Category Archives: Vocabulary

Using “Less” and “Lesser”

Dear Mr. S:

You wrote:
>
> One page from your site www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000032.htm listed the
> word “less” as a positive adjective, with “less” and “least” being its
> comparative and superlative forms.
>
> I cannot think of an example in which “less” is used in a NON-COMPARATIVE
> sense. Can you give me an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
Good question. Less and lesser are often synonymous. However, less in the non-comparative sense is often used as a noun, so “Not that I loved Caesar the less” or “the lesser of two evils.” Less also can be used in the sense of “minus” as “a year less a month.”

This might be worth adding to the note at the bottom of page 32.

Hello again!

>
> I really appreciate your prompt answer. ( We have been debating whether the
> word “less” can be used as an adjective in the NON-COMPARATIVE form in the
> office. )
>
> But you still have not given me an example in which the word “less”:
> 1) is used as an adjective;
> 2) is used as an adjective in the original / positive form (not comparative
> or superlative).
>
> “Not that I loved Caesar the less” (COMPARATIVE adjective)
It is derived from the comparative, but it is not used comparatively in this sentence.
> “the lesser of the two evils” (“lessER” is used, but not “less”)

This could go either way, but lesser is more common in this sense. “Less” by itself can mean not as/so much or inferior. Granted, in Latin inferior was comparative, but it is not in English. That is what Shakespeare has Brutus
say in “Not that I loved Caesar the less.”

> “a year less a month” (verb?)
This is an adjective. It modifies “year.” My Funk & Wagnall’s gives that example as an adjective.

>
> Is it possible that the word “less” can not be used as an adjective in the
> positive form?
I believe the above examples show it can.
>
> The fight in the office is about the following sentence:
> “You eat too less.”
>
> I believe that “too less” here is not grammatical. I think this is a “too +
> ” structure and that is why the word “less” cannot fit
> there — I did not think that “less” is an adjective in the positive form.
> But your page lists “less” in the positive adjective column.

In this case you are correct because in this sentence the positive form is not less but little. The sentence should read “You eat too little.”
>
> Thanks for listening and thanks again for the prompt answer.
>
>
This actually shows the way the language has changed over time. In old English, prior to 1066, less was always comparative. By 1500 this was no longer the case. This also has happened to other words.

Originally there were nigh, near, and next. We still use all three words but near and next have not their original comparative and superlative meaning in virtually all cases. Indeed, now we say near, nearer, and nearest. Next
means “adjacent to,” and nigh usually means nearly.

Similarly there were late, latter, and last. Now late is one word with later and latest. Latter usually just means “second of two” and has lost in most cases the sense of lateness. Last has taken on a different meaning as well.

It appears that the same kind of thing has happened to “less,” but only sometimes.

Dear Mr. S:
You wrote:
>
> 1.) You still have not given me an example — an example from modern
> English, acceptable to any flavour of English — in which the word “less” is
> used in a positive form (excluding usage DERIVED from the comparative.) I
> would be happy with examples in the form of any common adjective usage:
> two long hours, three big houses, five red cars — six less
> as long as the Mississippi, as far as the eye could see, — as less as <> noun / noun phrase >, as less as < clause >
> too small, not deep enough — * too less? *not less enough?
>

The only meaning according to your definition would be in the sense of “minus,” as “four days less two hours.”
>
> 2.) About “Not that I loved Caesar the less”
> :It is derived from the comparative, but it is not used
> :comparatively in this sentence.
> Can you instead give me an example in which “less” is used, BUT NOT DERIVED
> from the comparative?
>
> Is it correct to understand that Brutus meant to say that he did not love
> Caesar any less than he did others / someone else? He could not have meant
> “Not that I loved Caesar the little,” right?

Right. Your point makes sense, in that except for the case above, the modern use of less still suggests a comparison even if a direct comparison using “Than” is not used.

He would have said “I loved Caesar a little.” Comparisons and superlatives that take articles normally take “the.”
>
> I understand that there is the structure “the + < adjective in the positive > form” in modern English. Some examples are: “the rich,” “the poor,” and
> “the young.” These structures could behave like nouns in sentences. The
> string “the less” in the Caesar example is NOT one of those. Brutus was not
> saying that he did not love “Caesar the little”, right?

Yes. Usually with the superlative, they are still clearly adjectives or adverbs, but not always. Indeed, our e-mail newsletter has been carrying a series written by a retired English teacher who says that in some cases it
would be more realistic to scrap the Latin-language-based grammar in describing English. One case is the concept of predicate nominatives and adjectives because a lot of times we cannot honestly distinguish the two as
they could in Latin.

>
> 3) About “the less of the two evils”
> Can you say “the less of the evil” or “the less of the five evils” We
> cannot say those things, right? I think the reason is because in those
> examples, the comparison becomes unclear. So “the less of the two evils” is
> a comparative usage, right?

Right. Less and lesser are both used and in many cases mean essentially the same thing. Less suggests size, lesser suggests degree.
>
> 4) About “a year less two months”
> The phrase “less two months” is adjectival in nature and it modifies “year.”
> But we cannot just say that “less” is an adjective to “year.” What is “a
> less year”? Just because we can say “a year minus two years” we cannot say
> that “minus” is an adjective to “year”, right?
>
Yes, it is. Minus actually does derive from Latin where it is an adjective also.
>
> Thanks again.
By the way, your written expression is excellent. I would never have guessed that you were not a native English speaker.

Farther vs. Further in the UK

I notice that your site differentiates between further and farther, as if to claim that there is a difference and that those who use the words interchangeably are wrong.

While North American usage may be that ‘farther’ denotes distance, you should note that Marriam-Webster states that ‘further’ is also perfectly valid in this context. So while ‘farther’ may be more commonly used, either is in fact correct.

In UK English usage, ‘farther’ is almost unheard of and ‘further’ is used for every meaning from distance to ‘further education’. Check, for example, Cambridge Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary for evidence on this point.

It would be more educational if you would cease claiming an absolute distinction in this regard and instead make clear that either usage is acceptable, even if one is more commonly used in the US context.

Dear WR:

Thank you for your note.

The M-W Dictionary is descriptive, so it would note how people use words regardless of the precision.

Our observation has been that the two words are often used interchangeably in everyday speech, but we are more concerned about standard written English here.

We would be interested in some examples of accepted UK English in which further is used in the way that you say it is. We have noted a few places where North American and UK usage do differ; if this is the true case in the UK, then we would include it.

Aggravate or Irritate?

>>I like your definition for the term aggravate.

>>But, many dictionaries state that the secondary meaning of the Latin root, is “to irritate, annoy, burden…” hence that to say: ‘You aggravate me’ is a correct usage. I agree with your definition; it makes good sense that the word be used as you explain… no matter the old meaning. i.e.: a situation, condition, state, etc can be aggravated NOT a person! But I am confused about the confusion of those in authority of setting it straight?

Grammar Slammer says:

Aggravate or Irritate?
Aggravate mean “to make worse.” The root is grave, in the sense of “serious.” Remember this root when spelling the word.
Irritate means “to exasperate” or “to inflame.”

Incorrect: His teasing aggravated me.
Correct: His teasing irritated me.
Incorrect: That meal irritated my condition.
Correct: That meal aggravated my condition.

Dear Mr. D___,

Take a look at our newsletter about dictionaries https://www.englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm. Most dictionaries these days are descriptive, that is, they simply describe what people say and write. A few are prescriptive, they analyze words and comment on usage. You are no doubt referring to a descriptive dictionary. Yes, people do sometimes say “aggravate” when they mean “irritate.” The dictionary is recording that. However, if you want to be precise, especially in your writing, do not confuse the two words or your readers may be confused as well.

Work Cut Out For You…

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>Are these sentences correct:
>A-You would have your work cut out for you to interview him.
>B-To interview him, you would have your work cut out for you.

>If they are, what do they mean?

Yes, they are correct. They both mean the same thing as the adverbial infinitive phrase can come before or after the main clause.

“To have your work cut out for you” (or “his work for him,” etc.) is an idiom which means that you will have to prepare for some hard work. In this case, “it will take hard work for you to interview him.”

The idiom comes from the image of a kit of some kind where the pieces are normally precut (say, a toy airplane). It is clearly more work if you have to cut the pieces out and measure them correctly yourself. The expression is normally used with the word “work,” but I have heard it with the word “task” or “job.”

I hope this helps.

“Until” vs. “Before”

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

>Is there any difference between:
>1-Don’t talk to John before I am back.
>2-Don’t talk to John until I am back.

>Do either of these sentences imply that you should talk to John when I have come back? Does either one mean:
>”Wait till I am back and then do talk to John.”

They are similar, but there is a subtle difference. #2 sets a specific condition, #1 is a bit more general. #2 suggests that there is a specific condition that cannot be fulfilled until I return. #1 merely suggests timing.

For example, if I were leaving to find out some information that John would want to know, then I might say #2 because a certain condition (my finding out something more) would give a better reason for speaking to John.

#2 can suggest “Wait till I am back and then do talk to John” if the context has been established. Without a context, neither is imperative about talking to John, just about NOT talking to him. Neither really says what your sentence in quotation marks suggests.

“Too” or “So”?

Dear Joan Skliar:

You wrote:

>>Why do we change “too” to “so” when using “should have”?
>>Ex: He bought too much popcorn at the movie. He shouldn’t have bought so much popcorn at the movie.
>
>
They mean two different things. You could certainly say “He shouldn’t have bought too much popcorn,” but it means something else. Ditto with “He bought so much popcorn.”

Too means “excessively.”

So in this sense means something akin to “thus,” “such,” or “in this or that way.” In other words, saying “so much” you are indicating either that the listener is aware of how much popcorn he bought, or you are going to tell him. For example, “He bought so much popcorn that he had to throw half of it away.”

Do you recall the scene in the film Casablanca with the two Dutch refugees who are fleeing to America and trying to teach one another English? When told that it is ten o’clock (or “ten watch”), one of them says “Such much?” She should have said “So much?” or “So late?” but the reply does illustrate what “so” means in this sense.

Either sentence works fine with either word, but they have two different meanings.

Know Word Parts! – A Mini-Soapbox

One of the signs of educational decline–at least in America–is that fewer people seem to know about or understand word parts: roots, prefixes, and suffixes. If you know word parts, especially roots, you can usually have a good idea of what a word means and how to spell it.

Here is a simple example. Many people have a problem spelling the word repetition. It is not a hard word. It is a common word. Yet a lot of people have special trouble with the second vowel. It is a schwa, an unaccented vowel that sounds like “uh,” so it could be any of the vowels. How do we know the second vowel is an e? Simple, the root of repetition is repeat. Repeat is spelled with an e. So is repetition. With very few exceptions, the vowels in a root do not change unless they are conforming to an English spelling rule (changing the y to i before adding –es, that sort of thing).

There is a lot more that could be said, but at least this shows one way the understanding of roots can help you.

Welcome to the English Plus Language Blog

Greetings!

English Plus welcomes you to the English Plus Language Blog. This is a moderated Web Log for posting questions, comments, and observations about the grammar and vocabulary of the English language.

English Plus has been serving people with its software, teaching, and proofreading since 1991. Check out our various products for English language reference, spelling and grammar checking, and entrance exam preparation at https://englishplus.com. And may all your anguish be vanquished!