One less or one fewer?
Catch 23
"less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
chocolate.
What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
I ran a query in COCA. "one fewer" occurs 60 times, but "one less"
occurs 364 times. I know, that doesn't make it right, but...
Donna Richoux
> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and
> "less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
> chocolate.
>
> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>
> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
> sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
I would say "one day less." I would be unsurprised by "one day fewer."
Definitely "one dollar less."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
Jeffrey Turner
> Catch 23<cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and
>> "less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
>> chocolate.
>>
>> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>>
>> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
>> sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
>
> I would say "one day less." I would be unsurprised by "one day fewer."
> Definitely "one dollar less."
"One less bell to answer, one less egg to fry..."
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
annily
> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and
> "less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
> chocolate.
>
> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>
> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
> sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
>
I would never say "one fewer day", either "one less day" or "one day less".
---
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
Frank ess
annily wrote:
> Catch 23 wrote:
>> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and
>> "less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
>> chocolate.
>>
>> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>>
>> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
>> sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
>>
>
> I would never say "one fewer day", either "one less day" or "one
> day less".
>
I might say, "One day fewer than the expected one hundred."
--
Frank ess
mm
wrote:
One day lsss. You may be able to count the days but you can also
divide them into eeny bitzy pieces.
Four galons less. Thirty dollars less.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
annily
Hmm, I don't think I would.
--
Sproz
> Frank ess wrote:
>
> > annily wrote:
> >> Catch 23 wrote:
> >>> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and
> >>> "less" refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less
> >>> chocolate.
>
> >>> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>
> >>> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure
> >>> sounds weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
>
> >> I would never say "one fewer day", either "one less day" or "one
> >> day less".
>
> > I might say, "One day fewer than the expected one hundred."
>
> Hmm, I don't think I would.
>
duration. However, a day can also mean a discrete quantity, as
demarcated on a calendar, measured from midnight to midnight, or as
part of some typical daily cycle. It's then reasonably common to use
"fewer" - I'd definitely say "there are fewer days in April than
March", and a quick google turns up lots of stories about people
taking "fewer sick days" during the recession.
Whatever the case, if you're specifying the number you should put
"fewer/less" after the quantity, not before;
"there are fewer days in April than March", but;
"there is one day fewer in April than in March".
All this is with the caveat that most people use "less"
indiscriminately, and never say "fewer" at all!
Mark
bob
The trouble with "day" (or week, month or year), is that it can be
considered to be a measurement of a continuous property (time), or it
can be considered to be a discrete item (an event, with a beginning,
middle and end). Consider the following:
Due to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in Britain, the year
1752 contained 11 days fewer than a normal year.
The eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull lasted for 6
days, 2 days less than the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
In the first case, a calendar year contains a fixed number of
individual days, where each day is regraded as an indpendent event.
The period over which a volcanic eruption occurs is a continuous
period of time, where "day" is being used as a measure of this. It
would be equally (linguistically) valid to say "the eruption ...
lasted 2 and a half days less than ...", while it is not possible for
a calendar year to contain a fractional day.
Robin
annily
I would still use "less" in your last example. I simply think "one" with
"fewer" always sounds wrong.
Catch 23
wrote:
That's the point that I was originally trying to make. Even though
"fewer" is correct for countable quantities, it feels odd when the
actual number is mentioned, especially if that number is "one".
annily
I don't have a problem with it for numbers other than one. Where does
your concept of "fewer" being "correct for countable quantities" come
from? For me it's always been a case of singular (less) vs plural (fewer).
Peter Moylan
> Catch 23 wrote:
>> That's the point that I was originally trying to make. Even though
>> "fewer" is correct for countable quantities, it feels odd when the
>> actual number is mentioned, especially if that number is "one".
>
> I don't have a problem with it for numbers other than one. Where does
> your concept of "fewer" being "correct for countable quantities" come
> from? For me it's always been a case of singular (less) vs plural (fewer).
For me it's always been a matter of count vs mass nouns. Less sugar,
less water, less money, but fewer apples.
"Twelve items or fewer" means that the person behind you can count the
things in your basket, and kick you out of line if there are more than
twelve things. (With some exceptions. For example, a dozen eggs counts
as only one item.)
"Twelve items or less" means that you can have as many items as you
like, provided that they're small enough that the total mass (or volume,
or whatever unspecified quality was in the store manager's mind) comes
to less than someone else's twelve items.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> For example, a dozen eggs counts as only one item.
It still pays to count, though. I've only recently noticed that some
sneaky vendors have re-designed the egg cartons so that there are only
ten eggs in a dozen. There are probably plenty of people who haven't yet
noticed that.
Sproz
wrote:
> annily wrote:
> > Catch 23 wrote:
> >> That's the point that I was originally trying to make. Even though
> >> "fewer" is correct for countable quantities, it feels odd when the
> >> actual number is mentioned, especially if that number is "one".
>
> > I don't have a problem with it for numbers other than one. Where does
> > your concept of "fewer" being "correct for countable quantities" come
> > from? For me it's always been a case of singular (less) vs plural (fewer).
>
> For me it's always been a matter of count vs mass nouns. Less sugar,
> less water, less money, but fewer apples.
As it has for me, but on reading around I discover this widely
observed rule about "one less" that I'd never really considered
before. Merriam Webster suggests that the rule of countable/
uncountable applies only when deciding whether to use "fewer", and
that "less" can apply in either case, though all the examples cited
fall into the category of time or measurement discussed above. Then it
goes on to say "And of course [less] follows one" without further
explanation.
Maybe there is no explanation other than that it sounds funny to use
fewer in some cases?!
Mark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> For me it's always been a matter of count vs mass nouns. Less sugar,
> less water, less money, but fewer apples.
A similar discussion pops up once in a while in the Danish
laguage group. We also have two sets of words for comparing
masses/items. Put simply "less" is always correct, while "fewer"
sometimes may be chosen (not strictly true but almost).
Also in Danish a minority insists that only "fewer" is correct in
connection with countable items, but not many respect this, and I
doubt that they do themselves if caught unaware.
Sidestory:
In some Danish dialects the word "jeg" (means "I") is pronounced
"a". The common pronunciation is "yai" (homemade English phonetic
notation). A survey was once performed where somebody wanted to
know how common the a-pronunciation was, so a surveyer visited
people all over the country and asked them. He met a Jutlandish
farmer's wife working in the field:
Siger du "jeg" eller "a"?
A sayer "jeg".
--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Catch 23 wrote:
>
>>> That's the point that I was originally trying to make. Even though
>>> "fewer" is correct for countable quantities, it feels odd when the
>>> actual number is mentioned, especially if that number is "one".
>> I don't have a problem with it for numbers other than one. Where does
>> your concept of "fewer" being "correct for countable quantities" come
>> from? For me it's always been a case of singular (less) vs plural (fewer).
>
> For me it's always been a matter of count vs mass nouns. Less sugar,
> less water, less money, but fewer apples.
>
But those examples also follow my "singular vs plural" rule.
> "Twelve items or fewer" means that the person behind you can count the
> things in your basket, and kick you out of line if there are more than
> twelve things. (With some exceptions. For example, a dozen eggs counts
> as only one item.)
>
> "Twelve items or less" means that you can have as many items as you
> like, provided that they're small enough that the total mass (or volume,
> or whatever unspecified quality was in the store manager's mind) comes
> to less than someone else's twelve items.
>
To me, they would mean exactly the same thing, because I don't think
that whoever designs such signs would be as hair-splitting as you.
annily
Oh, and neither would the great majority of English-speaking people.
BTW, have you ever seen a supermarket sign with "n items or fewer"? I
don't think I have. They all say "n items or less", which clearly means
that the number of items (x) should be satisfy "x <= n".
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Oh, and neither would the great majority of English-speaking people.
> BTW, have you ever seen a supermarket sign with "n items or fewer"? I
> don't think I have. They all say "n items or less", which clearly means
> that the number of items (x) should be satisfy "x <= n".
A Danish supermarket chain has a nice sign. Over each queue to
the tills is a sign saying:
Quick line
Only customers with less than 1000 items.
Peter Moylan
> Sidestory:
>
> In some Danish dialects the word "jeg" (means "I") is pronounced
> "a". The common pronunciation is "yai" (homemade English phonetic
> notation). A survey was once performed where somebody wanted to
> know how common the a-pronunciation was, so a surveyer visited
> people all over the country and asked them. He met a Jutlandish
> farmer's wife working in the field:
>
> Siger du "jeg" eller "a"?
> A sayer "jeg".
>
"Is it pronounced Hawai'i or Havai'i?"
"Havai'i."
"Thank you."
"You're velcome."
Peter Moylan
You're right, of course. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the fast
queue will always be held up by someone who can't count.
A simple remedy would be to scrap the rule about number of items, and
instead make it physically impossible to take a trolley into that queue.
HVS
Marks & Spencer; 2nd paragraph in this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/oct/06/marksspencer.retail
Photo here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62367143@N00/747769279
(FWIW "X items or less" doesn't bother me in the least. I just want to
provide continuing evidence that someone in AUE will invariably answer a
rhetorical question, or find counter-example to any and all statements
posted to the group.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Sproz
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > annily wrote:
> >> Catch 23 wrote:
>
> >>> That's the point that I was originally trying to make. Even though
> >>> "fewer" is correct for countable quantities, it feels odd when the
> >>> actual number is mentioned, especially if that number is "one".
> >> I don't have a problem with it for numbers other than one. Where does
> >> your concept of "fewer" being "correct for countable quantities" come
> >> from? For me it's always been a case of singular (less) vs plural (fewer).
>
> > For me it's always been a matter of count vs mass nouns. Less sugar,
> > less water, less money, but fewer apples.
>
> But those examples also follow my "singular vs plural" rule.
They do? Are you saying "water" and "sugar" are singular?
Sara Lorimer
> Oh, and neither would the great majority of English-speaking people.
> BTW, have you ever seen a supermarket sign with "n items or fewer"? I
> don't think I have. They all say "n items or less", which clearly means
> that the number of items (x) should be satisfy "x <= n".
I believe that the grocery store where I do most of my shopping has "12
items or fewer" signs.
--
SML
Nick Spalding
<1jmoylo.1qrjo9e1ld93jkN%SL...@DELETEcolumbia.edu>
on Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:37:34 -0700:
My local shop avoids the problem by having "About 10 items".
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Evan Kirshenbaum
I'm sorry, you only have one item, so you have to wait in the slow
line. Why don't you go buy a bunch more so you can use the fast one?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Robin Bignall
That would upset lots of disabled people. Some of them who can walk
can only do so by using a trolley as a sort of Zimmer frame.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
This afternoon I bought a few items in a supermarket. I didn't use a
trolley but a handheld metal basket (provided at the entrance). There
were checkout positions for "baskets only". There was no limit on the
number of items. There is probably a rule saying one basket per
customer.
A basket of that type (18in long approx):
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00zBsQIWYrOubv/Supermarket-Shopping-Basket-EW-189-A-.jpg
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
the Omrud
> This afternoon I bought a few items in a supermarket. I didn't use a
> trolley but a handheld metal basket (provided at the entrance). There
> were checkout positions for "baskets only". There was no limit on the
> number of items. There is probably a rule saying one basket per
> customer.
I sometimes nip into the supermarket for a few items which I know I will
be able to carry. Actually, I dislike baskets and either carry my
purchases or take a trolley. Anyway, I tend to go to the "baskets only"
checkout, even when I have no basket. Nobody ever complains.
--
David
Robert Bannister
Moreover, I have only once in my life seen a person told off by the
checker-outer for having more than the stipulated number of items and
that was only because the sign also said "baskets only" and the customer
had a loaded trolley. They still served her.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
My local Coles has moved all the checkouts around so that now the only
exit for wheelchairs and double-width strollers is through the express lane.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
checkout". I avoid that one. Perhaps one day people will learn how to
scan their own purchases - thereby eliminating yet another employment
opportunity for people with no qualifications - but for now it's
terribly slow.
Peter Moylan
> annily wrote:
>> Oh, and neither would the great majority of English-speaking people.
>> BTW, have you ever seen a supermarket sign with "n items or fewer"? I
>> don't think I have. They all say "n items or less", which clearly
>> means that the number of items (x) should be satisfy "x <= n".
>>
>
> Moreover, I have only once in my life seen a person told off by the
> checker-outer for having more than the stipulated number of items and
> that was only because the sign also said "baskets only" and the customer
> had a loaded trolley. They still served her.
>
I did once see someone like that sent to the back of another queue.
Everyone behind her cheered.
annily
> annily wrote:
>> annily wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>>> "Twelve items or fewer" means that the person behind you can count the
>>>> things in your basket, and kick you out of line if there are more than
>>>> twelve things. (With some exceptions. For example, a dozen eggs counts
>>>> as only one item.)
>>>>
>>>> "Twelve items or less" means that you can have as many items as you
>>>> like, provided that they're small enough that the total mass (or volume,
>>>> or whatever unspecified quality was in the store manager's mind) comes
>>>> to less than someone else's twelve items.
>>>>
>>> To me, they would mean exactly the same thing, because I don't think
>>> that whoever designs such signs would be as hair-splitting as you.
>>>
>> Oh, and neither would the great majority of English-speaking people.
>> BTW, have you ever seen a supermarket sign with "n items or fewer"? I
>> don't think I have. They all say "n items or less", which clearly means
>> that the number of items (x) should be satisfy "x <= n".
>>
> You're right, of course. And it doesn't matter anyway, because the fast
> queue will always be held up by someone who can't count.
>
Or someone who counts out the cash in small change.
> A simple remedy would be to scrap the rule about number of items, and
> instead make it physically impossible to take a trolley into that queue.
>
That may work, but I do usually take a trolley through, because some of
the items could be quite heavy, and I don't want to carry them to the car.
annily
Likewise at one of my nearby Coles stores, although I usually go to one
which doesn't have "self checkout" yet. Not using these lanes is also a
bit of a protest against putting checkout chicks out of work (although
mainly I can't be bothered learning how to operate them).
annily
Yes, why not?
Catch 23
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> For example, a dozen eggs counts as only one item.
>
>It still pays to count, though. I've only recently noticed that some
>sneaky vendors have re-designed the egg cartons so that there are only
>ten eggs in a dozen. There are probably plenty of people who haven't yet
>noticed that.
Not to worry. In a couple of years, they introduce a "new enlarged"
carton with 12 eggs for a higher price. ;-)
They've been doing that for decades with things sold by weight. A
little harder with countable items, but not, apparently, beyond the
capabilities of creative marketing bozos.
Sproz
Because they're mass nouns - you can't have "one water" or "one
sugar". Hmm, OK, you _can_ have "one sugar", but that's a different
usage.
Your rule is a pragmatic one - it works as long as you explain that
you mean "singular" in a non-standard sense and you allow for the
possibility of exceptions where words are treated as plural even
though they're mass nouns.
Mark
Robert Bannister
I only know one of those - the lone Woolworths in the City - but it's
not really in an aisle so much as in a wide gap, guarded by women who
are required to show shoppers how to use it.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> My local Coles has moved all the checkouts around so that now the only
>>> exit for wheelchairs and double-width strollers is through the express
>>> lane.
>>>
>> In mine, the widest lane is reserved for the thing they call the "self
>> checkout". I avoid that one. Perhaps one day people will learn how to
>> scan their own purchases - thereby eliminating yet another employment
>> opportunity for people with no qualifications - but for now it's
>> terribly slow.
>
> I only know one of those - the lone Woolworths in the City - but it's not
> really in an aisle so much as in a wide gap, guarded by women who are
> required to show shoppers how to use it.
There used to be self-checkout lanes or areas in several stores around here.
They are all gone now. People just didn't like using them.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
annily
Interesting. I hope they go the same way down under.
R H Draney
>
>Skitt wrote:
>>
>> There used to be self-checkout lanes or areas in several stores around
>> here. They are all gone now. People just didn't like using them.
>
>Interesting. I hope they go the same way down under.
Ditto here...I've tried to use them but they don't seem to work very well...the
scanner seems to have an opinion on whether an item has been placed in the bag
that bears no relation to any universe I happen to be inhabiting...they function
as a dissatisfier for me at Fresh And Easy (owned by Tesco), where they're the
default option....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
tony cooper
wrote:
They are all over the place here: Albertson's (drug store), Home
Depot (dyi supplies), and Wal-Mart (anyone need an explanation of what
they are?) just to name places I've used them in the last week or so.
I use them all whenever possible.
One major advantage is that it allows me to see the price I'm being
charged for an item. The check-out registers are sometimes turned so
I can't see the prices as the ring up, and some check-out people run
the items so fast I can't register the price. I can stop in the
middle of checking out if the price of an item is not right.
I catch price errors (*never* in my favor) at least once a week. Sale
items ring up at regular prices or items ring up at higher than the
shelf-marked price.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:24:14 -0700:
My local supermarket has four of them. You can also use hand-held
self-scanning devices, referred to by the staff as guns. As you go
round the shop you scan each item and pack it away in your bag and there
are special checkout lanes where you present your gun and pay.
Occasionally the machinery insists on a rescan, I don't know on what
basis - maybe every <somenum>th customer or maybe just randomly.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Moylan
A few weeks ago Woolworths (in Australia) announced that it was going to
import apples from China. The Australian apple-growers responded with a
fairly weak response. ("Oh dear, we'll all go bankrupt".) The consumers
took a much stronger stand. ("Hey, people have died from drinking
Chinese milk.") What I now see in my local supermarket is that the
apples are labelled "Product of Australia" in very loud letters. Clearly
someone at managerial level has noticed that people are willing to vote
with their feet over the question of Chinese apples.
Adam Funk
I wish the ones in Tesco here had a mute button. All the loud
instructions they play drive me up the wall. (I appreciate that they
are useful for blind and partly sighted people, and should be on by
default when a new customer starts using it, but I ought to be able to
silence the machine until I finish.)
--
History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
(Thurgood Marshall)
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 2010-08-06, Skitt wrote:
>
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>>> In mine, the widest lane is reserved for the thing they call the "self
>>>> checkout". I avoid that one. Perhaps one day people will learn how to
>>>> scan their own purchases - thereby eliminating yet another employment
>>>> opportunity for people with no qualifications - but for now it's
>>>> terribly slow.
>>>
>>> I only know one of those - the lone Woolworths in the City - but it's not
>>> really in an aisle so much as in a wide gap, guarded by women who are
>>> required to show shoppers how to use it.
>>
>> There used to be self-checkout lanes or areas in several stores around here.
>> They are all gone now. People just didn't like using them.
>
>
>I wish the ones in Tesco here had a mute button. All the loud
>instructions they play drive me up the wall. (I appreciate that they
>are useful for blind and partly sighted people, and should be on by
>default when a new customer starts using it, but I ought to be able to
>silence the machine until I finish.)
The ones here all say "There is an unexpected item in the bagging
area" when something is put in the bag that has not been scanned.
I always want to ask "What *did* you expect?".
Mike Lyle
They're commonplace in all British supermarkets. People hate them, but
nevertheless queue to use them. The worst are at Morrison's: they work
pretty well, but insist on speaking to you with /every/ item. I'm
surprised they don't get smashed by punters overcome with a red mist
after one too many "Please place the item in the bag".
But I suppose it could be worse: if Microsoft had designed the things,
they'd have a crazed animated shopping bag on the screen saying
user-friendly (as in "friendly fire") shit like "Why, hi there! Looks
like you're doing some shopping here! Could you use some help? Whyncha
just scan them ole purchases, and we'll add 'em up for y'all!"
--
Mike.
Catch 23
That's a terrible northwest accent.
Robert Bannister
I've noticed that labelling thing has happened with garlic too, even
though none of our governments seem willing to legislate for proper
product labelling.
--
Rob Bannister
Tasha Miller
"Peter Moylan" <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:ve2dnakmA4fvfsbR...@westnet.com.au...
>
> A few weeks ago Woolworths (in Australia) announced that it was going to
> import apples from China. The Australian apple-growers responded with a
> fairly weak response. ("Oh dear, we'll all go bankrupt".) The consumers
> took a much stronger stand. ("Hey, people have died from drinking
> Chinese milk.") What I now see in my local supermarket is that the
> apples are labelled "Product of Australia" in very loud letters. Clearly
> someone at managerial level has noticed that people are willing to vote
> with their feet over the question of Chinese apples.
>
Gracious! They can't possibly have the dreaded fire blight in China, then.
It's getting very heated in NZ at the moment over the (over) regulation of
kiwifruit exports. A couple of weeks ago I saw a billboard outside
Wellington airport with the message "It's kicking the country right where
it hurts: the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are strangling innovation
and costing the country export earnings".
Tasha Miller
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j15o56pk87t6dam3g...@4ax.com...
I always want to say "we would all like to be told the scales are wrong".
LFS
I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a few
purchases. The first time I used one - several years ago in the local
Co-op which was the first supermarket in the area to install them - was
a bit disconcerting as I inadvertently placed my handbag on the scale
and the machine became very distressed. The young person who came to
sort things out said to me "Don't worry, all the old ladies do that."
This was long before I got my bus pass.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Eric Walker
> I know that "fewer" refers to discrete (countable) quantities and "less"
> refers to continuous quantities: fewer chocolates but less chocolate.
>
> What about what referring to a specific number, especially one?
>
> I suppose it's correct to say "one fewer day to go", but it sure sounds
> weird. Is "one less day to go" also OK?
The most cogent authority here is Bernstein (in _The Careful Writer_, who
remarks that--
There is one oddity about 'fewer': Whereas it is fine to write "The
Liberals won three fewer seats than in the previous election," you run
into idiom trouble if you reduce the number to one; you cannot say "one
fewer seats", nor can you say "one fewer seat". The only escape hatch
is "one seat fewer".
There are also instances when things seemingly countable are felt as a
quantity rather than a sum: "Not many of these buildings are _less_ than
thirty years old," or "Some veteran employees still earn _less_ than
$30,000 a year."
Thus, in the particular example, the preferred form would be "one day
fewer to go".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
annily
Your quote from Bernstein doesn't say anything about "one day less"
though. Do you not like that?
Catch 23
I think we need to clarify just where that form is preferred.
Certainly not in most casual conversation that I encounter.
Mike Lyle
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 23:25:40 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"self-storage"...]
>>
>> They're commonplace in all British supermarkets. People hate them,
>> but nevertheless queue to use them. The worst are at Morrison's:
>> they work pretty well, but insist on speaking to you with /every/
>> item. I'm surprised they don't get smashed by punters overcome with
>> a red mist after one too many "Please place the item in the bag".
>>
>> But I suppose it could be worse: if Microsoft had designed the
>> things, they'd have a crazed animated shopping bag on the screen
>> saying user-friendly (as in "friendly fire") shit like "Why, hi
>> there! Looks like you're doing some shopping here! Could you use
>> some help? Whyncha just scan them ole purchases, and we'll add 'em
>> up for y'all!"
>
> That's a terrible northwest accent.
Why, that's the user-friendly bit: M$ knows no frontiers. And reckons it
has conclusive evidence that all its customers are morons --a pretty
safe conclusion, when you consider that we go on buying their stuff.
Oh, and while I'm in this mood, scientologists are stupid.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...self-service cheekouts...]
>
> I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a few
> purchases. The first time I used one - several years ago in the local
> Co-op which was the first supermarket in the area to install them -
> was a bit disconcerting as I inadvertently placed my handbag on the
> scale and the machine became very distressed. The young person who
> came to sort things out said to me "Don't worry, all the old ladies
> do that." This was long before I got my bus pass.
One of the young women in the local Co-op called me "Darling" yesterday
morning. Twice. And it wasn't because of my smouldering sex-appeal,
either. I think what started the rot was when I counted out the right
money, with slightly stiff fingers.
--
Mike.
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:28:01 +0100:
When I start doing that my friends at the local shop grab my hand and
count it for me, carefully getting rid of as many coins as possible.
Excellent service.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Six days a week I buy a newspaper costing 68p or 78p. Tendering a one
pound coin is easy but it results in an accumulation of coins in my
pocket which overflows into various containers at home. For the last few
years I've been counting out the right amount before leaving the house.
This way my stock of small change is decreasing.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John Dunlop
> Six days a week I buy a newspaper costing 68p or 78p. Tendering a one
> pound coin is easy but it results in an accumulation of coins in my
> pocket which overflows into various containers at home. For the last few
> years I've been counting out the right amount before leaving the house.
> This way my stock of small change is decreasing.
One day I found about £120 in small change on the window sill.
--
John
Catch 23
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Just Scientologists?
Leslie Danks
It used to be a source of pleasure for one sadistic old bugger to hand the
school leaver behind the cash desk an amount slightly higher than the price
of the purchase, but chosen such that the change to be given was a rounded
amount.
These days, this fails to trigger the open-mouthed "my brain has turned to
jelly" look because all they have to do is enter the amount you give them
into the computer and read the amount of change to be given from the
screen.
--
Les (BrE)
Have to go back to pulling legs off (of) flies.
HVS
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> annily filted:
>>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>>> There used to be self-checkout lanes or areas in several stores
>>>>> around here. They are all gone now. People just didn't like using
>>>>> them.
>>>> Interesting. I hope they go the same way down under.
>>> Ditto here...I've tried to use them but they don't seem to work very
>>> well...
-snip-
>> They're commonplace in all British supermarkets. People hate them, but
>> nevertheless queue to use them.
-snip-
> I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a few
> purchases.
Thank heavens; I was beginning to think that I was the sole dissenter to
universal AUE agreement on something.
I like them, too: since there's one queue for a number of machines, things
move faster than a single-belt till, and once I learned a few of the
protocols -- place things one at a time on the bag scales; wait while the
overseer releases the machine when you scan a bottle of wine -- they became
my default choice for any purchases that will fit in a single bag.
(An example: the queue at the fags-'n'-lottery counter in our local
Morrisons is deathly slow, so if I've buying a newspaper on my way to the
caff for breakfast, I nip round to the self-service tills instead. Much
faster.)
> The first time I used one - several years ago in the local Co-op which
> was the first supermarket in the area to install them - was a bit
> disconcerting as I inadvertently placed my handbag on the scale and the
> machine became very distressed. The young person who came to sort things
> out said to me "Don't worry, all the old ladies do that." This was long
> before I got my bus pass.
I'm actually starting to enjoy playing that card sometimes; the eager young
things think they're patronising me, and seem to have no idea I'm taking
advantage of them. Bless 'em.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
LFS
> LFS wrote:
> [...self-service cheekouts...]
>> I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a few
>> purchases. The first time I used one - several years ago in the local
>> Co-op which was the first supermarket in the area to install them -
>> was a bit disconcerting as I inadvertently placed my handbag on the
>> scale and the machine became very distressed. The young person who
>> came to sort things out said to me "Don't worry, all the old ladies
>> do that." This was long before I got my bus pass.
>
> One of the young women in the local Co-op called me "Darling" yesterday
> morning. Twice. And it wasn't because of my smouldering sex-appeal,
> either.
How do you know? Were you wearing the P of P?
I think what started the rot was when I counted out the right
> money, with slightly stiff fingers.
>
--
Richard Bollard
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>Six days a week I buy a newspaper costing 68p or 78p. Tendering a one
>pound coin is easy but it results in an accumulation of coins in my
>pocket which overflows into various containers at home. For the last few
>years I've been counting out the right amount before leaving the house.
>This way my stock of small change is decreasing.
If you want truly random small change, go to a toilet in Ljubljana.
The fee was some fraction of a Euro and I got a variety of coppers,
including pence sterling, Euro cents and the native currency. It all
added to some random number, I can't remember now if it was more or
less than it should have been.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
annily
> On 07 Aug 2010, LFS wrote
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> annily filted:
>>>>> Skitt wrote:
>
>>>>>> There used to be self-checkout lanes or areas in several stores
>>>>>> around here. They are all gone now. People just didn't like using
>>>>>> them.
>
>>>>> Interesting. I hope they go the same way down under.
>
>>>> Ditto here...I've tried to use them but they don't seem to work very
>>>> well...
>
> -snip-
>
>>> They're commonplace in all British supermarkets. People hate them, but
>>> nevertheless queue to use them.
>
> -snip-
>
>> I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a few
>> purchases.
>
> Thank heavens; I was beginning to think that I was the sole dissenter to
> universal AUE agreement on something.
>
> I like them, too: since there's one queue for a number of machines
You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
instead of having to guess which one is going to become available first.
tony cooper
wrote:
My wife is the shopper for this household, so whenever I go to the
supermarket it is to buy just a few items. I'm either sent when she's
preparing something and needs an extra tomato or spice or whatever, or
informed by phone to swing by the grocery since I'm already out.
Publix supermarkets are wonderfully run. If the lines at the
registers get more than two or three deep, a call is put out on the
speakers (Tannoys, to some) for all cashiers to come to the front.
New lines are opened and the cashiers manning, or womanning, those
registers enthusiastically wave placeholders in long lines to their
register.
The only thing that I wonder about is where those cashiers are when
they are called to the front. Does Publix keep a spare room full of
cashiers in the back where they play video games and read magazines
like firemen waiting for the buzzer to sound?
In fact, I am sometimes disappointed that I get through the lines so
fast at Publix. If I'm fourth in line behind full shopping carts
pushed in by coupon holders and small change digger-outers, I'm quite
content reading those magazines that are on display at the check-out
lane. Since I never buy such magazines, long delays at the register
are the only way I can keep up with how many African babies Ms Pitt
has adopted, how much weight Kristie Alley has put on, whether or not
Jennifer is truly over what's-his-face, and if Lindsay Lohan is
currently in or out of jail or rehab.
Angelina and Brad are still together, aren't they?
R H Draney
>
>You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
>all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
>instead of having to guess which one is going to become available first.
They have that now, but their behavior is counterintuitive...five or six
customers will queue up behind the one being served by a slow cashier, at which
point an employee will open up another lane and say "I can take you over
here"...this causes the queue to shift over in exactly the reverse of its
original order...the customer immediately behind the one receiving slow service,
having already placed his or her items onto the conveyor belt, does not
participate in the transfer....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
HVS
> annily filted:
>>
>> You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
>> all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
>> instead of having to guess which one is going to become available
>> first.
>
> They have that now, but their behavior is counterintuitive...five or six
> customers will queue up behind the one being served by a slow cashier,
> at which point an employee will open up another lane and say "I can take
> you over here"...
That's not the same thing, though. What annily is suggesting is what's
sometimes referred to in the UK as "post office queueing": a single queue is
formed, and when a till comes free the person at the front goes to that till.
(That is, there aren't individual queues at each till.)
I don't see how it would work for people with trolley-loads of groceries,
though -- the single queue would be huge, and there'd be too much delay
between one customer finishing and the next starting.
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:29:08 +0930:
My local shop does that if things are really busy, like just before
Christmas when everybody seems to think the shops are going to be closed
for a month. Staff members organise queues in the aisles and release
people one at a time to a designated checkout.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:13:52 +0100:
The way it works here is to have multiple queues in the aisles each
feeding two or three checkouts.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
annily
> On 09 Aug 2010, R H Draney wrote
>
>> annily filted:
>>> You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
>>> all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
>>> instead of having to guess which one is going to become available
>>> first.
>> They have that now, but their behavior is counterintuitive...five or six
>> customers will queue up behind the one being served by a slow cashier,
>> at which point an employee will open up another lane and say "I can take
>> you over here"...
>
> That's not the same thing, though. What annily is suggesting is what's
> sometimes referred to in the UK as "post office queueing": a single queue is
> formed, and when a till comes free the person at the front goes to that till.
> (That is, there aren't individual queues at each till.)
>
> I don't see how it would work for people with trolley-loads of groceries,
> though -- the single queue would be huge,
Not if there were sufficient checkouts open.
HVS
I suppose; the configuration would have to be substantially altered, of
course, to create a sufficiently large "waiting zone" for peak periods.
Don Petter
wrote:
Exactly. I suppose the next one in the queue would have start loading
onto the next conveyor with space, rather than waiting for an actual
till that was finished and free. Otherwise there would be enormous
extra delays, particularly as checkout staff are reluctant to put any
items through until the customer has finished loading the belt and is
standing by them 'ready to receive'.
(I seem to remember from a brief spell as a checkout person that we
were allowed to ask 'May I start putting items through?', but most
seem not to bother and just wait for the customer to join them.)
Don.
Adam Funk
> annily wrote, in <4c5f6efb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:29:08 +0930:
>> You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
>> all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
>> instead of having to guess which one is going to become available first.
>
> My local shop does that if things are really busy, like just before
> Christmas when everybody seems to think the shops are going to be closed
> for a month. Staff members organise queues in the aisles and release
> people one at a time to a designated checkout.
I think it's rare for the big supermarkets in the UK these days to be
closed for two consecutive days, never mind longer than that, but at
Christmas people shop like they're expecting to live in a Mad Max
film. It drives me up the wall.
--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]
R H Draney
>
>...checkout staff are reluctant to put any
>items through until the customer has finished loading the belt and is
>standing by them 'ready to receive'.
Wow...some day I'd like to visit *your* planet....r
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> LFS wrote:
>> [...self-service cheekouts...]
>>> I like them and they certainly speed things up if you only have a
>>> few purchases. The first time I used one - several years ago in the
>>> local Co-op which was the first supermarket in the area to install
>>> them - was a bit disconcerting as I inadvertently placed my handbag
>>> on the scale and the machine became very distressed. The young
>>> person who came to sort things out said to me "Don't worry, all the
>>> old ladies do that." This was long before I got my bus pass.
>>
>> One of the young women in the local Co-op called me "Darling"
>> yesterday morning. Twice. And it wasn't because of my smouldering
>> sex-appeal, either.
>
> How do you know? Were you wearing the P of P?
No: that might or might not have helped. But I know because, even if my
hearing can't cope with the Great BBC Radio Cuddly Whisper*, I can tell
the difference between at least two ways of saying "Darling".
* I promise, I really will write to that nice Roger Bolton (who doesn't
do it) about it, RSN. I've been recomposing the letter on inter-city car
journeys for years, and that's gone on long enough.
[...]
--
Mike.
annily
That certainly doesn't happen here.
Robert Bannister
The worst part is trying to guess which checkout is going to have the
person who has two items that will require someone to go an check out
the price.
--
Rob Bannister
Cheryl P.
can't be scanned (usually vegetables lacking stickers) is identified by
the cashier using a little booklet with coloured pictures.
I still sometimes think I shouldn't have corrected her when she
mis-identified radicchio as red cabbage. The price difference was quite
large.
--
Cheryl P.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I believe you, but Slovenia is now, in principle, on the euro. I'd been
looking forward to receiving my first Slovenian euro coin for some
time, but was very surprised when it happened last March, in Luxemburg.
I passed through Ljubljana hitchhiking many years ago on the way back
to Blighty from Greece. Memorable for the fact that after I was dropped
just inside Italy I had the shortest wait I ever had (about 5 seconds
-- the first car that passed). I don't remember visiting any toilets in
Ljubljana, though. Straying even further OT, the cleanest and least
smelly public toilets I ever encountered in those years were in the
centre of Sofia.
--
athel
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On 2010-08-09, Nick Spalding wrote:
>
>> annily wrote, in <4c5f6efb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
>> on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:29:08 +0930:
>
>>> You raise an excellent point there. There should be a single queue for
>>> all open (non-express, non-self-serve) checkouts in supermarkets,
>>> instead of having to guess which one is going to become available first.
>>
>> My local shop does that if things are really busy, like just before
>> Christmas when everybody seems to think the shops are going to be closed
>> for a month. Staff members organise queues in the aisles and release
>> people one at a time to a designated checkout.
>
>
>I think it's rare for the big supermarkets in the UK these days to be
>closed for two consecutive days, never mind longer than that, but at
>Christmas people shop like they're expecting to live in a Mad Max
>film. It drives me up the wall.
Indeed. "Oh noes, it's Christmas eve, tomorrow the shops will be
closed for a whole day! I must stock up with ten loaves of bread, 20
pints of milk and some kitchen cleaning fluid in case I starve, or
need to clean the kitchen urgently before Boxing Day!"
Cheryl P.
Some people have told me that they like the thrill and excitement of
last-minute shopping. These are people who LIKE looking for Christmas
gifts on Christmas Eve, and they're probably the ones who suddenly
decide they might run out of toilet paper and bread and turkey, also on
Christmas Eve.
Me, I go to considerable efforts to avoid the stores when they are crowded.
--
Cheryl P.
Leslie Danks
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:14:43 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
[...]
>>
>>I think it's rare for the big supermarkets in the UK these days to be
>>closed for two consecutive days, never mind longer than that, but at
>>Christmas people shop like they're expecting to live in a Mad Max
>>film. It drives me up the wall.
>
> Indeed. "Oh noes, it's Christmas eve, tomorrow the shops will be
> closed for a whole day! I must stock up with ten loaves of bread, 20
> pints of milk and some kitchen cleaning fluid in case I starve, or
> need to clean the kitchen urgently before Boxing Day!"
It's the same here in Austria. If you want to buy bread at the village
baker's the day before a public holiday, you'd better get up early. I'm
convinced that a cooking book devoted to stale bread recipes would be a
best seller.
--
Les (BrE)
Adam Funk
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> Indeed. "Oh noes, it's Christmas eve, tomorrow the shops will be
>> closed for a whole day! I must stock up with ten loaves of bread, 20
>> pints of milk and some kitchen cleaning fluid in case I starve, or
>> need to clean the kitchen urgently before Boxing Day!"
>
> Some people have told me that they like the thrill and excitement of
> last-minute shopping. These are people who LIKE looking for Christmas
> gifts on Christmas Eve, and they're probably the ones who suddenly
> decide they might run out of toilet paper and bread and turkey, also on
> Christmas Eve.
>
> Me, I go to considerable efforts to avoid the stores when they are crowded.
I try to get my gift shopping done in November (except for things I
can order on-line).
--
Mathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen
sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes
daraus wird. [Goethe]
Robert Bannister
Easter is best. Even though all the shops are open on the Saturday and
many are open on the Sunday as well, the thought that they will be shut
on Friday and Monday means that everyone has to buy food for a siege of
at least a month.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I've only ever done present shopping of Christmas Eve. The choices are
fewer, so you don't get so confused, and occasionally you even get a
price reduction.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
They have those coloured pictures on the cash register these days, but
there are always a few items that haven't been entered into the
computer. Sometimes, I get a cashier brave enough to make a guess - I
have had some substantial savings that way. Mostly, however, it is the
person in front of me who, I know, is going to cause a significant
hold-up in the queue while various supervisors are called over.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. "Oh noes, it's Christmas eve, tomorrow the shops will be
>> closed for a whole day! I must stock up with ten loaves of bread, 20
>> pints of milk and some kitchen cleaning fluid in case I starve, or
>> need to clean the kitchen urgently before Boxing Day!"
>
>Easter is best. Even though all the shops are open on the Saturday and
>many are open on the Sunday as well, the thought that they will be shut
>on Friday and Monday means that everyone has to buy food for a siege of
>at least a month.
I like to shop during the Super Bowl...all the beer and chips have been cleared
out and are stacked in people's rec rooms, and I've got the proper groceries to
myself....r
LFS
I had to read that last sentence twice before I realised that you didn't
intend to write to RB about inter-city car journeys.
BTW, are you aware that your yahoo address has been hacked? I was a bit
surprised to find a chatty message from you in my work inbox, offering
to sell me handbags. Or perhaps that's a genuine new venture?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
>
>BTW, are you aware that your yahoo address has been hacked? I was a bit
>surprised to find a chatty message from you in my work inbox, offering
>to sell me handbags. Or perhaps that's a genuine new venture?
It is unlikely that Mike's yahoo address has been hacked. It is much
more likely that someone is simply inserting his email address in their
outgoing messages from somewhere totally different.
I often get spam email which is apparently from myself. Athough it has
my email address in the "From:" field the email server from which it was
sent is completely different from the one I use.
As a demonstration I'm sending you a brief email appearing to be from
Mike Lyle.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>closed for two consecutive days, never mind longer than that, but at
>Christmas people shop like they're expecting to live in a Mad Max
>film. It drives me up the wall.
I think the point may be that those people look on the holiday as
lasting at least a week. The fact that the supermarkets might be open is
secondary to the fact that they don't want routine shopping to interfere
with the jollifications. So they stock up in advance.
I suppose for some people doing a major shop just before Christmas is
all part and parcel of their Christmas routine. It adds the the sense of
its being a special event.
Amethyst Deceiver
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>> * I promise, I really will write to that nice Roger Bolton (who doesn't
>> do it) about it, RSN. I've been recomposing the letter on inter-city car
>> journeys for years, and that's gone on long enough.
>> [...]
>>
>
>I had to read that last sentence twice before I realised that you didn't
>intend to write to RB about inter-city car journeys.
>
>BTW, are you aware that your yahoo address has been hacked? I was a bit
>surprised to find a chatty message from you in my work inbox, offering
>to sell me handbags. Or perhaps that's a genuine new venture?
I had one of those too. Hmm, I though, is Mike branching out?
Sproz
wrote:
It's true that the apparent identity of a spam email is unreliable in
the extreme, and typically chosen at random from a vast list of
harvested addresses. The difference here is that the apparent sender's
identity is one that's familiar to the recipient, which points to the
spammer having access to that sender's address book. I've seen this a
number of times in the last six months or so, generally from yahoo
accounts, and I think Mike should definitely treat his yahoo account
as potentially "hacked", and scan and disinfect any machines he uses
to access it.
Mark
LFS
Mike might be able to tell this: I wasn't aware that he had ever used my
work address, although it's easy to find.
I've seen this a
> number of times in the last six months or so, generally from yahoo
> accounts, and I think Mike should definitely treat his yahoo account
> as potentially "hacked", and scan and disinfect any machines he uses
> to access it.
>
Daughter's yahoo account was similarly affected recently and she was so
advised.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
>
> The worst part is trying to guess which checkout is going to have the
> person who has two items that will require someone to go an check out
> the price.
Once I was next in line with a lot of groceries and someone arrived
with four bananas and nothing else, so I told him to go ahead. What I
didn't know was that he hadn't had them weighed and didn't have enough
money to pay for them. All in all he took as much time as someone with
a lot of stuff.
I often avoid express check-out lines for just that reason, because ten
people with four or five items each can consume as much time as two or
three people with full trolleys.
Peter Moylan
I too. It took only a short time to realise that it probably wasn't him.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> On 2010-08-10 02:38:17 +0200, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> said:
>
>> [ ... ]
>
>>
>> The worst part is trying to guess which checkout is going to have the
>> person who has two items that will require someone to go an check out
>> the price.
>
> Once I was next in line with a lot of groceries and someone arrived with
> four bananas and nothing else, so I told him to go ahead. What I didn't
> know was that he hadn't had them weighed and didn't have enough money to
> pay for them. All in all he took as much time as someone with a lot of
> stuff.
In my area the weighing is done at the checkouts, so that the scales can
be connected with the cash register. Up until a couple of years ago,
though, one of the local supermarkets had scales at all checkouts
_except_ in the express lanes. You could cause chaos by going to an
express lane carrying fruit and vegetables, but you had to be a regular
to know this; there was no sign to mention the problem.
>
> I often avoid express check-out lines for just that reason, because ten
> people with four or five items each can consume as much time as two or
> three people with full trolleys.
--
Frank ess
I remember living in Los Angeles in the early and middle forties, when
very few commercial establishments were open on Sunday. A few
restaurants (the shaped-like-a Chili Bowl, for certain) and some drug
stores (pharmacies), but little else. Can't seem to recall when that
became uncommon.
--
Frank ess