If we’ve lost a team member, do we have ‘one member less’, ‘one less member’, ‘one member fewer’, or ‘one fewer member’?
Thanks!
If we’ve lost a team member, do we have ‘one member less’, ‘one less member’, ‘one member fewer’, or ‘one fewer member’?
Thanks!
Use "fewer" when referring to nouns that you can count, including "member." (My team has one member, two members, three members ...) That means either "one member fewer" or "one fewer member" is correct.
However, it's important to note that in casual, everyday English, many people will use "less" in this case. According to most linguists, that makes "less" acceptable -- which is different from "correct." When considering this sentence, you may want to think about who's talking and who's listening or reading. Using correct English is wonderful, but it's not always necessary!
BKlyn df's answer does not give the complete picture. It can be a matter of stylistic choice. From the Chicago Manual of Style (https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0304.html):
A. If the countable noun is plural, choose fewer; if it’s singular, choose less. (When CMOS says to reserve fewer for countable things, it’s talking about plural countable things. When it says to reserve less for mass nouns, it means singular mass nouns.) One is always singular: there is one less food group in the new pyramid; there is one less number in this column. Two (or more) is plural: there are two fewer food groups in the new pyramid; there are three fewer numbers in this column.
This appears to be a preference that evolved into a rule and is now evolving back into a preference, with the word 'Fewer' losing out at both ends of the spectrum. Let's start with the rule. 'Fewer' for plurals, 'Less' for singular (and uncountable) nouns. This has sometimes been described as 'Fewer' for things you count and 'Less' for things you measure, although that can sometimes muddy the water and throws up more exceptions. So...
Fewer cars, less traffic. Fewer grains, less rice. Fewer cattle, less beefstock. Fewer people, less human presence. Fewer clouds, less cloud. Basically... Fewer things, less stuff.
By this rule (and to my ear) it is 'one fewer members'. i.e. Question 'How many members are there now?' Answer would be 'One fewer than before'. Or 'There are fewer members than before''How many fewer?' 'One fewer'. Because you are talking about the group of members, not the individual.
Now let's look another apparent exception concerning 'less than'.
'It is less than 5 miles.'
This is not really an exception because it is actually a contraction of 'It is a distance less than 5 miles', the subject being the distance (singular) between points A and B. However, the answer to 'How many miles to point B?' would be 'Fewer than 5 miles!'
It is the same situation with 'It is less than £5'. It is a contraction of 'The price (singular) is less than £5' but in answer to 'How many pounds is it going to cost me?' a reassuring 'Fewer than £5' is correct.
However, in my experience, the word 'fewer' is fading fast (much to my chagrin).
In “One member less” the phrase “one member” is a quantifier for “less” specifying the degree of less-ness. “One member fewer” is similar. A well-known rule prefers “fewer” since “member” is countable. Some prefer usage to rules.
“One less member” uses “one less” to quantify “member”. Usage accepts this. One could argue that “one less members” is better (or “one fewer members”). After the loss of one member, how many members are left? “One less”.