I've just received a memo which says (effectively)

As more people leave, there will be less people available.

I want that word to be fewer. Are there guidelines for which word ought to be used when?

  • 2
    People seem to be interpreting this question as about when it is correct to use less and fewer. It seems to me that the question is not about correct usage, but about guidelines for good usage (which is a proper subset of correct usage, in my opinion). Here I think hardcore descriptivism is compatible with saying "maybe reserving 'less' for mass nouns is reasonable style advice" [as it seems like Robert Baker is doing in nohat's answer]
    – Seamus
    Commented Sep 29, 2010 at 12:54
  • 1
    If that's really what the memo effectively said, then it was a crafty don't look over here ploy to provoke a less v. fewer debate and avoid examination of the delightfully circular argument it makes;-)
    – tardate
    Commented Jan 29, 2011 at 11:09
  • 19
    My girlfriend said we would have less arguments if I wasn't so pedantic. I said,"FEWER ARGUMENTS".
    – Konerak
    Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 12:26
  • 6
    I couldn't care fewer Commented Jul 30, 2015 at 15:47
  • 1
    @AaronMcDaid I could care less.
    – Oliphaunt
    Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 20:59

11 Answers 11


Ah, less vs. fewer. Another arrow in the prescriptivist’s quiver of pointless pedantry.

There's even a Wikipedia article about the dispute. There is also a Language Log entry about the matter too.

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, a usage guide that looks carefully at the history of usage advice, the rule creating a clear separation for less and fewer was invented in 1770 by Rober Baker in his book Reflections on the English Language, where he wrote in a comment on less:

The Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but more strictly proper.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage authors then comment:

Baker’s remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly—“I should think,”, “appears to me”—his own taste and preference. It is instructive to compare Baker with one of the most recent college handbooks in our collection:

Fewer refers to quantities that can be counted individually.… Less is used for collective quantities that are not counted individually… and for abstract characteristics. —Trimmer & McCrimmon 1988

Notice how Baker’s preference has here been generalized and elevated to an absolute status, and his notice of contrary usage has been omitted. This approach is quite common in handbooks and schoolbooks; many pedagogues seem reluctant to share the often complicated facts about English with their students.

How Baker’s opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such.

They then give many examples of usage of less for countable quantities, and add finally:

The examples above show native speakers and writers of English using less of count nouns in various constructions. Fewer could have been used in many of them—at times it might have been more elegant, as Robert Baker thought—but in others no native speaker would use anything but less.

With regards to the example in the original question, either fewer or less would be perfectly grammatical, but so many people are under the spell of the rule that less must never be used with countable nouns that anyone who doesn’t follow the rule may be subject to criticism.

Edit 2010-09-28:

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language also weighs in on less vs. fewer:

The relation between less and fewer is fairly complex. In non-count singulars only less is possible: Kim has less/*fewer money than Pat. In plural NPs we have:
i. She left less than ten minutes ago.
ii. Less/Fewer than thirty of the students had voted.
iii. He made no less/fewer than fifteen mistakes.
iv. You pass if you make ten mistakes or less/?fewer.
v. He took less/*fewer pains to convince us than I’d expected.
vi. He made fewer/less mistakes than the others.

Both [i] and [ii] have than + numeral. In [i] ten minutes expresses an amount of time rather than a number of individuated units, and in such cases fewer is virtually impossible—just as few would be in a comparison of equality: She left as little/*few as ten minutes ago. Similarly with We paid less than thirty dollars for it; She’s less than forty years old; We were going at less than ten miles an hour. In [ii] we are concerned with countable individuals and little cannot be used in a comparison of equality (*as little as thirty of the students); nevertheless, for inequality less is more common than fewer in this construction. The same applies with percentages: Less/Fewer than 30% of the students had voted. Construction [iii] has the comparative form following no: though the interpretation is count plural, less is here again more common than fewer. Construction [iv] has or after a numeral: less is the usual form here, with fewer quite marginal; this construction is widely seen in supermarkets, with the fast checkout labelled eight items or less, or the like. In [v] pains is plural but non-count rather than count (we can’t ask how many pains he took), and here only less is possible. Finally in [vi] (as also in [15ii]) the comparative occurs directly with a count plural noun: both forms are found, but less is subject to quite strong prescriptavist disapproval, so that fewer is widely preferred in formal style, and many speakers in informal style too.

[Usage manuals are divided on the issue of less vs. fewer. Some uncompromisingly brand such forms as less mistakes as incorrect, while others note that though commonly condemned they are often used by speakers of Standard English. Before the Early Modern English period (beginning around 1500) more was restricted to non-count NPs with moe used as the comparative of many. At that time less was used along with fewer for count NPs, but came to be stigmatised and quite rare in this use: it is only within the last generation or so that it has become frequent. The current revival seems inexorable, given the strong pressure of analogy with more.]

  • 13
    @ShreevatsaR I don’t recommend either. All I say is “either fewer or less would be perfectly grammatical” and that if you use less you may be subject to undeserved criticism.
    – nohat
    Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 1:47
  • 13
    @Tim: Charles Harrington Elster, whoever that is, is free to prefer whatever he likes. An examination of the evidence, however, makes it quite clear that less is perfectly grammatical, and has been for a long time.
    – nohat
    Commented Sep 23, 2010 at 16:29
  • 13
    @Tim you will notice, for the most part, that my contributions here are not of the sort that “X is standard” and “Y is non-standard” but rather are reports of what usage authorities who base their claims on studying actual usage say as well as my own summaries of actual usage, with the intent that readers can use the information to draw their own conclusions about whether they want to use a particular usage.
    – nohat
    Commented Sep 23, 2010 at 21:16
  • 16
    In cases like this, where there is copious evidence that less is used in the criticized way frequently in professionally-edited prose by educated writers, and further the supposed “rule” was never a rule but just someone’s suggestion, I feel quite comfortable criticizing the criticizers for their irrational objections, which are based neither on sound historical argument nor on modern common usage, but simply on prescriptive persnicketiness.
    – nohat
    Commented Sep 23, 2010 at 21:19
  • 21
    It’s not fear of funny looks that would stop me from ordering a “DYKE-er-ee”—it’s a fear of failing to communicate. People who are so obsessed with their own notions of language correctness forget that the whole purpose of language is communication.
    – nohat
    Commented Sep 23, 2010 at 21:51

"Fewer" is used when the actual number of objects is quantifiable. Since you can count people, "fewer" is correct.

"Less" is used when the amount is not easily quantifiable. You can put less salt in your soup, for example.

  • 10
    This is correct. At least, this is how it ought to be used — where by "ought" I'm expressing a preference based on my tastes and thinking, and not a rule based on actual English usage (to which we need not be beholden, whatever linguists say). Note, however, that "fewer" calls attention to the enumerable nature of whatever it's describing. Thus "less than eight days" simply means "a period of time less than [eight days]", while "fewer than eight days" suggests "an integer number of days, where the integer is less than 8". Choose carefully. Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 1:30
  • 7
    Could you please put fewer salt grains in my soup? :)
    – Wadih M.
    Commented Sep 23, 2010 at 12:58
  • 1
    That's exactly how I use it. Fewer is for discrete amounts, and less is for relative amounts. Commented Sep 29, 2010 at 3:07
  • 15
    +1 Fewer of things you can have a few of, Less of things you can have a little of.
    – Gareth
    Commented Jan 29, 2011 at 9:54
  • 2
    But 'That's one less thing to worry about'. Idioms trump logical patterns. Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:17

The New Oxford American Dictionary has a note about this:

USAGE Fewer versus less: strictly speaking, the rule is that fewer, the comparative form of few, is used with words denoting people or countable things ("fewer members"; "fewer books"; "fewer than ten contestants"). Less, on the other hand, is used with mass nouns, denoting things that cannot be counted ("less money"; "less music"). In addition, less is normally used with numbers ("less than 10,000") and with expressions of measurement or time ("less than two weeks"; "less than four miles away"). But to use less with count nouns, as in "less people" or "less words," is incorrect in standard English.

  • 3
    this is the correct answer.
    – Jason
    Commented Sep 28, 2010 at 23:53
  • 2
    I also think this jibes with my understanding of how the words work. "Less people" is definitely odd, whereas "10 or less" feels correct to me. Commented Jan 19, 2011 at 21:24
  • "Less, on the other hand, is used with mass nouns, denoting things that cannot be counted ("less money"; "less music")". This does not make sense. I can count my money. Commented Aug 4, 2019 at 12:01
  • 1
    @DavidPostill Money is a mass noun, so generally nobody says 1 money, two moneys, three moneys. When you check how much money you have, you are probably going to say I have three dollars or I have four euros, which is correct.
    – apaderno
    Commented Aug 4, 2019 at 13:43
  • Fewer/less than a dozen (people)?
    – GJC
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 14:15

Grammar Girl wrote about this, and putting it very succintly, the differences between "few" and "less":

Less and fewer are easy to mix up. They mean the same thing—the opposite of more—but you use them in different circumstances. The basic rule is that you use less with mass nouns and fewer with count nouns.

So, what is a count noun, and a mass noun?

A count noun is just something you can count. I'm looking at my desk and I see books, pens, and M&M's. I can count all those things, so they are count nouns and the right word to use is fewer. I should eat fewer M&M's.

Mass nouns are just things that you can't count individually. Again, on my desk I see tape and clutter. These things can't be counted individually, so the right word to use is less. If I had less clutter, my desk would be cleaner. Another clue is that you don't make mass nouns plural: I would never say I have clutters on my desk or that I need more tapes to hold my book covers together.

I have added that emphasis because it points out a lot. This makes identifying Mass nouns very easy.

What about your example, in which you said "Less than 9 sausages?" Isn't that, a violation of this rule? Shouldn't "few" be used?

The fact is, there is the word than, which changes everything. When there is a "than", the sentence is changed into a comparison, and "less" is used when making comparisons. According to the Chicago Style Manual:

Less than is used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles.

Oxford Dictionaries Online surprisingly helps us with this:

Less is also used with numbers when they are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time, e.g.:

His weight fell from 18 stone to less than 12.
Their marriage lasted less than two years.
Heath Square is less than four miles away from Dublin city centre

That's why "less" was used, when referring to "9 sausages".

Examples of usage of "less than" includes:

I have less pencils than you.
We all have less reputation than Robusto.
The increase was less than the decrease.
I have less than 5 dollars in my pocket.
We have less than 2 hours to accomplish this.

Finishing off, with a quote from Grammar Girl, this notes the exceptions to the rules:

There are exceptions to these rules; for example, it is customary to use the word less to describe time, money, and distance. For example, you could say, “That wedding reception lasted less than two hours. I hope they paid the band less than $400.” So keep in mind that time, money, and distance are different, but if you stick with the quick and dirty tip that less is for mass nouns and fewer is for count nouns, you'll be right most of the time.

Hope that helps.

  • 1
    That makes sense - I understand the rules - but is there a reason why the "than" changes it, other than that's what the CMS says? Also, would you say "less sausages than there were before" or "fewer sausages than there were before" (i.e. comparing but not to a number)?
    – dave1010
    Commented Sep 2, 2011 at 8:05
  • 5
    I think you've made a mistake here. I'm pretty sure it should be FEWER pencils. My understanding, and an alternate way to explain the exception, is that "less" can be used in place of "fewer" when comparing things with continous values (time, distance, weight) rather than discrete values (number of sausages, number of pencils). Also, I don't believe the use of "less than" applies to sausages, unless you are talking about food or meat in general, and "9 sausages" refers to the amount of food or meat equivalent to 9 sausages. Otherwise you are counting indiviudal items, and should use "fewer".
    – yoozer8
    Commented Sep 2, 2011 at 12:20
  • Pam has the fewest pencils, 3. Pat has the smallest pencils, and he has 4. Who has the least pencils? BBC: "*least is the superlative form of little/not much and fewest is the superlative form of few/not many." The association fewer/few/fewest is maybe one reason that less, though gaining on fewer for countables, still tends to be limited to measure/magnitude/size. It perhaps restrains the movement away from what has been the majority usage, aka the "rule" that descriptivists decry.
    – Drew
    Commented Jun 2, 2015 at 21:19
  • Fewer/less than a dozen (people)?
    – GJC
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 14:16
  • Garner's fourth edition reads "As a noun, less means “a smaller amount” or “something not as important.” Occasionally, writers make it an adjective when it should be a noun (“He wants business to make money and everyone to pay less taxes [read less in taxes]). Less for singular nouns or units of measure: less tonic water, one less golfer, less than six ounces of epoxy
    – GJC
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 15:29

British Supermarkets are split on whether to describe express checkouts as '10 items or less' (Tesco) or '10 items or fewer' (Marks & Spencer). Seemingly the more upmarket chains use 'fewer' and the more mainstream chains using 'less'.

As to which is the correct usage I would agree with Scott Handelman:

"Fewer" is used when the actual number of objects is quantifiable. Since you can count people, "fewer" is correct.

"Less" is used when the amount is not easily quantifiable. You can put less salt in your soup, for example.

  • 2
    An excellent illustration in the variation in usage across social registers, which sadly will probably be lost in anyone not versed in the socioeconomic structure of British grocery retail. Commented Jun 20, 2011 at 13:18
  • 2
    So it seems that less people are using fewer.
    – user126158
    Commented Feb 9, 2016 at 18:18
  • That probably depends on the interpretation: you could argue that you have "Ten items of shopping, or FEWER items of shopping", or you have "Ten items of shopping or LESS shopping (than ten items)". I'm not saying that this is what the sign-writers thought, but it is a possible explanation why both can be correct. Commented Jul 24, 2017 at 8:23
  • Fewer/less than a dozen (people)?
    – GJC
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 14:16
  • Garner's fourth edition reads "As a noun, less means “a smaller amount” or “something not as important.” Occasionally, writers make it an adjective when it should be a noun (“He wants business to make money and everyone to pay less taxes [read less in taxes]). Less for singular nouns or units of measure: less tonic water, one less golfer, less than six ounces of epoxy
    – GJC
    Commented Oct 27, 2020 at 15:29

I remember it like this:

  • Less cake (e.g. I ate less cake then I wanted)
  • Fewer cakes (e.g. I ate fewer cakes than I wanted)

Less of one thing - fewer of many things.

P.S. Mmmm cake :)


Strunk's 1918 edition of The Elements of Style confirms that less is for multitude nouns and fewer is for countable nouns in the Misused Expressions section. So does the Chicago Manual of Style (to which I cannot link, because it's subscription only).

Of course there are disagreements as detailed above by @nohat, but those are a couple of well-respected style guides that can give some guidance to those of a prescriptivist bent.

  • 8
    Strunk & White are not well-respected where I come from. chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
    – nohat
    Commented Aug 13, 2010 at 0:44
  • 5
    ..and a response, also from the Chronicle: chronicle.com/blogPost/StrunkWhite-Endure/6926 "...we should wonder why linguists react so angrily to positions that smack of prescriptivism." I believe The Elements of Style is still fairly well-respected outside of the linguist camp.
    – cori
    Commented Aug 13, 2010 at 0:52
  • 7
    It's still full of errors, hypocrisy, and vacuous advice. They can’t even identify the passive voice correctly. Why should anyone take writing advice from someone who literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about?
    – nohat
    Commented Aug 13, 2010 at 0:59
  • 4
    well, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nohat, just to point out, in the interest of balance, that the opinion you reference isn't the last word on the subject.
    – cori
    Commented Aug 13, 2010 at 1:36
  • 1
    What shocked me was hearing the phrase "less troups" on BBC World News.
    – gam3
    Commented Sep 16, 2012 at 6:02

I would say "fewer people"; and it is indeed linked to count vs uncount nouns. 'People' is countable, unlike water, as you can talk about "three people did x". So I'd disagree with Noldorin's answer.


From a mathematician's point of view:

use "fewer" for integer quantities (anything that can be counted)

use "less" for real quantities (anything that can be measured)

  • "1 is fewer than 2" definitely sounds like correct usage to me.
    – Gary
    Commented Sep 26, 2010 at 6:57
  • @cindi Your example doesn't define what you're counting or measuring so it's impossible to tell.
    – user774
    Commented Jan 29, 2011 at 10:58
  • 6
    @Gary, it would be interesting to know what English (regional) dialect you speak. To my Southern Californian ears, "1 is less than 2" sounds correct, whereas "1 is fewer than 2" sounds (to me) to be in the same class as "there is one dogs."
    – BryanH
    Commented Jul 3, 2011 at 17:49
  • 1
    @BryanH 2 mistakes is less/fewer than 5, but only 2 is less than 5. Numbers are hardly regular count nouns. Commented Oct 18, 2016 at 23:45

The reality is that less is being used where fewer was once common. It will become dominant and then invariant within the next 10-20 years. I see less + countable nouns all the time in print and on TV lately. Language change in action. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2819

  • 2
    Looking at Google Ngrams, it doesn't look like less will overtake fewer any time soon. Commented Jan 29, 2020 at 12:58
  • 1
    @Peter Yes, you can't say there are less people using fewer. Commented Jan 29, 2020 at 14:40

In this particular case the correct word to use is 'less', since 'people' is a mass/collective noun. It is commonly used as the plural form of 'person'. I consider this grammatically incorrect (undoubtedly it was so traditionally) though modern usage has adopted it as a sort of plural form.

Oxford Dictionaries Online explains the usage cases of 'less' and 'fewer' pretty well:

Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children). For example:
* People these days are buying fewer newspapers.
* Fewer students are opting to study science-related subjects.
* Fewer than thirty children each year develop the disease.

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain). For example:
* It’s a better job but they pay you less money.
* People want to spend less time in traffic jams.
* Ironically, when I’m on tour, I listen to less music.

  • 1
    Er, sorry, no. "People" isn't a non-count noun. "Fewer people" sounds right to me and "less people" actually doesn't, while "fewer" doesn't work at all with your other examples you claim to be parallel to "people": you can't say "fewer money", "fewer time" or "fewer music". See also kiamlaluno's answer quoting the New Oxford American Dictionary which explicitly says "less people" is incorrect in standard English! Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 1:33
  • @ShreevatsaR: It can be either depending on the situation, but historically people was a mass-noun (or count known when talking about populations). Its usage has been corrupted in recent times such that it has become a plural for "person", so in that sense it's also acceptable. I am however a traditionalist, and this is reflected in my answer. See nohat's answer, which gives a full explanation.
    – Noldorin
    Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 15:19
  • 1
    People is a count noun, and has been for quite a while. See this Google Ngram. Commented Jul 7, 2011 at 19:18
  • @Peter: Note it only became predominant in the 70s. Taking into account the fact that historical data pre 1700 is of small size, it's pretty obvious that traditionally "3 persons" was gramatically and semantically correct. "3 people" just doesn't make sense considering the historical usages and etymology!
    – Noldorin
    Commented Jul 8, 2011 at 0:10
  • 3
    @Noldorin: etymology != meaning. People is the plural of person and has been for long enough that fighting it is pointless. Commented Jan 13, 2012 at 16:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.