JenisFamous.Com, The Blog of Grammatically Obsessed Comedian Jennifer Dziura: This ad is only four words, yet contains a major grammatical error

August 6, 2007

This ad is only four words, yet contains a major grammatical error

Where you at, WaMu?

7 Comments:

bobvis said...: I can picture someone at the team noticing the problem and getting beaten down because a period breaks up the flow too much and a semicolon is too snooty, and no one knows how to use one anyway.

I think the other problem is that these people think they are producing some kind of art that frees them from such constraints, which is sometimes true.; 11:55 AM
JenIsFamous said...: I don't actually have a problem with the comma; I think sentence fragments are acceptable in advertising.

It should be "FEWER fees." If you can count it, it's "fewer," if you can't, it's "less."

(I have less homework than you; I have fewer assignments. I have less stress; I have fewer ulcers. Etc.)

Thus, most grocery stores are wrong ("Express lane: 10 items or less"), although the sign at Trader Joe's does, mercifully, say "fewer."

Jen; 12:32 PM
Average Jane said...: Ugh, that's awful!; 12:39 PM
hoverfrog said...: Not that anyone would dare to call you pedantic....

Couldn't they be referring to lower fees rather than fewer fees? i.e. an unspecified amount which is less than the amount that you are currently paying. This leads to greater happiness and more smiles for all participants in the wonderful offer. Hurray!

I suppose that they would use "lower" rather than "less" if that were the case.; 9:34 AM
bobvis said...: Jen, I generally, agree that fragments are ok too. However, if you are going to give the right to run-ons, why not give them this? At least there is a reason for choosing less. "More" and "less" go together. I buy that it is ok to use "less" for artistic reasons. They don't have a similar excuse for the run-on.

(The grocery stores have no such excuse. I hate them.); 11:11 AM
JenIsFamous said...: "More" and "less" go together when you have something you can't count.

"More" and "fewer" go together when you have something you can.

"More" and "fewer" are just as "opposite" as "more" and "less."

It is rather like how "you" and "I" go together when we need subject pronouns, and "you" and "me" go together when we need object pronouns.

The "you" remains the same. You don't get to use your feelings about which pronoun best goes with "me"; you select "I" or "me" based on whether you need a subject or an object.

It would be poor grammar indeed to decide that, because you think "you" and "me" sound nice together that "You and me should get WaMu accounts!" is a good sentence.

"You and I" should get WaMu accounts; WaMu should give free checking to "you and me."; 11:43 AM
bobvis said...: It is rather like how "you" and "I" go together when we need subject pronouns, and "you" and "me" go together when we need object pronouns.

This is a good point, but I think it's a more extreme case. Sure, people are comfortable with You--I as well as with You-Me. We use each pair with about the same frequency. More-Less though get paired up more than More-Fewer. I agree that semantically speaking they are just as "opposite". One pair is a little more obvious than the other though.

Here is the real test: do you think "fewer fees, more smiles" sets the contrast up just as well as "less fees, more smiles"? If so, I would agree that they should have gone with "fewer". If not, I'll give them way.

(Should I disclose that I am a wamu customer?); 8:21 PM