Pedants United

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'll go with "less" on the grounds that it's being treated as a time period rather than as sixty individual seconds.

[John Upham]

I'll go with "less" on the grounds that it's being treated as a time period rather than as sixty individual seconds.

This was my exact dilemma causing a sleepless night.

[MJMcCready]

Following a binge of 1980s episodes of Blockbusters with the one and only Bob Holness I noticed that approaching a "Gold Run" he would inform the contestant that he or she had "sixty seconds or less" to get from one side to the other.


I am minded to think he should have announced "sixty seconds or fewer".

Where do you stand on this important matter?

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJRfaKK5SM

and go to around 1' into the video.

It should be sixty seconds or few because the noun in play is countable. Less is for uncountable things, except in Tesco.

[David Williams]

I'll go with "less" on the grounds that it's being treated as a time period rather than as sixty individual seconds.

I agree. It took me fewer than one minute to come to this opinion.

[MJMcCready]

Tesco: ten items or less. We are not masters of our own language. But yes the distinction lies in countable and uncountable nouns.

[Neville Twitchell]

Following a binge of 1980s episodes of Blockbusters with the one and only Bob Holness I noticed that approaching a "Gold Run" he would inform the contestant that he or she had "sixty seconds or less" to get from one side to the other.

I am minded to think he should have announced "sixty seconds or fewer".

Where do you stand on this important matter?

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJRfaKK5SM

and go to around 1' into the video.

Less is surely right. Technically 'seconds' is a countable noun which would indicate fewer as the modifier but it is not being used as a countable noun here but really just as a period of time, i.e. a mass noun. Likewise one would not talk about prisoners being sentenced to a term of six months or fewer.

[Paul Habershon]

I don't think I have yet had a rant here about 'cater to...' instead of 'cater for...'
I often see it in Andrew Robson's otherwise excellent bridge column in 'The Times', e.g. yesterday: 'This line caters to 4-2 spades, the most likely split.' However, I have seen it elsewhere too. I suppose it may eventually become 'correct' through common usage, but not in my rapidly dwindling time, I hope.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

My wife saw this poster in a university (not British) yesterday. Is it correct to treat "Maths" as a plural?
https://i.postimg.cc/0Nb31WMf/maths.jpg

[NickFaulks]

No. It is short for mathematics, which is singular. Like gymnastics.

[Paul Habershon]

No. It is short for mathematics, which is singular. Like gymnastics.

Yes, the Americans actually call it math.

[Paul Habershon]

Owen Slot in today's Times discussing Jannik Sinner and drugs:
',,,but what about the possibility that he was purposefully cheating...?'

I suppose that could mean that he was cheating with determination, but I think the writer means 'purposely', i.e. deliberately. I hope the distinction still exists but you never know nowadays.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I would have thought "cheating" means you have deliberately (or purposely!) sought an unfair advantage?

WADA's regulations are so messy that they probably don't know if anyone's doing it deliberately or not...

[John Saunders]

Whilst on the subject of cheating, let me share one of my worst fears: not so much that any British chess player should ever be caught cheating, but more that the noun by which they might be referred to in our part of the world should be "cheater" and not the more traditionally British "cheat". I hope all forumites remember this should one of our GMs be caught in flagrante delicto with a phone or I shall be down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I hope all forumites remember this should one of our GMs be caught in flagrante delicto with a phone or I shall be down on them like a ton of bricks."

I am delighted you didn't say "tonne"...

[Paul Habershon]

Whilst on the subject of cheating, let me share one of my worst fears: not so much that any British chess player should ever be caught cheating, but more that the noun by which they might be referred to in our part of the world should be "cheater" and not the more traditionally British "cheat". I hope all forumites remember this should one of our GMs be caught in flagrante delicto with a phone or I shall be down on them like a ton of bricks.

I would have a similar feeling about 'shooter' (USA) replacing 'gunman'. Shooter has unisex advantage but we probably associate it more with shooting as a sport. Anyway, how often would we need 'gunwoman'?