> of "much more"? It is "much less" or "much fewer," depending on
> the case (count or noncount), right?

No, "much less" or "many fewer." (Notwithstanding "12 items or less.")

> (1a) There is much more salt in that salt shaker than there is in this one.
> (1b) There is much less salt in that sallt shaker than there is in this one.
>
> (2a) There are much more marbles in that bag than there are in this one.
> (2b) There are much fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this one.

Absolutely not.

> What, therefore, are we to do about the fact that "many fewer" is also possible?

You may be missing the neuron that deals with count/mass.

> (3) There are many fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this one.
> (4) How many fewer marbles are there in that bag than there are in this one?
>
> To those of you who reject "much more marbles" and say that it must be
> "many more marbles" instead, how do you propose to reconcile your position
> with its being possible to say BOTH "much fewer marbles" AND "many fewer marbles."
> Or do you wish to maintain that "much fewer [plural count noun]" is likewise not English?

Yes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 10:32:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:

> >> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
> >> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
> >> why ask the question?
> > I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> > fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
> > dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>
> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> with illiterates.

Hey, don't invoke literacy!

[Tony Cooper]

I feel much the same about this as I do about "much more". I'd write
"He has far fewer friends" or simply "fewer friends" or even "a great
deal fewer".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:07:08 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed with
> him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of Usenet. No, I
> killfiled him because he acts like an ass.

Pot, kettle, black.

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> On 21/10/2021 12:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2021-10-21 02:38:19 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:32:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
> >>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
> >>>>> why ask the question?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> >>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
> >>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
> >>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> >>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> >>> with illiterates.
> >>
> >> Go fuck yourself.
> >
> > A convincingly argued logical case.
> Indeed.
> > In general, when people are reduced
> > to childish insults it's an admission that they have no other arguments.
> I doubt very much whether he'll understand your reply.

Be gone, Richard Heathfield. You are not welcome in this thread, or in any other thread of mine.

[grammarian1976]

Again (from my post before last):

The logic of my case is this. Both "much more [plural count noun]" and
"much fewer [plural count noun]" are used by literate, educated native speakers
of English, even if they are not in the majority. You can confirm this by

inserting any plural count noun into those formulae, Googling the phrase, and

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:07:08 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 12:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2021-10-21 02:32:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> >
> >> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
> >>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
> >>>> why ask the question?
> >>>
> >>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> >>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
> >>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
> >>
> >> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
> >
> > Has _anyone_ at all agreed with him?
> Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed with
> him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of Usenet. No, I
> killfiled him because he acts like an ass.

If someone will please tell me how to KILLFILE someone, I shall KILLFILE RICHARD HEATHFIELD.

[grammarian1976]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-7, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Greetings,

>
> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>
> (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> (2) He has many more friends than I do.
>
> I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
> inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
> this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
> to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
> to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."
>
> As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
> "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
> seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
> does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
> not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"
>
> However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
> a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
> "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
> it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
> the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.
>
> Would you agree?
>

> Thank you!

I don't know why I ever started this thread. I ought to have known that I would be brutalized by narrow-minded egocentrists.

[Paul Carmichael]

El Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:05:42 -0700, grammarian1976 escribió:

> Well, you can't say "very more" or "really more," but doesn't "more"
> seem to admit of degrees in expressions like...

"admit of degrees"? What does that mean?


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <5277c0d4-d6c5-4fb2...@googlegroups.com>,

You asked if people agreed. They did not. Why complain that they
answered your question? If you were prepared only to accept answers that
agreed with your opinion, then, indeed, perhaps you should not have
asked the question.

[CDB]

On 10/20/2021 10:48 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Snidely wrote:
>> grammarian1976 scribbled:
>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>> grammarian1976 wrote:

>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to
>>>>> concede fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to
>>>>> dismiss dismissiveness with dismissivess.

>>>> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other
>>>> than an error. "He has much more friends than I do." It's
>>>> wrong.

>>> You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I
>>> am fine with it. Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for
>>> over a decade, teach ESL for a living, advise nonnative speakers
>>> as a grammar--website moderator, and have a grammar and
>>> linguistics library bigger than you can possibly imagine.

"Much more friends" may be acceptable in Indian English, but it is wrong
in Standard English.

>> Your hat must be very expensive.

>>>> Not borderline, just wrong.

>> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.

> I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer
> until someone responds:

> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends
> than I do" is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer
> friends than I do"?

Yes, in standard English. Your changed version would be grammatically
correct but, because of the distracting effect of "many fewer", I would
probably say "far fewer'.

[CDB]

On 10/21/2021 3:16 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>>>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers
>>>> don't say "much more friends". If you've met someone like that,
>>>> you are mixing with illiterates.

>>> I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does
>>> bother me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write.
>>> To use a wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not
>>> illiteracy.
>> OK, I'll concede that I exaggerated for rhetorical effect.

> You're an arrogant, condescending son of a bitch.

> "Illiterate"
>> has many more impact than "person with poor command of English".

> "Many more impact"? Holy shit, Peter Moylan. Who's the illiterate one
> now?

Peter was mocking you. You can't seriously complain about it, after the
things you have said to him.

[CDB]

On 10/20/2021 8:38 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> grammarian1976 wrote:
>> Greetings,

>> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?

>> (1) He has much more friends than I do. (2) He has many more
>> friends than I do.

>> I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
>> inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
>> this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite
>> incorrect to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I
>> don't seem to have a problem with with "much more
>> friends/magazines."

>> As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just
>> as "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why
>> "many" seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more
>> friends does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but
>> perhaps not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends
>> does he have?"

>> However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have a
>> different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that,
>> in "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such
>> that it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does
>> not violate the rule that we are not to use "much" with count
>> nouns.

>> Would you agree?

>> Thank you!

> Let's approach the question from a different angle, shall we? I feel
> an argument hatching in my mind. What is the opposite of "much more"?
> It is "much less" or "much fewer," depending on the case (count or
> noncount), right?

> (1a) There is much more salt in that salt shaker than there is in
> this one. (1b) There is much less salt in that sallt shaker than
> there is in this one.

> (2a) There are much more marbles in that bag than there are in this
> one. (2b) There are much fewer marbles in that bag than there are in
> this one.

> What, therefore, are we to do about the fact that "many fewer" is
> also possible?

> (3) There are many fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this
> one. (4) How many fewer marbles are there in that bag than there are
> in this one?

> To those of you who reject "much more marbles" and say that it must
> be "many more marbles" instead, how do you propose to reconcile your
> position with its being possible to say BOTH "much fewer marbles" AND
> "many fewer marbles." Or do you wish to maintain that "much fewer
> [plural count noun]" is likewise not English?

I do. It is not correct standard English.

[Bebercito]

Le jeudi 21 octobre 2021 à 02:26:21 UTC+2, grammar...@gmail.com a écrit :

> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 5:19:34 PM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 20 octobre 2021 à 22:26:00 UTC+2, grammar...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:58:00 PM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 20 octobre 2021 à 09:07:25 UTC+2, grammar...@gmail.com a écrit :

> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> > > > > (2) He has many more friends than I do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
> > > > > inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
> > > > > this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
> > > > > to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
> > > > > to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."
> > > > >
> > > > > As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
> > > > > "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
> > > > > seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
> > > > > does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
> > > > > not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"
> > > > >
> > > > > However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
> > > > > a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
> > > > > "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
> > > > > it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
> > > > > the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you agree?

> > > > No, because if "much" doesn't relate to "friends", it must, together with
> > > > "more", relate to "have" itself in "have much more friends". However,
> > > > "have" can't be intensified, but only quantified. Using an adverb that's
> > > > exclusively intensifying helps clarify that:
> > > >
> > > > - *He has substantially friends: The adverbial usage is wrong, and
> > > > "many" (which is here part of the determiner) is needed.
> > > >
> > > > - He has substantially more friends: OK, but can only be interpreted
> > > > as "substantially-more-friends" i.e. as part of a determiner phrase,
> > > > which, with "much" instead of "substantially" would require the
> > > > use of "many" (determiner vs "much" adverb).
> > > >
> > > "Substantially" is a wonderful example of an adverb that can modify
> > > "more," Bebercito. Thank you. "Much" in "much more people" and
> > > "much more friends" means exactly that: "substantially."
> > >
> > > You seem to be trying to argue that "much" cannot be likened to
> > > "substantially" in "substantially more people," "substantially more
> > > friends." I do not follow your argument, but I'll give it some more thought.
> > >
> > My point was that the verb "have" doesn't accept any "intensity", i.e.
> > you either have or don't have something. Consequently, "much
> > more" in "have much more friends" can only refer to friends, and
> > therefore be a solecism, as the grammatical form would be "have
> > many more friends". By contrast, "much more" followed by plural is
> > quite conceivable with other verbs. For instance, one could
> > say both "He curses much more people than she does" (which

> > would mean something like "He's more in the habit of
> > cursing people than she is") and "He curses many more people
> > than she does", with an obviously distinct meaning.

> > > It seems to me that the case of "substantially" and "much" here
> > > is precisely the same from a syntactic standpoing. It also seems to me
> > > that "many more friends" is not identical in meaning to "much more friends."
> > >
> Very interesting, Bebercito. Thank you for clarifying. I see how you are interpreting
> "He curses much more people than she does"; however, for that meaning (the
> greater frequency/habit reading), I believe that "much more" must come after the
> direct object ("people"): "He curses people much more than she does."

Indeed, my mistake. Thank you and Jerry for the correction.

>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It seems that you know as little about Usenet as you do about English
usage. Threads do not belong to people. Once you've started one anyone
who wishes can contribute to it.

>
>> --
>> Richard Heathfield
>> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
>> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
>> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Bebercito]

Doesn't that word rather "evade" the countability issue by relating only to "more"
and ignoring the noun that follows as you've explained upthread - since, if it actually
"dealt" with it, the same could apply the other way around and phrases like "many less
butter" would be possible.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 10/20/21 4:36 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 20-Oct-21 21:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:

>>> On 10/20/2021 1:20 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2021 8:00 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:

>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) He has much more friends than I do.

>>>>>>> Terrible. Unacceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
>>>>>> a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
>>>>>> which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends."
>>>>> No, no trouble.
>>>>>> Why not
>>>>>> accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
>>>>>> applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
>>>>>> nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.
>>>>> It's nowhere near borderline to me. I'll repeat "Terrible.
>>>>> Unacceptable."
>>>>>
>>>> I'll repeat: wrong; wrong.

>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want to
>>> ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer, why ask
>>> the question?
>>>
>>
>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>> fuzziness in this
>> area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss dismissiveness with
>> dismissivess.
>>
>

> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an
> error.
>

> "He has much more friends than I do."
>

> It's wrong.
>
> Not borderline, just wrong.

I hear such things--one I remember is "We didn't see too much
birds"--and you can find them on line. But I certainly would recommend
that ESL students avoid them.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 10/20/21 8:48 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
>> grammarian1976 scribbled something on Wednesday the 10/20/2021:

>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 20-Oct-21 21:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede fuzziness in
>>>>> this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss dismissiveness with
>>>>> dismissivess.
>>>>>
>>>> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an error.
>>>> "He has much more friends than I do."
>>>> It's wrong.
>>>

>>> You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I am fine
>>> with it. Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for over a decade,
>>> teach ESL for a living, advise nonnative speakers as a grammar--website
>>> moderator, and have a grammar and linguistics library bigger than you can
>>> possibly imagine.

>> Your hat must be very expensive.
>>
>>>> Not borderline, just wrong.
>>
>> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.
>>
>
> I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer until someone responds:
>
> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
> is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?

...

I'd change it to "far fewer".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-10-21 13:08:36 +0000, grammarian1976 said:

> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:07:08 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 12:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 02:32:54 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>>
>>>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>>>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>>>>>> why ask the question?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>>>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>>>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> Has _anyone_ at all agreed with him?
>> Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed with
>> him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of Usenet. No, I
>> killfiled him because he acts like an ass.
>
> If someone will please tell me how to KILLFILE someone, I shall
> KILLFILE RICHARD HEATHFIELD.

As you seem to be a Google groper the answer is that you can't. If you
use a proper newsreader it probably provides a mechanism. If I wanted
to killfile you I'd select Ignore Sender in the Message menu, but
different newsreaders have different mechanisms.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-10-21 13:18:10 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:

> El Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:05:42 -0700, grammarian1976 escribió:
>
>> Well, you can't say "very more" or "really more," but doesn't "more"
>> seem to admit of degrees in expressions like...
>
> "admit of degrees"? What does that mean?

As you're here, Paul, I wonder if you have the same impression that I
have that grammarian1976 is confusing English "much" with Spanish
"mucho", which can indeed correspond to both "many" and "much". As he
has a vast linguistics library to compete with the Bodleian it may be
that he has read something about it. Incidentally, although "much" and
"mucho" have similar spellings and meanings they are apparently not
cognates (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate).

[Bebercito]

Le jeudi 21 octobre 2021 à 16:17:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2021-10-21 13:18:10 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:
>
> > El Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:05:42 -0700, grammarian1976 escribió:
> >
> >> Well, you can't say "very more" or "really more," but doesn't "more"
> >> seem to admit of degrees in expressions like...
> >
> > "admit of degrees"? What does that mean?
> As you're here, Paul, I wonder if you have the same impression that I
> have that grammarian1976 is confusing English "much" with Spanish
> "mucho", which can indeed correspond to both "many" and "much".

Hmmm, not really - how about "muchos" and "muchas"?

> As he
> has a vast linguistics library to compete with the Bodleian it may be
> that he has read something about it. Incidentally, although "much" and
> "mucho" have similar spellings and meanings they are apparently not
> cognates (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate).

It seems the same discussion could arise in Spanish, as a number of
instances of "*mucho más amigos" (vs "muchos más amigos") can be
found in the wild.

[Richard Heathfield]

I don't think he knows very much about human nature, either.

[Madhu]

* Richard Heathfield <skrhkn$um5$1 @ dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:07:02 +0100:

> Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed with
> him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of Usenet. No,
> I killfiled him because he acts like an ass.

Just to let you all know I've killfiled RJH because of his incessant
killfile announcements.

[Madhu]

* CDB <skrps9$bd1$1 @ gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:27:31 -0400:

> "Much more friends" may be acceptable in Indian English, but it is wrong
> in Standard English.

I'm not sure that it's acceptable.

Now "He has muchos more friends than I do" is hip.
Would you say that is standard english (for a sentence which includes
a foreign word)

[CDB]

On 10/21/2021 8:43 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> grammarian1976 said
>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>>> grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Blake wrote:

>>>>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if
>>>>>>> you want to ignore my message. But if you think you
>>>>>>> already know the answer, why ask the question?

>>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to
>>>>>> concede fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared
>>>>>> to dismiss dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>>>>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers
>>>>> don't say "much more friends". If you've met someone like
>>>>> that, you are mixing with illiterates.

>>>> Go fuck yourself.

>>> A convincingly argued logical case.
>> Indeed.

> "Go fuck yourself," and "arrogant, condescending son of a bitch" are
> for Peter Moylan and ANYONE who agrees with his wildly offbase
> insult. Describing me as anything less than an educated, highly
> literate native speaker and member of the English speaking community
> is simply incorrect, offensive, and unacceptable to me.

I don't recall that Peter called you anything insulting. He said that,
if you had found people who used "nuch fewer" and thought it was
correct, you must have been talking to illiterates. I would have
changed that to "people who don't speak standard English"; he later
admitted that he had been exaggerating.

> If you have labeled me thus, overtly or in your minds, stay the fuck
> out of my threads.

This thread, like all the others here, belong to the group. "Labelled
you in our minds"? You seem a little overwrought.

[...]

--
The best defence is a good attack.

[Adam Funk]

Out west near Hawtch-Hawtch there's a Hawtch-Hawtcher bee watcher, his
job is to watch. Is to keep both his eyes on the lazy town bee, a bee
that is watched will work harder you see. So he watched and he
watched, but in spite of his watch that bee didn't work any harder not
mawtch. So then somebody said "Our old bee-watching man just isn't bee
watching as hard as he can, he ought to be watched by another
Hawtch-Hawtcher! The thing that we need is a
bee-watcher-watcher!". Well, the bee-watcher-watcher watched the
bee-watcher. He didn't watch well so another Hawtch-Hawtcher had to
come in as a watch-watcher-watcher! And now all the Hawtchers who live
in Hawtch-Hawtch are watching on watch watcher watchering watch, watch
watching the watcher who's watching that bee.

(Dr Seuss)


--
I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe

[CDB]

On 10/21/2021 9:08 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>>> Peter Moylan said:

>>>> grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>>> Ken Blake wrote:

>>>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you
>>>>>> want to ignore my message. But if you think you already
>>>>>> know the answer, why ask the question?

>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to
>>>>> concede fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to
>>>>> dismiss dismissiveness with dismissivess.

>>>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

>>> Has _anyone_ at all agreed with him?
>> Not that I've seen. But I didn't killfile him because I disagreed
>> with him. Disagreement is fine by me, and indeed the essence of
>> Usenet. No, I killfiled him because he acts like an ass.

> If someone will please tell me how to KILLFILE someone, I shall
> KILLFILE RICHARD HEATHFIELD.

I have a killfile, but I don't use it. In some cases, like strings of
racist exchanges between two frequent contributors, I select a response
and then move on to the next one without reading any content. I find
that works just as well, although it doesn't lend itself to dramatic
announcements.

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 11:15 PM, Snidely wrote:

> grammarian1976 wrote on 10/20/2021 :
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:44:39 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:

>>> grammarian1976 replied to ...

>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>>>> Not borderline, just wrong.
>>>
>>> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.
>>>
>>
>> I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer until
>> someone responds:
>>
>> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I
>> do" is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I
>> do"?
>

> Yes.


Ditto.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

I would too, but "many" is acceptable to me.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 11:28 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 21/10/21 11:14, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 3:36:08 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an error.
>>> "He has much more friends than I do."
>>> It's wrong.
>>
>> You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I am fine with it.
>> Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for over a decade, teach ESL
>> for a living, advise nonnative speakers as a grammar--website moderator,
>> and have a grammar and linguistics library bigger than you can possibly imagine.
>

> Much more bigger?



LOL.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/21/2021 5:43 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 12:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> > On 2021-10-21 02:38:19 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
>> >
>> >> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:32:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:

>> >>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>> >>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>> >>>>> why ask the question?
>> >>>>

>> >>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>> >>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>> >>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.

>> >>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>> >>>

>> >>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
>> >>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
>> >>> with illiterates.
>> >>
>> >> Go fuck yourself.
>> >
>> > A convincingly argued logical case.
>> Indeed.
>
> "Go fuck yourself," and "arrogant, condescending son of a bitch" are for
> Peter Moylan and ANYONE who agrees with his wildly offbase insult.
> Describing me as anything less than an educated, highly literate native
> speaker and member of the English speaking community is simply
> incorrect, offensive, and unacceptable to me.

You left out "asshole."

> If you have labeled me thus, overtly or in your minds, stay the fuck out of my threads.

--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 11:33 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/21 14:46, Tony Cooper wrote:

>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:32:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
>>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
>>> with illiterates.
>>

>> I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does bother
>> me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write. To use a
>> wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not illiteracy.
>

> OK, I'll concede that I exaggerated for rhetorical effect. "Illiterate"

> has many more impact than "person with poor command of English".

He will undoubtedly miss the point of why you wrote "many more impact."


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

Yes, to everything in that paragraph. Moreover, he is not someone I'd
want to help with anything.

I've disagreed with points he's made many times in the past, but that's
OK. I don't think there's anyone here with whom I agree all the time,
and I don't killfile or even dislike someone because we don't agree on
everything. However this is the first thread in which I've been him
acting like a complete asshole.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

Ditto.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 11:35 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/21 13:39, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> On 20/10/21 18:07, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> (1) He has much more friends than I do.

>>> Unacceptable.

>>
>> To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends than I do"
>> is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer friends than I do"?
>

> Yes. Although I'd be more likely to say "far fewer".


Ditto.

--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/20/2021 11:25 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/21 13:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 21/10/21 06:05, grammarian1976 wrote:
>
>>> For what it's worth, "people" is a count noun, "much more people" has
>>> one hundred and forty-seven MILLION (147,000,000) results on Google.
>>> It would thus be rather surprising from a descriptive linguistic
>>> standpoint if that turned out to be "terrible" and "unacceptable"!
>>
>> If he has a hundred and forty-seven million friends, you could perhaps
>> make a case that "friends" in this situation is a count noun. Most of
>> us, though, have a countable number of friends.
>
> Sorry; of course I meant to write "a mass noun".
>
> P.S. Did you remember to put "much more people" in quotation marks, and
> then go to the last page of results? I got 60 hits on Google, which is
> slightly less than 147 million.
>
> Typical example: "Here's how much more people in Retford will pay in
> council tax".


Excellent example, pointing out out that "much more" applies to "people
will pay," not to "people."

I explained that since it's unlikely that he would otherwise understand it.

I'm now awaiting a reply from him, telling me to go fuck myself.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/21/2021 12:56 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:28:43 PM UTC-7, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:

>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:20:33 PM UTC-7, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>> > > On 10/20/2021 8:00 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:

>> > > >> On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> > > >> > Greetings,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > (1) He has much more friends than I do.

>> > > >> Terrible. Unacceptable.
>> > > >
>> > > > But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
>> > > > a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
>> > > > which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends."
>> > > No, no trouble.
>> > > > Why not
>> > > > accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
>> > > > applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
>> > > > nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.
>> > > It's nowhere near borderline to me. I'll repeat "Terrible. Unacceptable."
>> > >
>> > I'll repeat: wrong; wrong.
>> > >

>> Blake is right. Grammarian is wrong. They use to pay me to make that kind of decision.
>
> When they paid you to make that kind of decision, had someone informed
> you that there should be a "d" in "used to"? Blake is wrong, as are you.


...and as *everybody* else here is, according to you.

Don't forget to point out everybody else's typos, especially mine. I'm a
terrible typist and very prone to making typos.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 10/21/2021 6:26 AM, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <5277c0d4-d6c5-4fb2...@googlegroups.com>,
> grammarian1976 <grammar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:07:25 AM UTC-7, grammarian1976 wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
>> >
>> > (1) He has much more friends than I do.

>> > (2) He has many more friends than I do.
>> >
>> > I find them both acceptable, but I hesitate to tell that to an
>> > inquiring ESL student, or at least to represent my opinion about
>> > this as fact. While I recognize and hear that it is quite incorrect
>> > to speak of having *"much friends/magazines," etc., I don't seem
>> > to have a problem with with "much more friends/magazines."
>> >
>> > As I see it, "many" in "many more friends" is a quantifier, just as
>> > "five" is in "five more friends." And that would explain why "many"
>> > seems to be necessary in a question like "How many more friends
>> > does he have?" It seems to me that it is ungrammatical (but perhaps
>> > not crashingly so) to say, e.g., *"How much more friends does he have?"
>> >
>> > However, "much" in "much more friends" seems to me to have
>> > a different role from "many" in "many more friends." I believe that, in
>> > "much more friends," "much" intensifies "more" adverbially, such that
>> > it does not directly relate to "friends" at all, and thus does not violate
>> > the rule that we are not to use "much" with count nouns.
>> >
>> > Would you agree?
>> >
>> > Thank you!
>>

>> I don't know why I ever started this thread. I ought to have known that I
>> would be brutalized by narrow-minded egocentrists.
>
> You asked if people agreed. They did not. Why complain that they
> answered your question? If you were prepared only to accept answers that
> agreed with your opinion, then, indeed, perhaps you should not have
> asked the question.



Yes, as I essentially said in this thread yesterday.


--
Ken

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:36:18 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 8:38 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:

> > Let's approach the question from a different angle, shall we? I feel
> > an argument hatching in my mind. What is the opposite of "much more"?
> > It is "much less" or "much fewer," depending on the case (count or
> > noncount), right?
> > (1a) There is much more salt in that salt shaker than there is in
> > this one. (1b) There is much less salt in that sallt shaker than
> > there is in this one.
>
> > (2a) There are much more marbles in that bag than there are in this
> > one. (2b) There are much fewer marbles in that bag than there are in
> > this one.
> > What, therefore, are we to do about the fact that "many fewer" is
> > also possible?
> > (3) There are many fewer marbles in that bag than there are in this
> > one. (4) How many fewer marbles are there in that bag than there are
> > in this one?
>
> > To those of you who reject "much more marbles" and say that it must
> > be "many more marbles" instead, how do you propose to reconcile your
> > position with its being possible to say BOTH "much fewer marbles" AND
> > "many fewer marbles." Or do you wish to maintain that "much fewer
> > [plural count noun]" is likewise not English?
> I do. It is not correct standard English.

Says who? Who appointed you judge of what is or is not standard English?

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 6:27:41 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 10:48 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> > Snidely wrote:
> >> grammarian1976 scribbled:
> >>> Sam Plusnet wrote:

> >>>> grammarian1976 wrote:
>
> >>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to
> >>>>> concede fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to
> >>>>> dismiss dismissiveness with dismissivess.

> >>>> No native English speaker would accept this as anything other
> >>>> than an error. "He has much more friends than I do." It's
> >>>> wrong.
>
> >>> You're wrong in saying that. Period. I am a native speaker, and I
> >>> am fine with it. Moreover, I have studied grammar intensively for
> >>> over a decade, teach ESL for a living, advise nonnative speakers
> >>> as a grammar--website moderator, and have a grammar and
> >>> linguistics library bigger than you can possibly imagine.

> "Much more friends" may be acceptable in Indian English, but it is wrong
> in Standard English.

I don't speak Indian English. What are you talking about? I am a native speaker
of American English. I am a college fucking professor, too.

> >> Your hat must be very expensive.
>
> >>>> Not borderline, just wrong.
>
> >> It certainly seems wrong on the Left Coast.
>
> > I'll ask you the same question that I shall now ask every naysayer
> > until someone responds:

> > To be consistent, would you also say that "He has much fewer friends
> > than I do" is unacceptable and must be changed to "He has many fewer
> > friends than I do"?

> Yes, in standard English. Your changed version would be grammatically
> correct but, because of the distracting effect of "many fewer", I would
> probably say "far fewer'.

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:05:26 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 13:00:41 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
>

> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 21/10/2021 12:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>> On 2021-10-21 02:38:19 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
> >>>

> >>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:32:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
> >>>>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
> >>>>>>> why ask the question?
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> >>>>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
> >>>>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.

> >>>>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
> >>>>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
> >>>>> with illiterates.
> >>>>

> >>>> Go fuck yourself.
> >>>
> >>> A convincingly argued logical case.
> >> Indeed.

> >>> In general, when people are reduced
> >>> to childish insults it's an admission that they have no other arguments.
> >> I doubt very much whether he'll understand your reply.
> >
> > Be gone, Richard Heathfield. You are not welcome in this thread, or in
> > any other thread of mine.
> It seems that you know as little about Usenet as you do about English
> usage.

Hey, Athel, why don't you cram your head up your ass for me?

Threads do not belong to people. Once you've started one anyone
> who wishes can contribute to it.
> >

> >> --
> >> Richard Heathfield
> >> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> >> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> >> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[grammarian1976]

Is Mr. Killfile still talking?

[grammarian1976]

Amen, Madhu.

[grammarian1976]

Peter Moylan got my blood boilin'.

[grammarian1976]

No, I caught it instantly, you fucking asshole.
>
> --
> Ken

[grammarian1976]

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:07:12 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 10/20/21 4:36 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 20-Oct-21 21:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>> On 10/20/2021 1:20 PM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/20/2021 8:00 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:

> >>>>>>> On 10/20/2021 12:07 AM, grammarian1976 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is it just me, or are the sentences below not both acceptable?
> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> (1) He has much more friends than I do.
> >>>>>>> Terrible. Unacceptable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But surely none of you has any trouble whatsoever with
> >>>>>> a sentence like "He has much nicer friends than you," in
> >>>>>> which "much" applies to "nicer," not to "friends."
> >>>>> No, no trouble.
> >>>>>> Why not
> >>>>>> accept that "more" can likewise apply to "more" without
> >>>>>> applying to "friends." I maintain that (1) is neither terrible
> >>>>>> nor unacceptable. If it is wrong, it is but a borderline case.
> >>>>> It's nowhere near borderline to me. I'll repeat "Terrible.
> >>>>> Unacceptable."
> >>>>>
> >>>> I'll repeat: wrong; wrong.

> >>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want to
> >>> ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer, why ask
> >>> the question?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
> >> fuzziness in this
> >> area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss dismissiveness with
> >> dismissivess.
> >>
> >

> > No native English speaker would accept this as anything other than an
> > error.
> >
> > "He has much more friends than I do."
> >
> > It's wrong.
> >

> > Not borderline, just wrong.
>
> I hear such things--one I remember is "We didn't see too much
> birds"--and you can find them on line. But I certainly would recommend
> that ESL students avoid them.
>

The problem with trying to equate "much more birds" to the badness of
*"much birds" is that a word comes in between, and that word makes all
the difference in the world, because "much" relates to "more," not to "birds."
It's the same thing as saying "substantially more birds." With "many more
birds," there is the sense they are more by a specific quantity. "Much more
birds" has an indefinite quality; "many more birds" has a definite quality.
Since people say both -- people who would NOT say "much birds" -- I fail
to see why ESL learners should not be informed that "much more birds,"
though they might be informed that the construction is controversial among
native speakers, some of whom believe it not to be standard.

> --
> Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21-Oct-21 15:05, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 13:00:41 +0000, grammarian1976 said:
>
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:09:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield

>> Be gone, Richard Heathfield. You are not welcome in this thread, or in
>> any other thread of mine.
>
> It seems that you know as little about Usenet as you do about English
> usage. Threads do not belong to people. Once you've started one anyone
> who wishes can contribute to it.

Indeed.
"Ownership" of a thread ends at the very instant you hit "SEND".



--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21-Oct-21 4:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:32:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>

>> On 21/10/21 07:44, grammarian1976 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>>> Feel free to believe whatever you want. I don't care if you want
>>>> to ignore my message. But if you think you already know the answer,
>>>> why ask the question?
>>>
>>> I'm seeking confirmation, or at least a willingness to concede
>>> fuzziness in this area of grammar. I came prepared to dismiss
>>> dismissiveness with dismissivess.
>>

>> In other words, you'll ignore anyone who disagrees with you.
>>

>> That doesn't change the fact that real-life English speakers don't say
>> "much more friends". If you've met someone like that, you are mixing
>> with illiterates.
>
> I'm not fussy about language, but that use of "illiterate" does bother
> me. To me, someone who is illiterate cannot read or write. To use a
> wrong word, poor grammar, or imprecise syntax is not illiteracy.
>

> It's rather amusing, here, that using "epicenter" wrongly raises
> hackles, but "illiterate" wrongly used escapes notice.
>
> As far as "much more friends", I wouldn't use it, I would notice it if
> someone else did, but I wouldn't think it to be a particularly
> grevious error in conversation. Worse, though, if written when the
> person has given consideration to what is being written.
>
But here we seem to have someone who apparently teaches ESL and
evidently imposes their opinions on the students as 'good English'.

If they try to impose these ideas upon aue, the poor students cannot
possibly escape this mistreatment.

[Ken Blake]

On 10/21/2021 9:52 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> (This article discusses some vulgar word usage!)

>
> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> writes:
>>I'm now awaiting a reply from him, telling me to go

> [F-word]


You misquoted me. I didn't say [F-word]. I said "fuck."

I don't know what f-word you're talking about. If you mean "fuck," you
should say "fuck."



>>myself.
>
> BTW: I was wondering recently about the origins of this
> expression, "f--- you[rself]!".


I've never seen or heard "f--- you[rself]!".

I've had a longstanding theory about "fuck you," and many other similar
insulting terms. I think it refers to anal intercourse, and probably
originated either in prisons or ships where there were only men. It
refers to anal intercourse.


"Go fuck yourself" refers to self-administered anal intercourse,
presumably by someone with a very long penis.



> The origin is not obvious, as a web pages says
> (some words replace with "f---" by me):
>
> |why does no one have a clear sense of what, exactly, F--- you
> |means?



No one? I do. I can't be sure I'm right, of course, but I think I'm very
likely to be right.

I have a long list I've made of coarse insulting terms that fall into
this category. I can post it here if anyone's interested, but for now,
I'll mention just two: "shove it up your ass" and "you're full of shit."



> (Some people guess "f--- yourself," others "get
> |f---ed," and still others "I will f--- you," but none of
> |these hunches is compelling
>
> . Here's my idea: "to f---" can mean something like
> "to fool"/"to abuse". So, when one has the impression
> that someone wants to to fool/abuse him, he could answer:
> "You wont fool me, so why not go and fool yourself!", so
> "You wont f--- me, so why not go and f--- yourself!".
>
> This later might have been abbreviated to just
> "f--- yourself", and finally to just "f--- you".


Do you have some strange problem with spelling out "fuck"? Messages
written your way just look silly and childish.


--
Ken

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21-Oct-21 14:08, grammarian1976 wrote:

> If someone will please tell me how to KILLFILE someone, I shall KILLFILE RICHARD HEATHFIELD.

The method varies from one usenet client to another, but in general you
should locate the newsgroup

alt.usage.english

and click on "Unsubscribe".

That should do the trick.